Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-18 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 4.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 18, 2025 Board of Appeals: January 15 Attachments: Board of Appeals: January 15 Final MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 15, 2025 — 3:30PM EMMA J HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Martin, Thomas McInerney, GT Karr MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea French STAFF PRESENT: Danielle Sitzman (Neighborhood and Development Services Coordinator), Grant Lientz (Guest Counsel), Sue Dulek (Assistant City Attorney), Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector) OTHERS PRESENT: Gregg Geerdes, Dave Moore, Matt Adam, Doug Fisher, Lysa Moore CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 3:30 PM. ELECT OFFICERS FOR 2025 (CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR): McInerney moved to elect Martin for Chair, Karr seconded, a vote was taken and motion passed 3-0. McInerney moved to elect McInerney for Vice Chair, Martin seconded, a vote was taken and motion passed 3-0. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: June 5, 2023 Board of Appeals minutes MOTION: McInerney moved to approve the minutes from the June 5, 2023 Board of Appeals meeting. Seconded by Karr. VOTE: Motion passed 3-0 HEAR APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT (319 N. Van Buren St.): Martin stated that they would first hear from the Appellant. Gregg Geerdes is representing Mr. Moore who lives at 425 East Davenport Street in Iowa City. Mr. Moore has lived there for about 40 years, and he's owned it for about 20 years. Geerdes stated they are talking about the area of the City directly north of Mercy Hospital on Van Buren Street and there's a lot at 319 North Van Buren Street, which is about a half a block north of Mercy Hospital. Up until 2017 there was a small house on that lot, a one story, cottage style house that was torn down in 2017 and it's been a vacant lot ever since. The City has recently issued a building permit for a residence to be built on that vacant lot and the problem is that Mr. Moore's sewer line runs from his house to the south, where it intersects the City's main line, which runs down the alley where this lot at 319 North Van Buren Street is. Geerdes referred the Board to page 14 of their agenda packets and to a letter prepared by the City and sent to Geerdes' clients. He pointed out on a picture where 425 is on the north edge, and then the vacant lot at 319 which shows two cars parked on it. Geerdes stated that the problem is that the building permitted now has a foundation installed on top of Mr. Moore's sewer line. Geerdes Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 2 of 16 stated that under code section 721.1 of the plumbing code there's a table which says that buildings or structures have a minimum horizontal distance required from building sewer of two feet. Geerdes noted the chart he is referencing is on page 10 of the agenda packet. They know Mr. Moore's sewer line is under that foundation for several reasons. First, the current owners of the lot, who are building the house, came to Mr. Moore and said that he had two choices, either they were going to build on top of Mr. Moore's line or else he, at his expense, can reroute the sewer line. Geerdes stated that sewer line has been there for 100 years or more, because it's an old house in an old part of town, and although they do not have a formal written easement agreement, there are things called prescriptive easements that state if one uses a property for more than 10 years it's going to be considered as their property. In this situation, this easement has been in existence for over 100 years, nobody's complained about it, it wasn't a problem with the old house, because that was a tiny cottage of around 800 square feet that was able to fit into the east of this sewer line, but from the floor plan and the site plan for the new house, which are on pages 18 and 21 of the agenda packet, they will see that this is a much larger property. Geerdes stated it is their position that this is the new homeowner's problem to show that they have built clear of Mr. Moore's sewer line, and even though they've already admitted to Mr. Moore that they have built on the sewer line, Geerdes believes they have adequately shown that the sewer line exists underneath there otherwise the City wouldn't have sent the letter in the first place and there wouldn't be a problem. Geerdes stated what they are asking is for that the separation, which is required by the building code that there be two feet between the building and the existing sewer line, be enforced and if that's not for whatever reason agreeable to the buyers Geerdes' clients are willing to discuss with them a reroute of the sewer line, but it certainly shouldn't be at Mr. Moore's expense. Geerdes stated he believes they can work something out, but as it is now it's a violation of the building code. Secondly, Geerdes stated this is an old line, as he stated earlier at least 100 years old. It is his understanding that apparently the pipe is it's made out of old clay and the present owners discovered the tile whien aiey were excavating for hei fuunua ion, noting they exposed she pipe. Geerdes is unsure if that clay is approved for construction and installation under buildings or not, the code has certain requirements for things having to be approved and tested by the relevant testing agencies and stamped as being approved. He stated given that this is 100 years old and in existence well before the code came along, the basic interpretation of this is that this separation only applies if they're putting in a new sewer but doesn't apply if they're putting in a new building like they are. Geerdes stated that doesn't make any sense because if the goal is to separate building from sewer line it doesn't matter who was there first. In any event, looking at the code section in question it doesn't draw that distinction, it just says that structures need to be separated, and he doesn't think the fact that the sewer was there first makes any difference. Dave Moore (425 East Davenport Street) began by stating he believes he read last week that 1_ ___ i2!___ c__ J al_ didn't 1__.,.. 11 five, that one they had to have five people Here out of five for a quorum and they uidn t have all five, that. one of the parties could object and wanted to know if that was correct. Lientz replied that they do have a quorum but will double check on Mr. Moore's question. Moore stated he was told that the sewer was underneath the house. He acknowledged there's some things in the City's case about not knowing the exact location. Moore stated when the owners and he spoke, they basically just told him not to worry about it. However, looking at his house and where the City says the sewer line ends there's really no way it can go anywhere other than underneath the new house. The owners admitted to Moore and that they knew they Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 3 of 16 built their foundation on top of his sewer line and no one he has ever talked to has implied that it was not that the exact location was an issue and it needed to be camera. Moore asserts the City told him that because of the location the foundation his sewer could be severed or disconnected. The owners told Moore in conversations they were going to go over his sewer, and they really had two options, they either go over it or Moore could pay the cost to reroute it. Moore stated the letter dated November 12 from Tim Hennes says, "When I found out about the location of the sewer and I knew there were plans to build on the lot where your sewer runs through, I thought I should share it with you in case it gets severed or disconnected during construction". Moore also spoke to Robbie Maher in late November, he's one of the owners, and asked him about putting a camera down there and he stated they didn't want to do that and go to that expense and to just leave well enough alone. Moore is unsure if that was about saving Moore the expense or not wanting to go face to face about the issue of the sewer underneath. Moore noted in conversations with City staffers like Tim Hennes, Joe Welter, Tim Wilkey, and Wastewater, the actual excavator and the owners there was never any mention that it might not go under there. It was clear the line was under there. McInerney asked when Mr. Moore became aware of the pipe going through the property. Moore replied he received a letter from Tim Hennes on October 8. McInerney asked why Mr. Moore didn't agree to an easement. Usually if there is a discharge pipe going underneath someone else's property they should have an existing easement so that they're not in this exact situation right now. McInerney is curious because Mr. Moore had some time between when he received the letter before the building permit was issued so does he have any additional information about what the terms were and why there was no agreement. Moore stated because they didn't record these kinds of things in the 1920s and what Moore was told they had what's called a prescriptive easement, Mr. Geerdes can talk about what a prescriptive easement is. Moore personally talked with Chuck Meardon downtown and talked to Doug William and Dick Clausner who were both attorney friends of his, when he heard about the sewer line and he thought Mr. Olivera still owned the land, Mr. Maher didn't sign the deed until late November, so the attorneys Moore talked to informally said he didn't have to do anything about this and could just wait until he hears from the owners. Also, at that time there were no designs up on the City website, there was no building permit applied and no designs, so that is why he didn't move quickly, in addition to about a million other personal things that were going on at that time. McInerney asked if Mr. Moore saw the pipe be exposed. Mr. Geerdes had stated that the owners had exposed the pipe. Moore stated he did not see the pipe exposed. He did walk out the day of the excavation although he had no idea when the excavation was to be, it was just happenchance. He talked to Mr. Maher in late November that they were going to get to it pretty quickly and Moore had asked if they could have a little time to figure something out here. Moorse stated as far as this exposed sewer pipe goes, Mr. Geerdes can correct his comments on that, but Moore remembers that the excavator was there that day, they walked out there and whether by coincidence or not, the very first excavation was exactly where Moore's sewer would have entered into that building and his first thought was what are they doing, are they looking for his sewer. It might have been coincidence, but he never saw that they exposed the sewer. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 4 of 16 Karr noted there's a general idea of where this sewer line is but never in the 20 years that Mr. Moore owned his home actually ran and located the precise location. Moore confirmed that they had never done that. Moore states he brought it up with Mr. Maher but Mr. Maher didn't want to put Moore to that expense. Moore stated he has had that sewer cleaned out twice before, by Action Sewer, and one time they did say they were going to have to go all the way to the alley for that one and they did. Moore stated he never really processed that his sewer line goes right to the alley and never even considered the location of it until this came up. The Board next heard from the City. Sue Dulek (City Attorney's Office) want to address a couple of the legal issues and Tim Hennes can answer the more plumbing questions or specific questions about the sewer line. Dulek pointed out on a map where the two properties in question are, 425 East Davenport Street and 319 North Van Buren Street, and noted they are not adjacent properties, so the sewer from 425 goes through two properties, and there is no recorded easement. Dulek stated additionally there's no prescriptive easement, a prescriptive easement must be from a judge and no judge has given them a prescriptive easement, or any other type of unwritten easement. There is no easement. The City issued its building permit saying the sewer issue is between 425 and 319, it doesn't involve the City. Martin asked for clarification about the two types of easements. Dulek explained there are recorded easements and unwritten easements. A prescriptive easement is one type of unwritten easement that allows someone to go to court and ask, because of certain factors and facts, the judge should grant them an unwritten easement, which could be a prescriptive easement. Dulek noted Mr. Geerdes opened up his comments by saving that this is a very simple problem but to the City it is too and there's no right to be on 319 and with no right to be on 319 the City issued its building permit stating the folks need to work this out, because under the code 425 has to get to the City main and how it does that is up to them. If they want to go south through 323 and 319 they need to get their permission, which they do not have. Dulek stated regarding the City's memo, and to highlight a couple of points in response to what Mr. Geerdes stated, on page 10 of the packet the reference to the chart of 721.1 is very important because it says, except as provided in 71.2 no building sewer shall be located in a lot other than the lot of the site of the building. So unless they can meet this exception, they have to be on 425. So then the exception, which is right below, and it has to do with abutting lots says nothing contained in this code shall be construed to prohibit the use of an abutting property, the abutting property is 323 and doesn't even speak to 319. Dulek stated there's nothing in the nlumhina code that sneaks to a non -abutting property but even if it was abutting they would have to meet two requirements. They have to have an easement or an agreement that's recorded, neither of which apply so 721 is not applicable at all to this matter. McInerney asked when did the policy change to state someone can build over an existing line that is used for sanitary. Dulek stated there is no policy. McInerney stated there was a policy when his property was forced to abandon the sanitary sewer and he had to reroute at his expense. He was told by the City that he had to find a way to get around the building to make it happen, because the location of the existing line was directly underneath where he was planning to build his house, and they had to abandon that. Therefore, he lost the bathroom because in the original small house it was in the back of the lot. McInerney was under the Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 5 of 16 impression that one can't build over exactly the same type of construction. It was an old property, about 100 years old so he is just wondering when that policy changed for the City to allow buildings to be built over clay sanitary lines. Dulek noted that was on Mr. McInerney's own lot and stated if they were just talking about 425 that would be a different matter, if 425 came in here and wanted a building permit. McInerney stated 319 is operating as if they own the property, and they own everything on the property, and therefore they're responsible for this line that's underneath and if it's going to be workable, it would potentially provide controversy and to have it still in existence. When did Iowa City have a policy in to allow this to be even happen. Dulek stated the City has not had such a policy in her experience, in previous years, the code speaks to buildings on that particular lot itself, the code does not speak to what happens on non -abutting properties. 319 is not building its house on its own sewer line. McInerney tried to explain to the City at the time when he had his sanitary abandoned, he was trying to walk through the logic with the City on what does it matter, if it doesn't work he will be the one rerouting his own property sanitary anyway, why can't he just take the risk, but he was told no. He stated that's one inspector, and that's probably just because of his discretion, that he operated that way. Tim Hennes (Senior Building Inspector, Iowa City) doesn't know the specifics of McInerney's case to drill down in detail on that right now. McInerney understands but it seemed like it was more than one case that he'd heard that. He heard it actually was a policy and he was to follow along with the policy. Because it was an unexpected expense he just wanted to know if there was something written and if there's anything that they can reference as to why they don't allow building over an existing line for the same property owner. Lientz advised the Board to ask about what the current code requirements are speaking to the case that's before the Board today. McInerney stated they don't have one here, that's within two feet. Hennes replied the section that is being cited to be to horizontally. In this particular case, the wastewater division went out and scoped the main and located the manhole and 111 feet down is a 90 degree tap and at that point on the side of the pipe, there's a tap off of it, that sewer is 12 foot deep. Wastewater cannot confirm that this is the route they just drew that on there as a straight line that could come straight out but they do not know the location nor the depth of it. They can assume the depth as there was a footing inspection and the line was not exposed during the footing inspection. Hennes noted just doing the math with this being 12 foot deep, and the foundation at that garage is a four foot foundation with one foot out of the ground, if that is teed off at 90 degrees off the side of that pipe then there's almost eight foot of coverage over that pipe, if it's underneath that footing. However, he stated they do not know that. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 6 of 16 McInerney noted the new building is 55'6" from the lot line, with that includes the 10' setback and so that would mean if it's an 80' lot minus 22' leaves basically 57'6" of building that is affecting the area. So, if the sewer line did come straight back and straight south, that line may not even be on the building. He asked if the original lot line for 425 extended all the way to the alley. Hennes is unsure. Matt Adam (attorney, Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman) represents the homeowners Rob and Jamie Maher stated he did provide some comments in the agenda packet, a bullet point list of about 12 things addressing this matter. Tonight, he wanted to start with the Board of Appeals and what their job is to decide decisions or determinations made by the City. Adam doesn't quite understand, in the grounds for appeal that start at page three in the packet, what decision or determination is actually being appealed, that's somewhat unknown and not clear. Adam will also point out that he guesses the Board is here to determine if there are any plumbing code violations, because that's the Board's job. Mr. Moore's appeal cites chapter seven of the of the plumbing code. Adam zeroed in on page 30 where it says that this code applies governing the materials, design and installation of sanitary sewer systems and building sewers. It's pretty clear, that's what the code says, so he doesn't see any grounds for appeal on that question. The materials being used to build 319, the design of the plumbing system on 319 or the installation of any plumbing or sewer on 319, none of the grounds of appeal address that. Presumably the building plans for 319, the logical conclusion is, the building plans and everything associated with building this new structure on 319 is unquestioned_ and valid. Adam believes the Board's analysis stops right there. Period, end of discussion. Adam stated he will address the claims though because he thinks that's the end of the analysis. He will address what they've said. They're claiming, specifically 721.1 building sewer, Adam would argue this applies to the building sewer of the new house to be constructed on 319, not existing sewer that might be in the ground, and to that point he emphasized they don't know where that thing. is, nc one has provided any evidence as it's to location, it's all hypothetical. Adam stated the Board is not here to deal with hypotheticals, they're here to deal with facts within the confines of what the job is under the Board of Appeal and what the plumbing code