Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-03 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 4.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 3, 2025 Airport Commission: April 10 Attachments: Airport Commission: April 10 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION April 10, 2025 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Warren Bishop, Ryan Story, Judy Pfohl, Chris Lawrence Members Absent: Hellecktra Orozco Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Jennifer Schwickerath Others Present: Adam Thompson (via zoom), Matt Wolford (via zoom) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None DETERMINE (QUORUM A quorum was determined at 6:04 pm and Lawrence called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FINAL Bishop moved to approve the minutes as modified by Pfohl, from March 13, 2025, seconded by Story. Motion carried 4-0. (Orozco Absent) PUBLIC COMMENT - None ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1 ACTION a. Airport Construction Projects: L FAA grant projects 1. Runway 12130 Displaced Threshold/Relocation — Tharp stated the good news was that FAA Flight Check was here on Tuesday and they have approved the PAPIs. Tharp stated the REILs were mostly successfully checked and stated they had a couple of issues during the check. Tharp stated he didn't see any notams up and that the electricians were aware of the faults and were in the process of resolving them. H. Iowa DOT grant projects — Tharp stated that he and Adam met earlier in the day and discussed the hangar project. Tharp stated that he believed they had a better feel for the projected costs and were proposing a project with 6 hangar units as they had previously described. Tharp stated they did not have enough room for 10 units with 45-foot doors but they could do a bid alternate option for 8 units. Tharp stated the total project budget was just over $1.4 million. Bishop asked about the pavement to which Tharp responded. Tharp stated that the funding would come from their remaining BIL money which was roughly $600,000, a state GAVI grant which was Airport commission April 10, 2025 Page 2 of 5 capped at $300,000 and a state AIP grant of approximately $360,000 and would leave a gap of around $50,000. Tharp noted Adam was going to also look at looking at a possible jet pod as an alternate bid item. Bishop asked about heating. Tharp stated that these plans include heating and insulating the hangars. Tharp stated that the 6 units at their planned price would generate about $25,000 per year for the airport, Bishop asked about getting down payments on the leases and Tharp responded. Tharp stated that he wanted to get through the state grant process and they would start: marketing these hangars for pre -lease. Tharp stated he was planning a 3-5 year initial lease which would be a guarantee for any loan dollars they might need. Lawrence asked about any sublease terms, Tharp noted that he wouldn't have an issue with it. Tharp stated that he anticipated offering the hangars to current tenants as an hangar exchange or anyone else that would be interested and then backfill the hangar space as necessary from the waiting list. Lawrence asked about any special consideration for Marion tenants who might be displaced. Tharp stated that Marion was going back out for a 211d RFP and he believed that Marion would get sorted out and remain open. Tharp stated he would also update city staff regarding the plans, so that they were aware of what potential dollars they were looking for. b. Airport "Operations" 1. Budget — Tharp noted that they would be getting their farm rent check in the near future so their incomes would look better. He also stated they were about maxed out on the fuel flowage fees budget line so they would be getting more revenue than projected from that. ii. Management — Tharp stated that he sent out message to hangar tenants and the Commission regarding a memo from the FAA that called for the cancelation of the VOR-A approach. Tharp encouraged .members to contact the FAA email address if they wished to help advocate for the approach. Tharp also stated that they still need to present the Annual Report to the Council. Tharp stated that the upcoming meetings for council would be May 6 and May 20. Lawrence stated he would attend with Pfohl. Lawrence confirmed what all was to be said and Tharp stated that he would email the annual report back out to everyone. 1. Hangar Ground Lease (Hangar 319er) — Story stated that he was hoping one of the group members would have attended the meeting. Story stated that he still had concerns with the rent they were giving up and when the rent does begin, they were paying the rent rate that would be in place today. Tharp stated that the group had pre- arranged travel plans that conflicted with the meeting night. Tharp stated that all the proposals started with the 30-year length and as they talked about what improvements needed to be done things moved. Bishop asked Tharp if he believed this was a Fair deal and as good as we were able to get. Tharp confirmed. 2. Public Hearing — Lawrence opened the public hearing at 6:27, Lawrence closed the public hearing at 6.34 3. Consider a resolution approving an agreement with Hangar 319er, LLC for a ground lease to construct hangar. Pfohl moved resolution #A25-07, seconded by Story. Motion carried 4-0, (Orozco Absent) C. d. e. Airport Commission April 10, 2025 Page 3 of 5 a. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing on a commercial business agreement with Hangar 319er — Tharp stated that he let the group know that it would be a good idea to be at the next meeting. Bishop moved resolution A25.08, seconded by Pfohl. Motion carried 4- 0. (Orozco Absent) 4. Summer Intern a. Consider a resolution approving a memorandum of understanding with McClure for an intern - Tharp noted that he and Adam had been talking, even before the engineering selection process about having an intern come to the airport. Tharp stated they held it through the selection process because they didn't want it to impact the selection process. Tharp noted that the idea was an intern would spend some time at the airport helping out with various tasks and getting a hands on experience with managing an airport. Tharp noted that the agreement was such that the intern was being paid by McClure. Schwickerath noted that she wanted to make sure everyone was clear this was a McClure intern. Story moved resolution #A25.09, seconded by Lawrence Motion carried 4-0. (Orozco Absent) iii. Events — Tharp stated they had the EAA Ford Tri-motor this past weekend and did not get the B-25 in. Tharp stated that the B-25 had a requirement for pre -sale rides that wasn't quite hit. Tharp noted he had spoken with the EAA chapter president and that over 200 people had taken rides. Lawrence asked if there was a way to use airport funds to have a raffle or drawing to give away a donated flight. Tharp noted that was probably a question for Schwickerath. Tharp noted the next event was an autocross event. Lawrence asked if we've ever tried to coordinate with the EAA for events when we have the pancake breakfast or other events. Tharp stated he did mention that when he spoke with Keith and that they were looking to get more involved. 1. Summer of the Arts Movies (May 17, June 21, July 19, Aug 9) 2. Young Eagles (Aug 16th) 3. Pancake Breakfast (Aug 24) 4. Autocross (April 13, June 8, Sept 14, Oct 19) 5. EAA 33 Tri-motor/B-25 (April 4.6) FBO 1 Flight Training Reports i. Jet Air —Tharp stated the guys were doing the winter to summer equipment transition. Wolford stated he didn't have a lot of updates. Bishop stated flight training has been really busy. Commission Members" Reports -- Lawrence asked about the grass ops, Tharp stated that once Matt was back they would rent a roller and roll the ground and that he had talked to Ryan before the meeting about volunteering to help. Staff Report — Tharp stated that he was going to be out of office early Friday and that next week he'd be at the IPAA conference. Tharp also stated that Lawrence's seat on the Commission expires this summer and that applications were due by 5pm Tuesday May 131". Tharp stated that the policy had been that after 2 terms the Airport commission April 10, 2025 Page 4 of 5 Council typically wanted folks to rotate off, but that if we wanted to continue he should apply and members should advocate to the council. i. State Aviation Conference Okoboji —(April 15-17) ii. 4 States (FAA Central Region) Conference — Kansas City (August 20- 22) SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING — Set the next meeting for May 81h. Bishop stated he would be absent. ADJOURN — Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55pm. Seconded by Bishop. Motion carried 4-0. (Orozco Absent) ZozS � 05-t� CH RPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 10, 2026 Page 5 of 5 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024.2025 TERM -S -i -* ® _ ® 0 0 EXP. ray L w -L w a i';3 -h i s d d iz; d w d w d N d iz NAME r.0�i n�i _ Warren 06/30/26 m Bishop OIE X X X X X X X X X X X X Christopher 06/30125 X OIE OIE OIE X X OIE X X X O/E X X Lawrence Hellecktra 06/30/28 X OIE X X OIE X OIE X x 01E 01E x OIE Orozco Judy Kohl 06/30/26 01E X X X X X X X X OIE X X X Ryan Story 06/30/27 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X irC y: X = Present XIE = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent OIE = Absent/Excused NM = Not a member at this time XIS = Present for subcommittee meeting O/S = Absent, not a member of the subcommittee Item Number: 4.