says. Adam reiterated they don't know where the sewer pipe is, they don't know what it's made of and no one has seen this pipe. When the excavation was done on the four foot foundation in that area that might be under that line, it wasn't exposed. At a hearing last week, the man who did the work said when he dug it up, normally he can see the old trench and can see dirt moved somewhere to see the indication of where this trench is and he saw no evidence of that. Again, no one even knows if this sewer is under this building or not. But again, Adam reiterated he doesn't think that's relevant for purposes of this analysis, if they read the code section 721.1 it applies to the new sewer and whether or not that can go under an existing structure and there are exceptions that allow for it on abutting lots only. Mr. Moore cited this code section himself, likelv to his own fault, because under his own arguments if this applies to his sewer, he's in a non conforming situation, his sewer runs through a lot that's not even abutting so the City could arguably shut him down, but they're not going to because it's grandfathered in, potentially. But Mr. Moore's arguments fly right in the face of his own use, and that's significant. Mr. Moore also argues, without any facts, that he's got a prescriptive easement. Adams stated that he has litigated those things and they're almost impossible to establish. They can be established, there's some case law out there, but to say it's just got to be there for 10 years, that's only one element, they have to prove a claim of right under color of title, very difficult. They would also have prove it's been openly and notoriously used continuously and hostile, which meaning against the other owner. Mr. Moore didn't even know about this thing until October 2024, that testimony alone kills his claim for prescriptive easement in a legal side. But Adam noted that's Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 7 of 16 not why this Board is here, they are not here to decide prescriptive easements, they are not here to do anything except to see if the plumbing code on this new building was complied with and this plumbing code does not apply to sewer lines have been in the ground for 100 years. If there was a built plumbing code that applied, it would have been what was in effect in 100 years ago, not today. Adam asserts there's nothing in this plumbing code that prohibits the structure from being built over an existing line, nothing there, it doesn't exist, so all of those grounds for appeal are misplaced. Adam also wanted to acknowledge that if perhaps this line did need to be moved, it would be on Mr. Moore to move it, it's pretty clear the homeowner is responsible to get their sewer from their house to the main, it's his obligation. Adam just wanted to bring these points to the Board's attention and so for these reasons, they would request that this appeal be denied and that his clients be allowed to continue building their home. McInerney asked if they have any photos of the excavation. Adam is unsure if they have photos, the contractor that did the excavation is here and can come up here and say he never saw any pipe, nor did he see the ground disturbed where a pipe might have been laid 100 years ago, which he claims can be seen all the time when he digs these things. Adam reiterated they don't know where the pipe is, again it's all very hypothetical. No one located it, Mr. Moore didn't locate it, and that's a foundational question of fact that Mr. Moore should have done before he brought this appeal, but he didn't. Adam thinks it's critical that it's detrimental to his appeal that he didn't, but even if he did it doesn't matter, because it's not this Board's job, this Board's job is to determine if the new building at 319 complies with the code. McInerney noted the issue here though is in chapter seven it does say in the first sentence of that chapter, "shall govern the materials, design and installation of sanitary drainage systems and building sewers" so he finds it interesting that that in itself could be grounds to say, one has to have complete construction documents for a code official to make an opinion, or at least to issue a permit. McInerney asked does design have a factor in Adam's opinion. Adam replied he would say that if it did the factor would be the design of the new construction on where the sewers leaving 319 and how it's getting tapped into the main in the alley. He reiterated this code section only applies to new construction, and the design of that new construction, it is silent and ignores any existing pipes anyplace else that hypothetically might run under this house. McInerney noted the code itself is meant to be not particularly specific on section and chapter, because they don't address the totalitarian, the total, the gestalt of the construction process and there's other chapters. For instance, chapter 30, addresses installation and protection of sanitary drainage systems, which requires knowledge about where those existing lines are to ensure that new construction does not interfere. Therefore, he is questioning where the sense is of not addressing this issue. He stated with the lack of information provided it's almost deception, they may have not knowingly been done but apparently people knew it was already there and that's the part that he's a little confused with, why would they even let this proceed when it would create controversy. Adam stated that doesn't matter in this case but he'll address the point in two ways. First, focusing on Mr. Moore's grounds for appeal, as the appellant he has the obligation when he files an appeal to put everyone on notice of his grounds. Mr. Moore did file an appeal, and then the City stated his grounds weren't specific and Mr. Moore had to cite what code violations he was Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 8 of 16 claiming to be in question. Mr. Moore then wrote the email trying to find some clear indication of what he's appealing and he did not appeal what McInerney just cited, that specific code section, so they can't consider that today because it's not ripe for review and they can only consider the grounds that he puts that forth in the appeal, Adam reiterated, the section that Mr. Moore cites is 721.1 and the second thing is it again applies to new construction, where one can put new pipe in the ground, can it go under existing structures or not and what the horizontal distance requirements are, that's what code section 7211 talks about, it's not talking about existing pipe that might be in the -ground. Adam would argue there's no requirement that one can't build over existing pipe. People build over pipe all the time, they put concrete over it. Sometimes they don't want to put structures over it, because usually, if there was an easement, the easement holder could come in and tear it down and fix right because that's what easements say. But there isn't an easement here, and there's no prohibition of putting a structure over hypothetical pipe that isn't even know where it's at. Adam would ask this Board to focus its decision on whether or not there were any clearly articulated grounds that support the appellant's claim, and if there's any facts Mr. Moore has the burden of proof and Adam doesn't think he's met it. Doug Fisher stated he's been in the water and sewer business since the mid-1980s and considers himself just short of an expert. He completed the water and sewer hookup for this new property at 319 and to correct Mr. Adam, he was not the actual excavator for the footings or the basement itself, but he was there the night after they had just swiped the dirt out for the garage footings and he stopped there specifically because he wanted to see if there was any evidence of this supposed sewer running in there. However, what Mr. Adam was hitting on is when there's an excavation, whether it's 10 years old, or in this case maybe 100 years old, they are more than likely going to see evidence of the dirt mixed up, because it was mixed up going back in the hole. They never packed it back in 100 years ago or kept it separate. Fisher was looking for the discoloration or the difference in dirt in this footing excavation area and did not see any, if he had he probably would have probed and it probably would have been slightly softer. Fisher also wanted to note regarding the plan, as an excavator he doesn't know why they would have cut across the lots diagonal like that. If it really goes where indicated by the yellow line on the site plan shows it, then it's within a couple or three foot of a house and he doesn't know why they would have got that close with a sewer. From his years of experience Fisher would say they came straight back and then 45 over to the supposed location, which he thinks is accurate, they specified 111 foot down, that's the number he was provided. Fisher noted again he believes they probably came straight down square with the property, got out very close to the alley, and then at some point they probably put a bend and went to that connection. 'He stated at a Idl period it lI time IG a they probably had a III mil Vu 1-1u� i �ueIv1 ucInuJ or angles. McInerney asked about the angles. Fisher explained most of the angles are 45 degrees, they can do 22, 45 or any combination thereof to make it. McInerney stated the clay had some versatility and he is not that familiar with what options they had back then but they did what they had to do to hook it up. Fisher acknowledged he doesn't know why they tapped 425 there. McInerney stated there could have been a different property line at that time, when they first built the house, but it is unknown and just hypothetical thoughts. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 9 of 16 Fisher also heard that going back in the abstract, back to day one, there was no talk ever of that lot going through, that's what he heard last week, the attorney can confirm that. McInerney asked what type of soil condition would be typical there. Fisher stated it was a typical clay, typical to what is in the area, a tight mix clay which was absorbing. There was no mix or nothing in there and if there was a ditch ever dug through there, he thinks they would be able to see it. Fisher stated he digs several holes a week and knows he's on the right track when he swipes the dirt out and can see the difference. He knows he's on the right track to find the problem, whether it be a water ditch or sewer ditch, whatever. The other thing Fisher would like to stress is he believes there is way more money being spent on this thing than necessary. They could be spending $400 to camera this line and locate it because it could be very easily done and either prove the point that they've got a valid reason that they are building over it or put it on the back burner because it's not going underneath the garage. Fisher doesn't know why they didn't spend the money to figure that out before they ever got to this point here. It's a simple, easy thing. McInerney asked what the camera would do, would it give a vertical location. Fisher replied it would, it's a push camera comes on a reel. They push it down and can get the depth and exactly where it is. With the camera they can see the integrity of the sewer, whether it's even a problem. Gregg Geerdes first stated he was sorry to hear Mr. McInerney had experienced this issue as well and Geerdes didn't hear anything from anybody which would allow this situation with Mr. Moore to be any different than the way the City handled Mr. McInerney's situation. Geerdes shared once upon a time he submitted some building plans to the City and neglected to include a design for the trusses, a very important part, and what the building inspector said is that he would not do anything until Geerdes show him on plans that the build meets code, and that made all the sense in the world to Geerdes, a perfectly reasonable request. The question is why wasn't that applied in this case, why didn't the City go to the current owners and say City code says two feet clearance so show that they are in compliance with that requirement. It is not the appellant's obligation to show that building codes are complied with, they didn't come in until after they were approved, they have the right to challenge them but it is the City officials job is to properly approve the plans, and in this case they did not and could not properly approve the plans until they had a survey, or whatever they want to call it, to show where that sewer line is in relation to the building. That's their responsibility. Geerdes also wanted to go over is the code section that they're talking about. It's on page 10 of the agenda packet, it states "except as provided in Section 721.2 no building sewer shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building", Mr. Moore is grandfathered in, that's not an issue, but then the next part states "nor shall a building sewer be located at a point having less than the minimum distances referenced in Table 721.1" and table 721.1 says minimum horizontal distance required from building sewer and structure is 2'. That's what they're talking about. It doesn't talk about sewer lines coming in after the fact, it talks about if one can build a building that's within 2' of a sewer line and as Mr. McInerney already found out the answer to that question is no. Geerdes stated all they are asking is for the same standard apply for others as well. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 10 of 16 Dulek noted again they are not talking about the construction on 319, nor the sewer line for 319, they are talking about the sewer line on 425 going through two properties. The code says one can only go on the abutting property under certain circumstances. There's no provision in the plumbing code that even allows them to go on 319, and there's no easement, it's as simple as that. The City granted the permit noting the homeowners need to work this out. 425 has got to get to the City main however they want to do that, they can figure it out and if they want to go through 319 they talk to them and get an easement or whatever. There's no violation of the plumbing code. There's no violation of chapter seven that the City did in issuing the building permit. Dave Moore (_425 East Davenport Street) has some notes but trusts his lawyer and trusts that he did take a long look at the building code. Moore would love to know what code 30 is but what he was going to say was to do a quick Google search on basically is there any code prohibiting building on top of an old sewer it states while there isn't a single universally stated plumbing code explicitly prohibiting building directly over a sewer line but most local building codes and the international plumbing code incorporate provisions that effectively prevent this practice by requiring adequate clearance and proper sewer line installation depth. Moore actually thinks the two that they brought up do in their interpretation prohibit it and in other words, essentially making it impractical to build directly on top of a sewer line. Moore also noted there's been so much about this camera thing and it's been such a surprise to him, this has gone on for a month and he knew that they could camera but nobody ever doubted the location of the sewer line. Moore sat out there with Mr. Fisher, who Moore has heard great things about regarding his work, and they talked that day about where they could reroute assuming that it begins at Moore's house and ends at exactly where it ends at that diagonal rather than somehow bizarrely going straight south and then taking a 90 degree angle and then another 90 degree angle to meet at that main sewer line. Mr. Fisher and Moore actually sat there where it crosses the line, and talked about whether they could do a reroute coming around and he said it'd be kind of tough to do with a couple 90 degree angles, but maybe it could be done with a couple 45 degree angles. This hypothesis that somehow it goes straight through just doesn't make sense. Moore trusts the wastewater management but if this is the main issue that the location of the sewer, he emailed Action Sewer and they're willing to go in late this week or next week to see where the sewer goes or does not go. Moore also wanted to say while he's not an excavation expert, but the southern part of this building is a garage underneath two stories and while the footings are not as deep to four or five feet and it could be that his sewer line is maybe it's six feet underneath the garage. Moore acknowledged Mr. Fisher is an expert and he's seen evidence of sewer lines that have been r V..a •1 :_ 1t r..11 F . ,. .Jr+ °+ L.,r u h rho non ���umo lust because he exposed UUl lIIIJ isn't Q IUII IVUI IUaUVI I so he Uvcsi i L K 1Vvv 11 )vti 1�� vui GJJUIIIV ju doesn't see some seeping or something like that it's not going to be damaged once they put the full weight of a two story house on top of it, because that's what's going to go on top of this, the full weight of a two story house. Moore has been told by wastewater management that this is a problem and a number of other people have said this is a little bit of a time bomb, including City engineer Joe Welter. Martin asked for clarification of if Mr. Moore has had this line located. Moore confirmed he had not and the reason why was because when Moore suggested it to Mr. Maher to have it excavated or camera'd Mr. Maher stated there was no reason to do that and waste money on Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Pagel 1 of 16 that. The other reason was it just seemed like everybody had said where it went and that's the main reason they didn't camera but Moore is happy to camera at this point but doesn't know how this got to be the center of the conversation. Martin stated because Mr. Moore's assertion is that the Maher's built within two feet of Mr. Moore's sewer line, but no one knows for certainty where Mr. Moore's sewer line is and that's the reason it became the center of the conversation. Lysa Moore (425 East Davenport Street)also stated they didn't camera between the time that they understood what was going on and now because they had Christmas, put down a dog, they never gave enough time to even figure it out. She is an artist, Mr. Moore is a musician, and they needed time to figure out how to do this. Mr. Moore acknowledged the month of from late November on was incredibly full and he told both Mr. Maher and Mr. Fisher that and asked for a week but then suddenly, December 3 they're excavating. It was in the back his mind they should camera this but they were at their limit and asked to just slow this down so they can think about this. Karr noted they have a very limited scope that they can interpret here and since there's been a ridiculous amount of hypotheticals that are fairly irrelevant to the actual facts that the Board can weigh in on, the reality of the situation is that if Moore camera's it and it's either within two foot or not, whether there's a jurisdiction or not, it sounds like it's probably the Moore's responsibility to fix, and lawyers can figure that out. But if it's not underneath there, does he care. If the line goes straight back and it's not underneath the footprint of this building are the Moore's doing anything with it or just wait until the sewer needs to get fixed and then have to deal with it. Moore stated if the sewer is not underneath the structure, house that's built, he still cares but they wouldn't have to do anything about it at this point. Lientz wanted to quickly to respond to Mr. Karr, he doesn't want to shut down anyone in the middle of asking questions as more information is always a good idea and he wouldn't want to deprive anyone of their due process rights by preventing them from speaking but as suggested at the outset here the Board has a pretty limited question before them and that is whether there was an error by the building official in issuing the building permit. When going through their determination here and their deliberations if they are going to find there was an error, they are going to need to point to the particular code section that they say has been violated. The Board will want to have some findings of fact with their deliberation here stating what are things that they think are relevant and what things are not relevant. The Board is to determine what is relevant, is it whether there is or isn't a pipe that goes through a sewer service through 319, if so, does it exist and has that been proven to their satisfaction? He noted people are testifying that it does and people testifying that there's no record of it so the Board must make those determinations and figure out what they think the facts are based on what's been presented. Everyone has made their case and now is the time where the Board gets to decide how they're making their decision. Lientz reiterated any motion under the Board rules is going to have to be in the affirmative. He noted that the burden is on the appellant here so in order to reverse the issuance of a building permit the Board would need a motion to reverse the building official's issuance and that vote would have to be unanimous. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 12 of 16 Martin asked if the City is obliged to know the location of the sewer from 425 when they issue the permit. He thinks they're looking at an unknown condition being revealed, and it's still unknown, so they're going to be going in circles until they get more data and this can be adjudicated properly. Lientz interjected again to say that the City has discretionary acts and ministerial acts. Discretionary acts are they can choose whether it's a good idea to do a thing or not do a thing. For ministerial act, and the issuance of a building permit is a ministerial act, while a Board member may have personal experiences where they disagree but his advice today is the issuance of a building permit does not involve any sort of discretion if the conditions that are set for that issuance are met. If the code provisions are satisfied, and the fee is paid, the building permit gets issued. If the Board finds that provisions aren't satisfied per something reflected somewhere in the code, and they'll need to cite the code, not use personal experience nor anecdotal stuff nor other cases, but the facts that they've heard today and the code where the Board of Appeals lives. Martin stated the reason he is asking that specific question of whether the location of this pipe is necessary for them to issue the permit is because the appellant states they believe the City should not have issued the building permit because it violates section 7 however he is not at all convinced that the City is required to know the location of that sewer line in order to issue the permit and doesn't see where in the code it states they are required to go out and scope all these neighboring sewer lines to find out if they even go through this property. Karr agrees and stated if they found them during excavation, then that's a separate thing, and perhaps they need to find a remedy. Martin stated that's still different than if they dig and find artifacts which they have to deal with it, or if they found asbestos on the property, that doesn't stop them from issuing the permit, but it does require them to take the appropriate steps to remedy that. So, if after the permit is issued they found a pipe that was in violation of code there would have to be a remedy for that and whose job it is to pay for that doesn't matter, the question is should they have issued the permit and he doesn't think there's any reason that the City should not have issued the permit. McInerney stated the owner has the obligation to provide a complete document to the building official in the permit process and can't omit things and no one bothered to look up in the code. Martin asserted it has to be an abutting property of 319 doesn't cover 425. McInerney finds that as a weak argument and a technicality what they're really dealing with is basically an unknown issue. They could look at it as a way of how they can get these people not to go to court, and the answer is by encouraging them to get more information and data so that all parties know where the pipe is. He believes there's a lack of willingness to find out where it is and he finds that disturbing on both parties. One maybe has reasons because of duress, the other one does not give the reason and it's claimed that they said don't worry about that which he finds almost like entrapment. He also noted even the attorney for the owner of 319 said that one can't get a prescriptive easement, there's no way it's going to happen as it's so rare so then what remedy do they offer, that's is his concern. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 13 of 16 Martin agrees, if he were building this property and thought there might be a sewer line underneath there would he do something about it, yes but that's not the issue before this Board, the issue before the Board is should the permit have been issued period. Lientz stated there are other venues available to people who want to exercise their property rights. If they want to establish an easement, they can and there are venues that are available to them to say their easement rights are being violated but that's not here, that's District Court. Here they live in the building code, and they have to find provisions that are in violation of the building code otherwise they are going to have to let the building permit stand. McInerney asked if the building of a structure over the top of the pipe covered by chapter 7, he is not sure that is either, it's very gray to him, but he could understand why the City would not want anyone to build over a pipe like that. Martin noted he comes from perspective that if he doesn't know for sure he doesn't put anything on his drawings to show that there's something in there because guess who gets to pay for it with their professional liability insurance, him. It's like they're trying to not give some sort of responsibility to the landowner. Martin stated the appellant is saying the City should not have issued the permit but that's dependent on accurate information, which they don't have. McInerney disagreed noting it seems like it was known prior to the issuance of the permit by the City and they exacerbated the situation by sending a letter on October 8 telling the appellant his sewer line was going through this property and good luck. He doesn't want to encourage this activity by the City and thinks that's not the way they should have approached it, they should have demanded that there be an examination of this. McInerney stated that's why the timeline is very important here, and the fact that no one wanted to work it out, but it seemed that there was an error, in his opinion, that the building official should not have given them a building permit until this was resolved. It would have been a simple thing to ask and to resolve. Lientz asked Mr. McInerney to cite the code section that would support the City's position to demand resolution prior to the permit. McInerney referred to code section under design, page 30 is the beginning of the that states this chapter shall govern the materials design and design requires interacting with other materials and existing materials and that is a requirement of submission of documents. He stated an application for permit is at R1-05.3 and the application requires that permits shall be on a form furnished by the building official and shall contain a general description of the proposed work and its location. McInerney asserts the owner of 319 did not fulfill the obligation of providing a known location of this existing sewer line and at the same time the City should be promoting a way to resolve this without getting into the courts. They created the problem by not coming up with the more data. Karr asked again for Mr. McInerney to cite the specific code. McInerney notes that in 721.1 applicability that chapter governs the materials, design and installation of sanitary drainage systems and building sewers. The City asserts this is for new ones, but at the same time they should have known that there was something there and they did know and they didn't bother. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 14 of 16 Karr agrees with everything McInerney is saying and the fact that they're having this conversation is ridiculous because they could have answered all of these questions with more data but when he reads exactly the same section under sanitary drainage, it's very clear in his mind that is for the new system. However, he is not certain that there are not other codes that talk about the unknown conditions on the rest of the site, but that code section is regarding the design of the new system. Martin noted the other part of 721.1 states no building sewer shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building or structure served by such sewer, and then there are also minimum distances for that. So that is stating that the sewer line for 425 can't be on 319. McInerney agreed and asserted that is why the building permit should never have been issued. 319 applied for a permit and was given a permit despite having a known condition, he thinks the City takes responsibility here and they could have easily recommended scoping and could have given or delayed the permit issuance and that's where they errored. They could have decided that they were not satisfied that the document was fulfilling the requirements as a building permit requires. Karr has a problem with requiring City staff to go through the entire building construction drawings and everything to make sure every possible scenario is covered. McInerney is concerned about the October 8 email, and the position they took immediately was advising the owner, the potential buyers, to consult a private attorney regarding the matter. Karr is glad the City brought it up, alerting both the buyer and the potential harmed party to check this out. Again, the City should not be controlling every single tiling and micromanaging everything. These are adults who own properties, they need to figure it out. Both parties knew stuff was going on so it shouldn't be the City staff stating they are not going to do anything until the situation was resolved. McInerney feels the City shouldn't have issued a permit, it would have been the prudent thing to do, they knew the sewer line was there. He understands but the City doesn't want that amount of responsibility and so they advised the parties to talk to attorneys. He stated the City should have at least given a helpful list of options to scope it out, people pay taxes for this, not just tell them to get an attorney, that costs so much more and all this could have been avoided. McInerney moves to reverse the application for the permit until they resolve this and then that will give motive f Vr botI II pall l es lV get ll I11gs done. III y U + '+ I 4+n+�a+ gk+ing +`+ hoppon i in+il Vne. III don t knoVV what o -; - in �.n i uuui they get it scoped and determined, and they can't make an easement unless they do that anyway. With the building project being on hold there'd be a motive on 319 to be working with 425. Again, he states they should reverse the building code official and say it was an error to issue a building permit for the reasons that it did not fulfill the design requirements, as in chapter 7.70.1. Martin noted the other issue he has with that, is it the 319 property owner's responsibility to change their line because of this existing sewer line, or change their plans, or anything about what they want to do because of this existing sewer line, is that even an issue. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 15 of 16 McInerney replied no other option was given except to see attorneys. He is saying that the code requires they reveal the existing conditions so they wouldn't have an interference. He also stated it is likely this pipe is going to fail at some point, property within the next 20 years, there's a least a 50% chance that could happen because it is a 100 year old sewer line. MOTION: McInerney moved to reverse the building official's decision to grant the permit. (no second, motion dies) Karr agrees with Martin and doesn't see that the building official errored on this. Martin noted the City sent out that email on October 8 and they issued the permit on November 22, that's a month and a half, that's a lot of time. McInerney questioned is that enough time, what is reasonable. Martin asked if the City heard from the appellant. Dave Moore replied yes and stated he has the complete thread of an email exchange between him and Mr. Hennes. It was not included in the packet. Lientz stated they are not supposed to take under consideration new evidence, they are supposed to deal with only those matters that were properly submitted as part of the appeal, they don't want unfair surprise, but if the City consents to the consideration of new matters then the Board might do so. Dulek stated she is not and would suggest the Board not entertain new evidence. Moore noted there's four or five emails over a course of several weeks but the camera issues didn't come up until last Friday and it was mentioned to defer this hearing for a week so they could camera and scope the pipe. Lientz suggested they don't defer, there are a lot of people that have paid a lot of money to be here tonight. He noted it doesn't sound like they are unanimous here on the night of the hearing that's scheduled by their bylaws, but unless they feel like there's a compelling reason to defer they should continue on. Karr asked a clarifying question that if the sewer line was found to be under there would there be a potential impact at a final inspection to get the certificate of occupancy. Dulek replied the City has already agreed to allow the house to be built there in granting the building permit so it wouldn't matter. It's a matter between 425 and 319. Martin agreed maybe this could have been handled differently but at this point he doesn't see enough here to say the City failed in their duties by issuing the permit. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 16 of 16 Martin asked if the vote has to be unanimous. Lientz explained they only need to be unanimous to reverse the City official's decision. MOTION: Karr moved to affirm the building officials to uphold the permit. Seconded by Martin. VOTE: 2-1 (McInerney dissenting) (motion fails) Martin thinks both parties should get together, figure out who's going to pay for the scoping, scope it, and then if the thing does end up being underneath the building, in the best interest of both the homeowner at 319 and the homeowner at 425 figure out a way to get that sewer, if it is under the building, get it out from under the building. Karr noted this isn't a unique situation, these odd sewer lines are all over the place, especially in the north side, he would put forth in the future perhaps legal and the building inspection department can figure out a way to be more proactive, so it doesn't have to get to this type of situation. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: McInerney moved to adjourn meeting, Karr seconded. VOTE: Motion passed 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:19 PM. I�. Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date BOARD OF APPEALS ATTENDANCE RECORD 2025 1/15 French, Andrea O/E Martin, Andrew X McInerney, Thomas X Karr, GT X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Item Number: 4.b. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 18, 2025 Climate Action Commission: January 6 Attachments: Climate Action Commission: January 6 MINUTES IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION JANUARY 6 — 3:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Anderson, Jamie Gade, Ben Grimm, Zach Haralson, Nadja Krylov, Wim Murray, Brinda Shetty, Angie Smith, Robert Traer MEMBERS ABSENT: Emma Bork, Michelle Sillman STAFF PRESENT: Daniel Bissell, Sarah Gardner, Megan Hill, Diane Platte OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Hawes, Sarah Furnish, Jana Garrelts, Barbara Eckstein, Rachell Truitt CALL TO ORDER: Gade called the meeting to order at 3:31. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 2, 2024 MINUTES: Shetty moved to approve the minutes, Smith seconded, and the motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Welcome and introduction of new members Nadja Krylov and Robert Traer Action items from last meeting (staff): • Staff reported that commissioners can support the City's legislative priorities by calling the Capitol. Haralson asked if the wording for clean energy inclusion in new building code standards was posted anywhere, and Gardner offered to follow up. • Staff contacted Darian Nagle -Grimm about someone from Transit presenting to CAC in 2025 Community survey results presentation: • City Council work session tomorrow, January 6, will cover the community survey results. One of the two custom questions included in the survey was from Climate Action about commuting. The current data about commuting in Iowa City comes from an ACS survey that uses a point -in - time method of data collection. The community survey question calls for an averaged -over -time response, which may yield different insights. Gade asked if the data show demographic subsets and Gardner affirmed it can. Events: • Inclusive Transportation community conversation Jan. 30 noon, ICPL Meeting Room A Climate Action Commission January 2025 Page 2 of 4 • Inclusive Transportation virtual Q&A with author Feb. 4, 6 p.m., Zoom • Other events in the community (commissioners) - none NEW BUSINESS: Midyear presentations from Climate Action Grant awardees, summarized in slides in agenda packet. • Scott Hawes reported on how Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity used grant funds for air sealing a home under construction. o Krylov asked if Energy Recovery Ventilators can be installed as a retrofit and Hawes affirmed it can. o Shetty asked how many homes have been built by IVHFH; Hawes reported nearly 200 homes have been built in the community so far, with 2-3 homes added per year. o Haralson asked if the energy -efficiency upgrades are a new development and Hawes reported that they have been standard procedure. o Grimm asked if there is a trade-off between energy efficiency upgrades and cost of the home. Hawes explained that the financing package can be structured around the income of the household (28%) through subsidies. o Grimm asked if there are families that can afford a more environmentally friendly home but there are not such homes to fill those needs. Hawes posited that a builder does not collect a higher profit margin from educating potential home buyers; they generally just explain what increases the cost of the home. • Barbara Eckstein explained how Trinity Episcopal Church will use funds for window rehab of seven windows that face a courtyard. Two bids were received, one was accepted, and the church is ready to move to next steps on the project this winter. A video by a parishioner will complement the project. The Historic Preservation requirements of the building meant that communication with City staff took place early and often. o Haralson asked if there is an estimate of cost -savings on energy bills. Eckstein noted the building has been jerry-rigged over so many decades, the general strategy is to walk back decisions that have been made over the years to create a comprehensive space. She noted this project is a step toward a long-term effort to add solar panels to a portion of the roof. • Sarah Furnish and Jana Garrelts reported how Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County used funds for a community garden for the 3-year-olds classroom. o Gade asked if there are plans to expand to other locations. Garrelts reported the Pheasant Ridge site has a small garden. Election of Chair and Vice Chair • Shetty moved to nominate Gade as Chair, Grimm seconded, and the motion carried. • Anderson moved to nominate Haralson as Vice Chair, Gade seconded, and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion of 2025 Climate Action Commission meeting times and dates • Krylov reported seeing good results from a 12:30-2 meeting time to strike a balance between public comment opportunity and a schedule that works for presentations from professionals. Climate Action Commission January 2025 Page 3 of 4 • Commissioners discussed scheduling needs. Gade asked if moving the public comment period to the end is possible; Gardner affirmed it could. Anderson noted that a special meeting time for public comment (listening session) would be helpful. • Haralson moved to schedule CAC meetings 4-5:30 on Mondays, Shetty seconded, and the motion carried. This schedule will begin in February. RFrap- Confirmation of next meeting time and location: • Monday, February 3, 4-5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall Actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff: • Staff will send a follow-up email with items discussed at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Krylov moved to adjourn, Traer seconded, and the motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:51. 3 Climate Action Commission January 2025 Page 4 of 4 CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-25 F- N W A V'1 Ql CO l0 00 N NAME TERM EXP. c0 N U, N A N F\-� N Ql N W N U, N c0 NJN00 v F\- N N Ql NJA A A A A A A A A A A cn Michael 12/31/2025 NM O/ X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X Anderson E Emma Bork 12/31/2026 X Michal Eynon- 12/31/2024 NM X X X X X O/E X X X X Lynch John Fraser 12/31/2024 NM X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E Jamie Gade 12/31/2025 NM X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X Ben Grimm 10/31/2026 NM X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X X X Zach Haralson 12/31/2025 NM X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X Nadja Krylov 12/31/2026 X Wim Murray MiclAmerican NM X X X X X X X X X O/E X Rep Michelle Sillman 12/31/20025 NM O/ X X O/E X X X O/E X X X E Brinda Shetty UI Rep NM X X X X X O/E X X X X X Angie Smith 12/31/2025 NM X X X X X X X O/E X X X Gabe Sturdevant 12/31/2024 NM X X X X O/E X X X O/E X Robert Traer 12/31/2026 X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused NM= No Meeting * No longer on Commission 4 Item Number: 4.c. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 18, 2025 Community Police Review Board: January 14 Attachments: Community Police Review Board: January 14 r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: February 13, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Connie McCurdy, Community Police Review Board Staff Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board At their January 14, 2025 meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following rec- ommendation(s) to the City Council: (1) Accept CPRB Complaint #24-10 Summary Dismissal (2) Accept CPRB Complaint #24-11 Summary Dismissal Additional action (check one) ® No further action needed ❑ Board or Commission is requesting direction from City Council ❑ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for City Council action Approved Minutes Community Police Review Board Minutes — January 14, 2025 Call to Order: Chair Mekies called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m, Members Present: Colette Atkins, David Schwindt, Melissa Jensen, Saul Mekies, Jessica Hobart -Collis Members Absent: Ricky Downing, Jerri MacConnell Staff Present: City Clerk Kellie Grace, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford Others Present: Police Chief Dustin Liston Recommendations to City Council: • Accept CPRB Complaint 24-10 Summary Dismissal • Accept CPRB Complaint 24-11 Summary Dismissal Consent Calendar: + Draft minutes from the December 10, 2024 meeting + Correspondence from Mary McCann Motion by Atkins, seconded by Schwindt to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Motion carried 510. Downing and MacConnell were absent. New Business: ■ Public re ort template: Board member Schwindt said he will create a draft "run book" or set of instructions on how to write a public report and share with the Board at the next meeting. Board member Jensen mentioned that she has two different versions of the public report templates that she will share with Schwindt. City Clerk Grace shared a version of the public report template with the Board and will email a copy of it to Schwindt. Old Business: • None. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda., a Mary McCann appeared and thanked the Board and the ICPD for all that they do for the community. Board Information: + None. Staff Information: • None. CPRB January 14, 2025 Approved Minutes Page 2 Tentative Meeting Schedule and Future Agendas (subject to change): ■ February 11, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room • March 11, 2025, 5:30 p.m. —Helling Conference Room • April 8, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room • May 13, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room Schwindt will not be at the February 11 ' meeting and Atkins will not be at the March 1 lth meeting. Executive Session: Motion by Schwindt, seconded by Jensen, to adjourn to Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried 510. Downing and MacConnell were absent. Open session adjourned: 5:40 p.m. Return to Open Session: Returned to open session: 5:59 p.m. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Atkins to accept the CPRB Summary Dismissal for Complaints 24-10 & 24-11 as presented and forward to City Council. Motion carried 510. Downing and MacConnell were absent. Adjournment: Motion by Atkins, seconded by Hobart -Collis to adjourn. Motion carried 510. Downing and MacConnell were absent. Meeting adjourned: 6:02 p.m. Community Police Review Board Attendance Record Year 2024-2025 Term 10/16/24 Name 03/12/24 04/09/24 05/14/24 06111/24 07/09124 08/20/24 09/10/24 10/08/24 11/12/24 12/10/24 01/14/25 £x fires Forum Jerri 06/30/27 O/E X O/E X X O/E X X X X X O/E MacConnell Ricky Downie 06/30/26 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E O/E Jessica Hobart- 06/30/26 X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X X Collis Melissa 06/30/25 O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X Jensen Saul Mekies 06/30/25 X X O/E X X X O/E X X X O/E X Amanda 06/30/24 O/E X X X --- _- Re min ton Orville 06/30/24 X X X X Townsend David 06/30/28 --- X O/E X X O/E X X X Sehwindt Colette 06/30/28 --- O/E X X X X X X X Atkins Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- = Not a Member CPRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #24-10 CPRB Complaint #24-10, filed on December 17, 2024, was summarily dismissed as required by the City Code, Section 8-8-3(D): All complaints to the board must be filed with the City Clerk within one hundred eighty (180) days of the alleged misconduct. Dated: January 14, 2025 l_k"J CPRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #24-11 CPRB Complaint #24-11, filed on December 26, 2024, was summarily dismissed as required by the City Code, Section 8-8-3(D): All complaints to the board must be filed with the City Clerk within one hundred eighty (180) days of the alleged misconduct. Dated: January 14, 2025 Item Number: 4.d. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 18, 2025 Library Board of Trustees: December 19 Attachments: Library Board of Trustees: December 19 Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes December 19, 2024 2nd Floor — Boardroom Regular Meeting - 5:00 PM FINAL Tom Rocklin - President Bonnie Boothroy Robin Paetzold DJ Johnk — Vice President Joseph Massa John Raeburn Hannah Shultz -Secretary Claire Matthews Dan Stevenson Members Present: Bonnie Boothroy, Joseph Massa, John Raeburn, Tom Rocklin, Hannah Shultz, Dan Stevenson. Members Absent: DJ Johnk, Claire Matthews, Robin Paetzold. Staff Present: Elsworth Carman, Sam Helmick, Anne Mangano, Brent Palmer, Jason Paulios, Angie Pilkington, Katie Roche, Jen Royer. Guests Present: None. Call Meeting to Order. Rocklin called the meeting to order at 5:03 PM. A quorum was present. Approval of December 19, 2024 Board Meeting Agenda. Shultz made a motion to approve the December 19, 2024 Board Meeting Agenda. Boothroy seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Public Discussion. None. Items to be Discussed. Policy Review: 501 Authority for Administration of Personnel Policies for Library Employees. Rocklin said this policy helps explain the relationship between the Library and the City. Massa made a motion to approve Policy 501: Authority for Administration of Personnel Policies for Library Employees. Raeburn seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Policy Review: 103 Membership in Professional Organizations. Carman noted that Rocklin identified Greater Iowa City should have "Inc.". Shultz noted the library pays for half of memberships and asked if it was a budget decision. Royer said it was tied to budget and policy history. Carman said depending on the year staff could outpace the budget. There was discussion about how the University of Iowa pays for professional memberships. Massa made a motion to approve the proposed changes to Policy 103 Membership in Professional Organizations. Shultz seconded. Motion passed 6/0. If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jen Royer, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 or iennifer-rover@icpl.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Review: FY25 Holiday Calendar. Rocklin noted the request to close early on February 20, 2025. Carman said this would be an opportunity for training with other corridor library staff. The training begins with a keynote presentation in the morning and breakout sessions in the afternoon for staff collaboration that do similar work. Carman said the Iowa Library Association (ILA) conference is the only time these groups regularly get together. Carman said there is cross -over in regional library work, and it would be nice to get the different groups together. All participating libraries will contribute financially to the event and Cedar Rapids Public Library will provide the facility. Carman said staff who attend the training will be offsite all day and asked to close the library early at 6 pm so public service point shifts can be consolidated. Rocklin asked how many staff members would attend. Carman said 20-23. Carman noted ICPL is the only library in the corridor not closing for the day; Carman felt keeping some service in the region available was important. Carman polled staff for their interest in attending the optional training and there were a number who preferred to work at ICPL. Stevenson thought this was great and would love to have a similar opportunity in his own profession. Carman said depending on how it goes he may ask again next year. Raeburn asked if other libraries are closed for President's Day and noted ICPL does not. Mangano said it was an AFSCME change. The library used to have holiday hours on President's Day and when Juneteenth was