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 3, 2025 Community Police Review Board: April 15 Attachments: Community Police Review Board: April 15 CPRB — Final Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 1 Call to Order: Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Community Police Review Board Minutes — April 15, 2025 Chair Mekies called the meeting to order at 5:28 p.m. Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies, Jessica Hobart -Collis, David Schwindt, Maurine Braddock Melissa Jensen, Colette Atkins Staff Connie McCurdy, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford Police Chief Dustin Liston Recommendations to City Council: ■ None Consent Calendar: • Draft minutes from the March 11, 2025 meeting • Correspondence from Mary McCann Motion by MacConnell, seconded by Schwindt to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Jensen and Atkins were absent. Braddock abstained. New Business: • None. Old Business: ■ Identification of officers in public reports: The Board continued discussing the identification of officers in public reports from the March 1 lt' meeting. Police Chief Liston said they do not use the identification numbers for internal reporting because he knows the identity of the officers. Liston said he would change it from the numbers and use Officer A, B etc. in his reports. Board member Schwindt mentioned that it would be easier if Liston used Officer 1, 2, 3 etc. in the reports because it would match up with the officers in the video. Liston agreed to Schwindt's suggestion. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda ■ None. Board Information: • Board member MacConnell would like more information about the shared Iowa City Police Department and Johnson County Sheriff jail proposals. Staff Information: ■ Board Chair Mekies introduced the new Board member Maurine Braddock. CPRB — Final Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 2 Tentative Meeting Schedule and Future Agendas (subject to change): • May 13, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room • June 10, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room • July 08, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room s August 12, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room MacConnell stated she will not be at the August 12th meeting. Executive Session: Motion by Hobart -Collis, seconded by Schwindt, 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. Open session adjourned: 5:36 p.m. Return to Onen Session: Returned to open session: 6:05 p.m. Arijournment• Motion by Hobart -Collis, seconded by Schwindt to adjourn. Meeting adjourned: 6:06 p.m. Community Police Review Board Attendance Record Year 2024-2025 Name Term 06/11/24 07/09/24 08/20/24 09/10/24 10/08/24 10/16/24 11/12/24 12/10/24 O1/14/25 02/11/25 03/11/25 04/15/25 Expires Forum Colette 06/30/28 --- O/E X X X X X X X X X O/E Atkins Maurine --- --- --- ___ X Braddock Ricky 06/30/26 X X X X X O/E O/E O/E O/E -- --- --- Downing Jessica Hobart- 06/30/26 O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X X Collis Melissa 06/30/25 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E Jensen Jerri 06/30/27 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X MacConnell Saul Mekies 06/30/25 X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X Amanda 06/30/24 X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Remington David 06/30/28 --- X O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X X Schwindt Orville 06/30/24 X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Townsend Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting --- = Not a Member Item Number: 4.c. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QR T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 3, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission: March 13 Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: March 13 MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2025 —5:30 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Jordan Sellergren, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Frank Wagner, Nicole Villanueva, MEMBERS ABSENT: Deanna Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh CALL TO ORDER: Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HPC25-0002: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue - Woodlawn Historic District (rear demolition and new addition Bristow stated this house is located in the Woodlawn Historic District and it's a contributing property. This was Commissioner Wagner's family's home and now has a new owner. The house has a main hipped roof that has gable projections in three directions, and then a two-story extension off the back. The architecture style is called Stick style, partly because of all of the ornamentation: there is a band board across the top of the second -floor windows and across the top of the first floor windows, there's a narrow lap siding and corner boards, and there is shingle that is forming the frieze board all the way around the top of the house. The gables have an elaborate barge board and some of the Stick style detail in the gable peak. Additionally, each of the projecting gables have a half-moon style window. She pointed out that between the band board that's at the top of the first -floor windows and the sill of the second floor windows, there is a section that has a half -cove shingle and not the same fish scale as above, it's a slightly different pattern. The rest of the house has large double hung windows and there is an elaborate front porch that wraps around the west side and has a Chinese lattice frieze. Bristow stated this house, with the one-story rear projection that is to be replaced, is visible on the oldest Sanborn map of the area so they are unsure exactly when it was constructed, but it's in a slightly different style and it's not a finished structure on the inside and has had some remodeling over time. Located on the back of the house, it has a clipped gable with board and batten siding. The window pattern is a completely different style, likely in place by at least 1920 if not before. Bristow noted the interior of the one-story addition is not in good condition and there are some holes in the roof, and it is basically an unfinished structure on the inside. The owner was talking about it as like a canning shed where they could keep canned goods and stuff like that. It is also a step down from the rest of the house as well. The proposal is to remove that structure in its entirety and build a new one-story structure that'll have a laundry, bath and mud room area. Bristow also noted it's interesting that on the west side of the house HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 2025 Page 2 of 8 there's a different Stick style ornamentation in the frieze board and on the detail of the one-story projecting bay. Bristow next shared the assessor sketch of the house pointing out the one-story section and that on the assessor's photo the east side of the structure is aligned with the east side of the house. She stated that normally if they were to remove this portion, they would want to replace it with an addition that is set in on both sides. However, in order to maximize the space, the recommendation is to go ahead and have this in line as it has been for over 100 years already. The west side will still be set in but not quite as much as it is currently, it will be about one foot bigger. The recommendation from staff would just be that it is set in enough that the roof will terminate at the corner board and not project beyond to match the others. The plan is to have double doors on the east side and there would be two windows on the west side, a pair of windows on the south (which is the back of the house) and then it will be open to the rest of the house on the north. From the rear elevations it shows that they will match the corner boards, the water table, the lap siding. Bristow is unsure if they would use wood or a smooth cement board or Hardie boards, staff feels any of those would be appropriate as long as they are smooth. The windows would match the historic windows on the house, Bristow noted the proposal had a triangular window in the rear facing gable however the staff recommendation would be to match the gables on the house and use a half-moon window. It would also be appropriate just to have maybe a small square attic style window in that location if the owner prefers. Bristow stated the main roof on the house is called a gable on a hip roof, and a hip roof is like a pyramid and slopes in all four directions. She stated it can be extended so it's longer with a central ridge and still have slopes in all four directions. If they want to get light into that attic they can extend the ridge further to make a flat area of wall to put a window in it. This is the gable -on -hip as shown in the triangular windows here. From the east elevation Bristow noted they're showing the house has a stone foundation and they've talked about doing something similar to that and staff just would need to know from the applicants what exactly they want to do. Bristow explained since this is an addition they could do anything from a rock - faced concrete block or put some kind of a stone facing on it. She stated while they usually like to match foundations, it's hard to match a stone foundation so the foundation material is open as long as it's not a smooth concrete or something like that. Bristow pointed out the east side won't have any windows, it will just be lap siding, but it does show a pair of doors. The rest of the house has a band board at a certain height at the top of the doors and windows and all doors and windows come to the height of that band board so staff would recommend that these doors do that too. Staff suggests that the doors are the same height as the others on the exterior of the house, and whether or not it is a pair of doors or a single door doesn't really matter. The guidelines recommend that all the doors and windows are trimmed the same, preserving similar pitches and to retain the corners of the building, to match the window types, sizes and matching a window pattern. Bristow stated it appears from the application that the windows will match fairly well. Bristow next reviewed the guidelines about demolition since they are demolishing a part of a historic structure. However because that portion does not match the rest of the house and it's in poor condition the new owner has a desire for construction so that she can have actual living space and make it a permanent part of the house and have it match the rest of the house. Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1025 Woodlawn Avenue as presented in the application with the following conditions: The new gable peak matches the other gables on the house, instead of the gable -on -hip roof. The west roof overhang terminates at or before the corner of the historic house and is verified in HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 2025 Page 3 of 8 drawings. Foundation, window and door product information is submitted for approval. The new door opening is revised to match the height of existing doors. Karen Leigh (1025 Woodlawn Avenue) purchased the house in May 2023 and stated it is her dream house, except for that back portion which is an abomination. Additionally, she believes it was an abomination the day it was built, it is her understanding it was a canning shed where they did canning and there was a big stove and a summer kitchen back there. To comment on the staff recommendations, she has issues with three out of four of them. Leigh noted there's one gable peak on the east side that is much simpler and does not have the protrusion or the Stick style ornamentation. The other three gable peaks that exist on the house are just much too heavy for the proportions of this proposed addition so she would very much prefer to have that triangular window as it would add a lightness, not only to the appearance but more light to the interior of that space. She is hoping to get some passive solar energy to heat that space. Then regarding products, she is happy to submit and comply with whatever the regulations are but as far as the new door opening revised to match existing doors the only existing door on that side is on that small back kitchen porch and it's higher than the proposed roof line of the addition so she is unsure how it would match. Her salvage doors are not that tall but has also talked about having a Simpson door product manufactured that would match. Bristow stated they could look at something like that or potentially Leigh could have the frame made so that maybe there was a transom above the salvage doors. Leigh next discussed condition number two, about the west overhang terminates at or before the corner of the historic house. She really doesn't want that east side to just be one long continuation, it's 28 feet, as it is right now and she's proposing to add two feet. She noted it's got a real Motel 6 vibe to it that she would really like to get away from and would like to have that inset even if it was six inches. Bristow stated it would be fine to have it inset. Leigh stated a lot of time and effort has gone into that floor plan, because there are not only features that she wants to have on the outside, but there are features she wants to have on the inside. For instance, there is an old granite sink top that she'd like to incorporate into that bathroom and it's very wide. She'd also like to have the light that's coming through there because that's a very dark corner of the house and there are no windows on the south to have light. The light coming in is coming all the way into the east side and go all the way to the hall but in order to achieve that there's going to be an overhang of 11" on the west side where there is currently no overhang. Leigh stated however that 11" is not visible from the street view, it's behind the two story that incorporates the bay on the west side, and it would minimize the overhang that already exists on the east side that's currently 17" as it would be 11" and that would give her the width to have enough space for a washer/dryer, the layout of the bathroom as she would like to see it, and a hallway that meets construction standards. Sellergren asked for clarification about the overhang. Bristow explained what Leigh is proposing is to actually set the addition in on that side so that it'll only extend 11" and the corner will be exposed to the house which would be closer to the guidelines than the existing condition, and then the other side would have the same 11" overhang in order to have the addition centered. Leigh confirmed she would like to center the addition on the back of the house as the symmetry appeals to her but to do so would leave 11" of overhang on that side. Lewis asked if the guidelines only specify wall, or is it also overhang. Bristow stated the guidelines talk about preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building. The reason that they usually terminate the roof is to avoid some of the things that they have seen HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 2025 Page 4 of 8 happen like if they have a roof that comes down and suddenly has an awkward projecting triangle of siding, or they have a hip roof that then has to wrap around the corner three dimensionally, so they typically avoid those kinds of situations. On this house it's been covered for so long, it just sticks out. To center the addition there are concerns but a portion of the house will block that from view and it doesn't actually violate the guidelines. They would want to be sure to maintain the horizontal lines, per the guidelines they want the east and west gutters to be at the same height as the bump out, because that's the horizontal line that they need to match and they wouldn't want them to extend lower than that or have it higher, it has to match that height. Leigh stated the problem with that is that the entire addition would have to be taller and the only thing she loved about the old addition was the proportions of it in scale to the rest of the house. If she is to make it taller then she is going further up into that fish scale band that's on the south side. Bristow noted the Commission can make an exception to the guidelines, but here they have a guideline where the height of this frieze would match the eave and that's a prominent part of the guidelines. Leigh stated she noticed as she walked down the alley on her side of Woodlawn the additions and windows that have been done in relatively recent years, their horizontal lines are lower than the original lines. For example, the house directly to the east of her, their last addition has everything significantly lower, with the exception of the water table and the drip cap, and that she would like to have it the same height, but everything above that she doesn't want that addition to be that tall. Sellergren asked if there are any drawings that compare what Leigh is hoping to do to demonstrate the difference. Leigh stated she has photographs on my phone. Sellergren would like to see drawings of the complete addition, completed drawings of the addition in context of the rest of the house, to see how the horizontal lines would work out. Bristow stated photographs on a phone are not sufficient they need drawings to evaluate and if needed they can defer it to another meeting so the applicant can produce drawings. Beck asked if what Leigh is describing will require an exception and would the Commission have to vote on that. Reynolds stated personally, she is receptive to what Leigh is describing, it's just simply a matter of making sure that if the Commission does need to approve this they would need a different illustration to make sure that they go through the proper channels. Leigh stated to make sure she is understanding what Beck wants, would it be the south side of the original house with the addition on it where there would be a deviation. She also noted some of those interior rooms are going to end up being 5' by 8' and to have a 10' ceiling those proportions would just be ridiculous, it'd be like standing in a shoe box on end. Sellergren would like to see drawings and/or