adopted, they opted to not have them. Boothroy said regional collaboration is a great idea and she liked the solution to keep the library open for part of the day. Boothroy shared she supported it. Stevenson made a motion to approve the FY25 Holiday Calendar. Shultz seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Staff Reports. Director's Report. Carman shared InService Day was a positive and successful event. Carman thanked the trustees who attended and noted staff did a great job staying engaged. Carman said it is a meaningful opportunity to learn together. Carman noted his report highlighted post -holiday tech help and mentioned that the library does tech support all the time, and library staff are tremendously patient and knowledgeable in the Digital Media Lab, and all service points. Carman noted the Public Libraries of Johnson County Legislator Reception went well. The legislators who came are supporters of libraries and were curious to learn more. Carman said it is always a good experience to share library work being done and is good practice in engaging with legislators. Carman shared next year it will be hosted by the Iowa City Public Library. Boothroy asked if legislators identified any issues they anticipate coming up in regards to library services or libraries. Carman shared this was discussed and there was assumption that some of the failed legislation from the last session will be brought back. Carman said that tax reform is on everyone's mind and the impact it will have on municipal budgets, and then within that to libraries. Carman said the intersection of those dollars going down and further legislation against library service will create a very different environment for library services in Iowa. Departmental Reports: Children's Services. Pilkington thanked Johnk for a tote of trains and tracks, and shared it was a big hit. Collection Services. Mangano shared the Adventure Pass program is suspended and the State Library is searching for an alternative reservation system. Rocklin asked if it is a selection question. Mangano If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contactlen Royer, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 or iennifer-royer@icpl.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. agreed. IT. None. Development Report. Roche gave a fundraising update. At the time of the January Board report release $36,000 had been raised, since then $53,000 of the $85,000 had been raised. Roche said the number of new donors has expanded. Roche said her team has been trying to reactivate donors who haven't donated since 2017 and many are returning. Rocklin shared he recently heard that about 20% of new donors give again in the next year and asked what things make donors more likely to give again the next year. Roche said thanking them and making sure they get their tax letter in a timely way. Roche said the donor list has been divided into tiers for additional contact with donors. President's Report. Rocklin shared that he attended InService Day and it was impressive. Rocklin said staff were highly engaged. Announcements from Members. None. Committee Reports. Advocacy Committee. None. Finance Committee. None. Foundation Members. None. Communications. News Articles. None. Consent Agenda. Boothroy made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Shultz seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Set Agenda Order for January Meeting. Rocklin said the January meeting will review the strategic plan update, 2nd quarter finances and statistics, and departmental reports. In February the Library Director evaluation will be held. Adjournment. Rocklin adjourned the meeting at 5:23 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jen Royer If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contactlen Royer, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 or iennifer-royer@icpl.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. ,AW* IOWA CITY sF-IW PUBLIC LIBRARY Board of Commissions: ICPL Board of Trustees Attendance Record Name Term Expiration 2/22/2024 2129/2024 3128/2024 4/25/2024 5/2312024 6/27/2024 7/25/2024 8/22/2024 9/26/2024 10124/2024 11/2112024 12/19/2024 1/23/2025 Boothro , Bonnie 6/30/2029 X X OE OE X X X X OE Johnk DJ 6/30/2025 OE X X X X X X X X X X OE OE Massa Jose h 6/30/2027 X OE X X X X X X X X OE X X Matthews Claire 6/30/2023 X X X OE X X X OE X X X O X Paetzold Robin 6/30/2023 X X X X X OE OE X X X X OE X Raeburn John 6/30/2027 X X X X X X X X OE X X X X Rocklin Tom 6/30/2525 X X X X X X X X OE X X X X Shultz Hannah 6/30/2025 X X X X OE OE X X X X X X OE Stevenson Daniel 1 6/30/2027 1 X I X I X I OE I X I X I X I X I X I OE I X I X I X KEY: X Present O Absent OE Excused Absence NM No Meeting Held R Resigned TE Term Expired Item Number: 4.e. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QR T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 18, 2025 Public Art Advisory Committee: December 5 Attachments: Public Art Advisory Committee: December 5 Approved, p.1 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 121512024 Minutes Public Art Advisory Committee December 5, 2024 Emma J Harvat Hall Public Art Advisory Committee Members Present: Leslie Finer, Juli Seydell Johnson, Andrea Truitt, Sophie Donta, Ron Knoche, Anita Jung, Rachel Kinker Members Absent: Nate Sullivan, Jeremy Endsley Staff present: Rachel Kilburg Varley, Ashley Platz, T'Shailyn Harrington Public Present: none Call to Order Truitt called the meeting to order at 3.32 p.m. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda None. Consider minutes of the November 7, 2024 PAAC meeting. Knoche noted the election of the chair and vice -chair occurred at the October meeting and needed to removed from the November meeting minutes. Johnson moved and Kinker seconded that the amended minutes from the November 7, 2024, meeting be approved. Motion passed (7-0). Consider 2025 Public Art Matching Grant Program Materials and Budget Amount Kilburg Varley noted the changes directed at the November 7, 2024 meeting were incorporated. She shared that $15,000 was budgeted for the grant program. Additionally, current capacity in the budget's "opportunity fund" line item would allow for a total of up to $25,000 to be awarded through the 2025 funding round if the Committee chose to fund more than $15,000 in projects. Committee members discussed and recommended an edit to the online application form so that applicants have the ability to expand the size of the text fields. Additionally, they agreed that approving an amount of "up to $25,000" was desirable, and that they could decide upon the appropriate level at or below that depending on the quantity and quality of applications received. Jung moved to approve the final 2025 grant materials and a funding amount up to $25,000. Finer seconded. Motion passed (7-0). Jung asked if there was a list of public art maintenance projects. Kilburg Varley reminded the Committee that a Condition Assessment Survey is underway and will be completed in Spring 2025. This Survey will include a condition rating and ranking of Public Art works that are in most need of repair or maintenance. Approved, p.2 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 121512024 Public Art Input Survey Rachel noted that, as part of the continuing process to collect information that will inform an updated Public Art Strategic Plan, a Public Art public input survey was recently issued and will remain open through early January. The goal is to receive at least 500 responses. She reviewed the various strategies that will be used to market and promote the survey among the public, including news release, social media, and cross -promotion with other departments. The Committee suggested sharing the survey with local arts organizations and on the buses for additional promotion. January Meeting Kilburg Varley noted that the January meeting falls on the day after New Year's Day. Additionally, there are not currently any known agenda topics. As such, she invited the Committee to decide if they would like to hold the meeting as scheduled, reschedule, or cancel the meeting. After discussion, the Committee decided to cancel the January meeting. Staff Updates First, Kilburg Varley provided an update on the South District Bus Stop Bench Project. She shared that the Public Works staff will be assisting the artist with final fabrication and installation. That team met earlier in the week to develop a plan for installation, which should take place in the next couple of weeks, weather permitting. She also noted that a ribbon -cutting for the sculpture would probably take place later in the Spring when the weather is better. The Committee suggested a possible partnership with Party in the Park for the ribbon cutting. Finally, Kilburg Varley noted that she will be beginning maternity leave soon and introduced alternative staff members, Ashley Platz and T'Shailyn Harrington, who will be assisting with agenda prep and staffing of the Committee and administration of the 2025 Matching Grant funding round. Old or New Business None. Adjournment Knoche moved to adjourn at 3.52 pm. Jung seconded. Motion passed (7-0). Approved, p.3 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 121512024 Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2023-2024 Name Term Expires 917/23 11/2/23 1217/23 1/4/24 4/4/24 6/6/24 8/1/24 9/5/24 10/3/24 1117/24 12/5/24 Ron Knoche N/A X* X X X* X* X X O/E X X* X Juli Seydell- N/A X O/E X* X O/E X X X X* X X Johnson Steve Miller 12/31/23 X X X X X X X --- --- --- --- Eddie 12/31/24 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Boyken Andrea 12/31/25 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X Truitt Anita Jung 6/30/23 X X X X O/E X X X 0 X X Jenny 12/31/23 O/E 0 X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Gringer Jeremy 12/31/25 0 X X X X X X X O/E X O/E Endsley Nate 6/30/26 X X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E Sullivan Leslie Finer 12/31/26 --- --- --- --- X X X X X X X Rachel 12/31/27 --- --- --- --- X X O/E X X O/E X Kinker Sophie 12/31/26 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X Donta Key X = Present X* = Delegate attended 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member