elevations from the east and west side so they can see what the horizontal lines will look like. She feels they need more information in the argument to make the exception. Bristow stated it's the top guideline, the one in question as far as the horizontal lines. Based on what Leigh has described here at the meeting they have a few things that are not necessarily shown accurately in the drawings. One, what happens with the door and the door height, and two what happens with the eave condition. Bristow stated typically they do ask for a drawing that shows a portion of the existing house and how the addition ties in as an elevation drawing. That is done to show HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 2025 Page 5 of 8 they're matching the window patterning and that they match the same height, size and scale, and then match the trim lines and such. Therefore, either the Commission writes an approval that says these things will be matched, or if they really want to evaluate whether or not it's okay to make an exception of the guidelines because they're not going to match, that's when they might want to have another drawing. Brown asked then can they request a normal and customary drawing that they see for most projects that come before them. Bristow replied yes, any time the Commission needs to see more information is common to defer the project until that's given. Brown asked if there is a concern with being able to provide those drawings. Leigh noted this was such a simple addition she didn't feel it needed those drawings. Sellergren stated it's a very prominent historic home in a very prominent historic neighborhood, so they really have to be careful. Leigh stated it is her understanding because this is on the backside of the house and nothing is visible from the street view, that those kinds of exceptions were acceptable. Reynolds noted it states matching key horizontal lines and this is the back of the house so she doesn't see this as a key horizontal line and thinks the argument is about the scale, that if they go up too high up, it's going to go into that and that's going to look worse. It's not about the bump outs on the house, there's two bump outs before that back section and it's not going to be seen and it's not going to be that much lower than the other sight lines so she would have no problem approving this to have that roof a little bit lower. This is obviously a homeowner that is very particular about this house and this is well thought out. She noted they're not trying to set a precedence, but this is also what they're supposed to do and are supposed to look at something like this and if it makes sense not to have it go higher to not force it. She wouldn't want an addition that small to have a 10' ceiling in it, that wouldn't work. Looking down the side of the house they can see that there's a bump out, and then there is the addition, no one is going to see that roof line from the front of the house. Personally, she doesn't have any issues as a member of this Commission to approve lowering that sight line lower. Beck agrees, but it was just simply a question about procedure and if it rises to the level where it requires an exception and what do they routinely ask for to grant exceptions. Bristow stated they routinely ask for an addition to show a portion of the house, because there are no dimensions on this drawing so they don't know where that ridge line hits. Sellergren stated she can't vote based on the drawings provided, it's just not enough information. She can't make a logical decision based on what they've seen. Sellergren thinks they could defer to the next meeting and have the applicant bring in another drawing. A lot of them would feel a lot more comfortable with that, they need more to work with and more information than they have right now. MOTION: Sellergren moves to defer to a point where they have more thorough drawings. Brown seconds. Beck feels like in the case of significant disagreement, the prudent course of action is to defer it, rather than try to push anything through tonight. Brown noted they don't have to have consensus, but don't need one to vote. He is concerned if asking HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 2025 Page 6 of 8 for additional drawings puts an excessive burden on an applicant, they now need an architectural drawing when they weren't planning on doing one. They might be able to comply with all but one exception based on what was shown tonight but it does seem reasonable to him for them to ask for a more complete drawing like they see with most projects, even if it's a hand drawn on graph paper, just something that shows the existing house and the change. Reynolds noted the only question is the height of the roof line coming down, everything else was spelled out like what materials they're going to use, etc. It's just the addition is kind of wonky to the one side and it's going to get centered, and it's going to look just like that with the materials listed. She stated it's just the roof is going to be lower and her vote is based on the fact that because it's the back of the house. She feels it is probably going to be within inches to possibly a foot. This is somebody who cares very much about the home and wants to preserve it, and this Commission needs to work with people to make that happen. Sellergren feels if this is an exception then she needs to see the correct drawings with dimensions. Russell agreed and said with just pictures it's hard to see where those lines will be and needs architectural drawings. Brown added they have had cases like this in the past where they had a well-intentioned homeowner and with all of the care for the house and the project and the historic neighborhood and so on, and they are still cautious about making a motion and then approving a motion that allows a broad interpretation. His concern is if they proceed with a project where they don't have a good idea of what it will look like in conjunction with the rest of the structure then does that open up for approval of some other project where they also can't quite see what it is, and that outcome will not be as nice as what this one will be. Bristow stated she often asks for a drawing that showed the rest of the house, however she was sick for a week that there was limited time. Beck noted staff had a motion for the Commission to consider, and then there was some rethinking of what was proposed. Sellergren asked can staff and the property owner work together between now and the next meeting and develop and work on new drawings and a more thorough example, so the Commission actually has something that gives more information with regarding the guidelines that they can vote on. Beck stated Brown's mention of precedent is a good one. There's been some reasonable back and forth in the room, there was staff recommendation, the applicant had some input, individual people on the Commission have expressed receptiveness to all of this so it's simply a matter of treating everyone fairly when they ask for an exception. A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review: HPC24-0102: 611 North Governor Street- Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (siding and trim repair and replacement): Bristow stated this is the Weatherby house at 611 North Governor Street and it is just basically a HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 13, 2025 Page 7 of 8 painting and repair project. There's some siding and trim that has deteriorated that'll need to be replaced, and an overall painting project, the Historic Preservation Fund is helping with this project. HPC25-0005: 317 Church Street - Northside Historic District (addition of two bath vents and one laundry vent): Bristow stated this was just the installation of some vents in the rear portion of the house. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2025: MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 13, 2025, meeting. Villanueva seconded the motion The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Work Plan Update: Bristow stated she is hoping to take time very soon to start doing the map updates that Kevin Boyd had gone through when he was chair of the Commission for the Northside. This will give them some ideas about properties that might change classification. Brown asked how a property changes classification. Bristow stated for many reasons, a house can have alterations removed and bring back historic character to make it contributing. Also houses that were considered non historic because they were built in 1948 would be historic now and it could just be a matter of are they noncontributing because they don't fit the story the district, probably. She stated there could then be other things to make a house go from contributing to noncontributing, but there is less of that. Bristow will begin working on this and if it's something where she finds a way that maybe the subcommittee could do a little leg work, she might reach out, otherwise she will do the work in looking at the properties and then come back with a report for the Commission with the proposed changes. ADJOURNMENT Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. Wagner seconded The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 pm HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 TERM 4/24 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 NAM E EXP. BECK, 6/30/27 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X MARGARET BROWN, 6/30/26 X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X X CARL BURFORD, 6/30/27 --- --- --- X X X X X X X O/E X KEVI N LEWIS, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X ANDREW RUSSELL, 6/30/27 --- --- --- O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X RYAN SELLERGREN, 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X JORDAN STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- THOMANN, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E DEANNA VILLANUEVA, 6/30/25 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X NICOLE WAGNER, 6/30/26 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X FRANK WELU- 6/30/25 O/E X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member Item Number: 4.d. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 3, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission: April 10 Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: April 10 MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRI L 10, 2025 — 5:30 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Jordan Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Wagner, Carl Brown, Christina Welu-Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Luke McLeran, Mike Nolan, Peter Byler CALL TO ORDER: Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC25-0006: 1221 Sheridan Avenue -Longfellow Historic District (addition and garage conversion): Russett noted this property is located in the Longfellow Historic District, it is a single story, minimal traditional home. She next showed an image of the proposed addition, the existing garage, the existing footprint of the home and then the east elevation of the home which will not be changing as part of this project. Russett shared the existing west elevation and noted where the applicant is proposing the new addition to the home, and she shared the plans for the addition. Russett noted the proposal includes keeping the four original corners of the home and the addition is proposed to be set in from the existing walls, additionally they are proposing to convert the garage space to living space. The plans also show that they are incorporating windows that match the type and size of the historic windows in the home. Russett stated the addition is also simple and formed to compliment the minimal traditional home and even though the garage is being converted to living space they are keeping the appearance of a garage door from the exterior and proposing an appropriate new garage door. Russett next reviewed the guidelines and mentioned the exceptions. Section 3.2 of the guidelines allow for the Commission to incorporate some flexibility into proposals, and they may consider exceptions for uncommon situations. Russett explained the intent of exceptions is to allow alternative designs due to exceptional circumstances. In approving an exception, the Commission must identify the guideline for which an exception is being made and the rationale for the exception. She stated in this case, in the guidelines for additions, one of the recommendations is that they place the building addition at the rear of the property if possible, and Russett stated that is not possible in this in this case so staff is recommending approval with an exception. The rationale for the exception being that the addition to the rear is not possible as the home is approximately 10 feet from the southern property line. Staff is recommending approval of this certificate of appropriateness, as presented in the staff report, through an exception to the guidelines allowing an addition to the side of the home due to the lot configuration that does not allow a rear addition subject to two conditions: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 2 of 14 1. Window and door product is approved by staff. 2. Historic siding and trim configuration is documented and reviewed by staff. Burford asked if the new proposed garage doors are practical, do they open and shut, or are they just there for appearance. Russett replied that they're there for appearance. Thomann asked again why the back side of the house would not be sufficient space for the addition. Russett stated that according to guidelines that the City has for construction they would need to maintain a five foot setback from the southern property line and the home is approximately 10 feet from that southern property line so they would only have five feet for an addition, which isn't practical. Thomann asked if this addition is approximately doubling the size of the house. Russett replied it's less than double, it is significant, but the house is very small to begin with. Luke McLeran (1221 Sheridan Ave.) is the homeowner and he and his wife own this home with their young son who will be two in May. McLeran stated they love the neighborhood and feel like they found a great place that they love and they hope to watch their son walk to school from there. This addition just lets them grow their family and continue to grow and stay in a neighborhood that they love so they hope the Commission will support and help them do that. Mike Nolan (Horizon Architecture) is the project architect and thinks that the application is pretty straightforward, and they designed well within the historic preservation guidelines. He did clarify that they did look at going to the south but they would only be able to get about five feet for the addition and as Russett pointed out they wanted to preserve the historic four corners of the property and anything that they did that would move to the south side of the property would pretty much run afoul of the other massing guidelines for the addition. Nolan noted the property is kind of odd because the frontage off of Sheridan is pushed further to the side street so there's not really any room to expand, it's almost like the backyard is a front yard, plus it is a corner lot to deal with. Therefore, they feel like this is the most historically sensitive way to approach the addition. Lewis noted the main concern with exceptions is just always making sure that they're not opening up a door for precedents. Nolan stated he understood but it is technically infeasible to move to the back of the property. Thoman asked what year the home was originally built. Nolan replied it was built in 1941 MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1221 Sheridan Avenue as presented in the staff report through an exception to the guidelines allowing an addition to the side of the home due to the lot configuration that does not allow a rear addition subject to the following conditions: (1) window and door product is approved by staff and (2) historic siding and trim configuration is documented and reviewed by staff. Beck seconded the motion. Burford stated although not preferred, it seems the project is well within the spirit of the guidelines so he would be in support of it. Sellergren feels the same way, assuming the exterior elements are matched and approved by staff as much as possible and given the spirit of exceptions for this specific purpose of the restrictive property lines, this seems accommodating and understandable. Thomann noted the charm of the home as it is, it's a 1941 home and small homes were built around HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 3 of 14 that time. It almost like they're doubling the size of the home but she realizes this is a this is a difficult lot and there isn't space in the back. Villanueva thinks the recommended addition is going to fit in really well and it's going to work seamlessly with that neighborhood and especially that street so for her that's not a concern, it will fit with the character of that neighborhood. Lewis noted a concern that looking at it the garage ends up being in the middle of the house, which does feel a little odd, it is symmetrical but that's not where garages tend to go but acknowledged they are trying to work with a difficult lot and they're doing that to follow the guidelines. Sellergren stated personal feelings about maintaining an unused garage door simply for appearances when it could be functional, like a window opening instead. Russell noted the elevations make it look like there will be three different levels to the front of the house, the addition isn't equal to the front and the other side of the garage is set farther back. Bristow noted that the house itself is basically a rectangle with the front gable that projects and then the garage projects further and the addition will be set in from that main box of the rectangle. Again, the four corners are preserved just as if the addition were on the back of the house. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. HPC25-0009: 203 North Linn Street - Local Historic Landmark (alteration to front facade): Russett stated this is a local historic landmark but it's not within a district. The building is a three story mid-19th century Greek Revival building that was built around 1862 and it has an addition in 1893 that more than doubled it. It's listed in the National Register of Historic Places in addition to being a local historic landmark. She noted the section of the nomination that outlines the building's significance was included in the staff report but she also wanted to highlight a few of the items. It's significant as a rare surviving commercial property type in Iowa City and it's characterized by a size and scale larger than most of its contemporaries. The nomination notes that it's not a narrow, attached storefront catering to retail customers in the downtown, and it's also not an industrial or commercial business located at the edge of town, where access by rail or wagon would be common. Instead, is located near mixed residential and retail blocks where walking was the primary means of getting around. The owner is proposing to add a secondary entrance along the North Linn Street facade. Some of the goals from this application include breaking up the size of the commercial space into two commercial spaces on the first floor. Another goal is to renovate the residential units that occupy the second and third story of the building. Russett next shared the two set of plans the applicant provided. In version one the new storefront would be along the eastern North Linn Street fagade and is accessed through concrete stairs and a landing. The new door would lead into an interior vestibule with access to the commercial space and access to the residential units above via stairs. Based on the renovations that are envisioned for the second and third story, the residential units would require another access so they have added a staircase. Russett shared the elevations noting the new entrance proposed at the center of the north half of the building, and the storefront is proposed in the center of that addition. In version two the proposed secondary entrance is shown with steps leading directly to a vestibule, also on North Linn Street, but the vestibule is not enclosed and exposed to the outside. She noted it's also in a different location on the facade. From this vestibule, there would be again access to the commercial space and then access to the residential units on the second and third floor via a staircase. With version two, the location of the new entrance aligns with the rhythm of the facade and the corner entrance more so than the first version. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 4 of 14 In review of this application staff requested that the applicant explore modifying the southern facade along Market Street. This was requested this for a couple of reasons, first they know that the southern facade has been altered so alterations to the southern facade could include a new storefront door and new windows to bring light into the space. There's also an existing ramp that staff thought could potentially be used for an accessible entrance. Staff met with the applicant earlier this week and he expressed that the southern facade was not an option and he can share those details later with the Commission. Another reason staff wanted them to explore the south is that they didn't find any evidence that a second storefront ever existed on the east facade. Based on the Sanborn Maps they know that two uses did exist on the first floor however both uses could have been accessed through that corner entrance. Russett showed the Sanborn Map from 1899 which showed a bakery there and then a restaurant to the north noting they would access the restaurant through the bakery, through an opening in the wall. Similarly, that was the case when it was a hotel in the 1920s. The guidelines used for this review are the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. Some things to keep in mind as they consider this application include the new use should require minimal changes to distinctive material, removal of distinctive material should be avoided, distinctive features should be preserved, and exterior alterations will not destroy historic material or features. Russett also wanted to note, similar to the last item, the Commission does have the ability to consider exceptions to the guidelines for uncommon situations. She also wanted to note that staff sees many benefits to this project, the applicant would be working to get the first -floor commercial space occupied with new businesses and staff has heard from the Downtown District that larger commercial spaces are especially difficult to lease because people need smaller spaces and this would create two smaller spaces that may be easier to lease than one large space. The applicant is also looking at renovating the second and third floor and converting the single room occupancy units to actual dwelling units on the second and third floor and providing another egress to get in and out of the building in case of an emergency. However, staff does have some outstanding questions that they would like some time to work through with the applicant. If the Commission is open to another storefront along North Linn Street staff could work with the applicant and make some modifications to the versions. There are also some improvements that are going to need to be made in the right of way to provide access to the building because the staircase and the landing would be in the public right of way which needs to be approved by the Public Works department. Then, depending on the direction the applicant goes, the access to the storefront may need to be accessible so that's something that staff would like to work through as well. Therefore, staff is requesting that this item be deferred to work through items and also for them to get some feedback on how the Commission feels about an additional storefront on North Linn Street and considering an exception so staff can work with the applicant on that moving forward. Sellergren asked if there are currently residences up on the second and third floor. Russett replied yes, she would describe it as single room occupancy and not technically dwelling units with bathrooms and kitchens. There's no kitchen and it's just shared bathrooms and living space. Sellergren asked if a new entrance is required. Russett stated that the understanding from the City's building department is yes. Russell noted he has eaten in the restaurant that was there before, and the one before that, so the information about smaller spaces are easier to lease is coming from the Downtown District. Russett confirmed that was correct. Peter Byler (203 N. Linn Street) is the owner and is also the wood shop teacher at City High School. He and his wife were able to buy this building a couple months ago and are requesting an approval of the second entrance tonight. He shared some slides of their building and gave a little bit of the history. Like Commissioner Russell said it had been the restaurants Goosetown and Northside and then going all the way back it was the Union Bakery and Tap and connected to the brewery across the street. It's been several other bakeries and always affordable units for rent upstairs when it wasn't a hotel. Byler HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 5 of 14 stated he is also privileged to own two other buildings in this block so it is a very special block to him and his wife and they intend to be very long term owners and stewards of this property. He next shared an idea of what would be going in upstairs. Without a second egress he is allowed to put four units upstairs. To keep the historical spirit of the building alive they're trying to put as many small studio apartments in as possible and therefore are going to renovate it to be seven small studio units on each floor. Byler noted their goal is that people who live there now will still be able to live there. Currently they have people who wait tables at the Bluebird and cook pizzas at Pagliai's that live there now and hope that they can still live there when they are done with renovations. However, they need to make it a modern building in some regards, including each unit having its own bathroom and kitchen. He stated by code once they go above four units, they need to have two egress exits and they have to be separated by a certain distance. The interesting thing about this building is when it was added onto the brick north wall of the original building remains and in the attic they are able to look at the old building. The old roof is still there, the old wall is still there, so the only way to get a staircase through that is to go parallel to the hallway. That also works best because it takes the least amount of living space away. To go parallel to the hallway they end up having to come out on Linn Street. If they don't have the ability to add that second egress they are still going to renovate the building, or someone will renovate the building, but they will only be able to put four units in, two units on the second floor and two units on the top floor, and those will be four bedroom, four bathroom luxury student condos like everywhere else in town. Byler stated they want to try to honor the history of the building, which is not luxury student apartments and by adding 14 units upstairs their total resident load will not go down nearly as much and they can rent to people who work in the neighborhood. On the commercial level, the reason that the south facade does not work is if they try to divide the space with a wall going that way there is the kitchen to work around. When they added on to the building, they added the L shape and put a basement under the whole section to the north, but they didn't excavate the rest and its above grade. Therefore, that kitchen is 18 inches higher and there are two ramps to get out of the kitchen. If they tried to make that the front of one of the businesses, they would have to go in and re -excavate the building and take it down to the level of the street outside. Otherwise to move the kitchen, moving all of the plumbing and all of the electrical would be hundreds of 1000s of dollars, just moving the vent hood would probably cost $100,000. This kitchen has always been there since this was added onto in 1892, while they are doing some abatement work they can see where the original flu stacks were in the floor and where the original ovens were. Therefore, historically it makes sense to divide it down the original line, down the original wall that was always there and economically it's the only way that makes sense. What they would end up with is a staircase that's running down the dividing wall, connecting third floor to second floor to first floor, and then right out on the Linn Street. Byler continued with a little bit of the history to again note why other openings aren't feasible. He pointed out Don's Central Tap and the windows that used to exist. Those windows aren't there anymore, because there is a beautiful flower shop that was built right next to it. That flower shop, Willow and Stocks is not a separate building, it shares their wall. So again, one option is for the opening is a swing -out door that's flush to the front, it has to be a swing -out door for egress. If they have a swing -out from the flush facade, they have to have a landing outside and they are very limited on the amount of right of way they have. They're also limited on their swing and are locked into this railing and staircase down to the side, which is fine and he thinks is going to look really cute on their building. Option number two is matching the idea of the stairs they already have, which is a recessed door and the landing would be within the building envelope, and then the stairs coming down would again look just like the stairs that are already there. Byler next wanted to talk about fitting into the neighborhood and the shared history. This building and the building right across the street are the two remaining buildings from the brewery era in Iowa City. The Union Brewery building with its beautiful grand corner staircase, which wasn't always there but was brought back, and they have a second door just like he is wanting a second door. That second door HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 6 of 14 isn't used currently, but that door is in their facade and no one walks by the Union Brewery and wonders if it is one building or two buildings, it's obviously one beautiful building with two entrances off of Linn Street, one's just not currently used. On the Market Street side the Union Brewery has a number of entrances, and all of them are the style that Byler is describing where the stairs sweep out from the building instead of turning immediately with a railing, they all sweep right out onto the sidewalk on Market Street. He shared an image of the Union Brewery building in the 1970s before they made it look historic, in this image they can see they didn't have the corner stairs nor the other door. They had replacement windows, just like the building he owns has replacement windows. They went back in and put in windows that look historic, door that look historic and the beautiful corner entrance. The reason Byler's building is a little more constrained is because of the public right of way. Byler also stated Ron Knoche does not get into designing the right of way with applicants before Commission approval and that's why he hasn't approved it. Byler talked with Knoche yesterday and he said it shouldn't be a problem he just doesn't give the approval because he doesn't want to waste his time if the Commission goes the other way. Byler showed the right of way and the sidewalk in the right of way in front of his building at the corner, the sidewalk then shifts across Market Street, it shifts two feet to the west and the walking part of the sidewalk along Linn Street shifts. Because it shifts two feet they have to stay off of that sidewalk and obviously can't impinge on the sidewalk so they need to get up and off of the sidewalk elevation and into their building in a hurry, which is why they need to set their door back. They can't have the landing out because then they're out of space. Byler showed the view that will be seen on Linn Street, there will be the steps up that will go into what will once again be a bakery. They have people lined up who are going to operate a bakery in this space, if they're able to split it. They also have people that are very excited to lease the other side, but he can't say too much about that yet. Where the bushes are is where they want to add a matching staircase with a matching set of recess doors and the stairs would match the other stairs coming down to the right of way again, staying off the sidewalk. Byler stated again, economically without this entrance they are going to end up with four luxury student condos upstairs and a bar in the commercial space because the only people that can afford big commercial spaces in Iowa City are people that sell alcohol. They don't want to go that direction, they want a bakery because that's what it was originally and it'd be neat to bring it back. A little note about recessed doors, Byler stated when one walks down their favorite strips in Iowa City, every door is recessed, they are recessed because they can't swing a door out into the sidewalk. He showed an image of the Park House Hotel building, which is just a block away from his building, and the Park House building is the same vintage of building. Their main front door is recessed three feet back into the building as well, the door swings out and one comes down the stairs. So for Byler's building to do this would not look out of place at all in Iowa City or in the neighborhood. Byler acknowledged he could talk about this building forever, to tell all the history. There's an elevator in Brewery Square, or what used to be an elevator now they use a ladder, but halfway down to the beer caves there's a strange cut out in the wall that was to get the kegs across the street to the tap without being taxed or later when it was illegal. They intend to try to see where it used to go and maybe someday that'll be a neat historic tour feature of the neighborhood. In closing Byler wanted to state it costs him about $25,000 a month in lost rent for a delay so he's asking for a decision at this meeting. They will stay within the confines of the Secretary of Interiors guidelines to the letter, to the 10th degree and they are happy to bring back the materials and show everyone but he needs to know that he can put another entrance on this street because it completely changes the business plan for every level of this building if he can't put another entrance on Linn Street. Again, it's a choice between four luxury student condos and a lounge or a bakery and a neat little shop next to it and 14 affordable units upstairs. That's the reality. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 7 of 14 Mike Nolan (Horizon Architecture) noted Byler did a fantastic job of lining out the why of this building, and the passion behind it and one of the things that highlights why this is a historic landmark and why it is an enduring historic structure is because it's been able to maintain its viability throughout time. Over time it has expanded, it started as a small building on the corner, then got wrapped around when the other buildings came about, and then and now served as a boarding house. They are basically looking to bring it into the 21 st century the best way they can trying to find the most sensitive ways of bringing up to modern codes, modern standards, to meet egress, to meet all of the life safety and protection and to maintain economic viability. Nolan stated they do a lot of historic work around the state and with other cities so they are very familiar with the Secretary of Interiors historic preservation guidelines. He noted it's a little bit different than the City's historic guidelines as basically the Secretary of Interiors is kind of a framework for how they want us to address properties, and then there's another portion of that, the preservation briefings. Nolan next discussed how they developed the project. Looking at the project he didn't think that they were asking for an exception he thinks that they're well within the historic guidelines. So they have put together, point by point starting under analysis, a few things they wanted to address that they just don't necessarily agree with the way that it was presented by staff and to give an alternate or a little bit of different context. First is these facades and the openings have been altered, Nolan doesn't agree with that for a couple reasons. One is they don't know what was there because there are no historic photographs available of this building. Byler has spent several times at the historic preservation and there's nothing to show what happened with that building. Additionally, as Nolan looked at the images of the east side elevations, he noted they can see a difference of the original brick, which has a distinctive pattern and surface texture to it, and then at the bottom there's actually a different color on the mortar and a different color of the brick. The original bricks are an original eight inch full brick and the bricks down at the bottom are a seven and a half inch brick, clearly filled in at a later date. So obviously it has been altered at some point in the past and not part of the historic portion of the building. Next, looking at the Sanborn Maps there is a note that was referenced for the Sanborn Map stating that there was never an entrance on the east side of the building. Nolan doesn't think they can say that equivocally. Looking at the Sanborn Maps there's a couple of references on here that's actually telling the type of construction of the building, and that shows up in a couple of different places. So they can't say equivocally from the Sanborn Maps that there never was an entrance on the east side of the building, they can't say that there wasn't one especially given the fact that there's been some entrances and changes to the store fronts, so it's entirely possible that there was at some point. Then the staff report cites Section 10, there's one through six and a couple that are left out and then number nine. One of those historic guidelines omitted, he thinks it's number eight says exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed as part of a rehabilitation project to ensure its continued use. The guidelines understand that from time to time historic buildings do need to be altered and changes can be appropriate when done in that manner. So again, Nolan doesn't think that they're looking at an exception, they're just looking at how they adhere to the guidelines based off of the preservation briefs. Section number four, altering the east facade with the second storefront would have a negative impact in historical character and significance of the building. As they look at the building, some of the concern is if they put another storefront on there are they going to look at tall, narrow storefronts. What they see across the east facade of this building in particular is a pattern of opacity and bays that's either the window or the opening on the corner. With option number two by recessing back they can see that the door is kind of obscured in shadow, they're looking to push that door back, keep the transom and minimize the impact of that door. The pattern does not get interrupted in the vertical whatsoever and the continuous building still maintains its shaping, massing and character. As Byler discussed they'd love to just keep the exterior exactly the way it is but there are forces on the interior, the adaptive reuse and the renovation of the building, and current building codes that are pushing them to a direction where they have to do some of these interventions. They did look at the southern facade but one of the big concerns is that brick wall. If they could bring a stairway out the other side, in addition to the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 8 of 14 disruption of the current space and the use on the first floor, it would be then further damaging the historic character the building and historic assemblies by having to get into that brick wall that's in between the original buildings. And again, number six the rhythm of the openings, they're not doing anything to adjust the rhythm of the openings, the spacing, things along that line, if anything they're being the most sensitive they can to get the current needs and the modern needs of the building and bring up the economic viability of the building. They are looking at very minimal intervention, they will be happy to salvage material, but they are proposing minimal intervention on the exterior the building that would be 100% reversible some point down the road. Nolan reviewed the guidelines that were cited. One, there are minimal changes to distinctive material features, spaces and spatial relationships. They are right in line with guideline number one. Historic character will be properly retained and preserved. They're trying to keep the historic character and historic function so Nolan believes they are in line with guideline number two and no exception is required. Property is a character of physical time and place, he doesn't think they're talking about anything false by adding another entrance here, they're not saying that the building wasn't commercial, they're not saying anything different with that so they don't need exception to number three. Four, retain to preserve and by keeping the building functional viable they are preserving the character of the building and are caring that for the future. Distinctive material, finish and construction techniques will be preserved, absolutely the only thing that they're looking to take out is a small strip of non -historic brick, and they can certainly preserve and keep that wood trim if somebody wants to use that in the future. Six, deteriorated features will be repaired rather than replaced. Nolan noted the building is in good condition so again he doesn't think that's applicable with what they're asking to do here. Finally, nine that additional alterations will not destroy historic materials. Nolan stated they are not destroying any features, again they are doing moderate intervention and they'll be happy to retain any of that trim. They're looking at that balance of the historic preservation guidelines understanding that from time to time changes to the building need to be made to continue to be part of the City's stock of housing. Again he would argue that they don't require an exception, they really would just like an up or down vote so they can move forward. Regarding Byler's point about talking to Public Works, they don't typically look at that right of way until they know it is going to be a viable project moving forward. The same thing with the accessibility, they've had some preliminary conversations with the building department, which is really under their purview, and have a viable path forward on that so he doesn't think that is something that should necessarily hold up an up or down vote from the Historic Preservation Commission. Sellergren asked what are the accessibility options that they have in place. Nolan noted getting into existing building code, if he were to build a new building, he would need to have 60% or greater of the entrances to be accessible. For historic structures there is a little bit of leeway from that. Part of this project is on the south side of the building where there's an existing ramp. On the west side of the building they're going to create an alternate accommodation at the alley level, where the grade is much closer and essentially create an accessible entrance at that shared corridor on the back of the building. Byler explained in the alley they have an easement to access the building so they're going to turn what is like a back door now, which is basically where the cook would leave and smoke, that will be turned into an actual entrance, with a true glass door, into a spot where one can get into both commercial spaces, it is a shared hallway because they will have shared bathrooms. He stated for the residential units there's no way to roll to the residential units, there's a huge staircase and they're going to add another staircase. A question for the building department will be do they need to make a ramp out there just to get to a set of stairs, it doesn't make any sense and there are exceptions in the historic building code for not doing that, but they will work through that with the building department. Thomann asked Nolan if he is in agreement that doing an entrance on the south side is not feasible. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 9 of 14 Nolan stated to satisfy the requirement for separation distance there's not really a viable way for that stair to come down through there and meet that separation distance without basically destroying the building. So no he does not think there's a viable option to come out the south side of the building. To get into the technical details of building code, once someone gets into a protected means of egress, so once someone gets into this stairway, they need to be in a one hour rated enclosure so that if there's fire on either side they can get safely out of the building. If they were to wrap around to the west, because they did consider that, they wouldn't be able to use this hallway for anything other than that egress access which is just really not a viable option with the way the building set up. Lewis asked if they could have a hallway that goes along the east side, that exits out. Byler explained it's not just putting a door in, like any new Kum & Go they see through the glass they just a dry wall and if they did that it would have to be a continuously one hour fire rated wall and they would have to build a wall to get that hallway out the door required and there is no exception to the building code in that regard. Lewis stated to do what Nolan is describing would lose the visual from Linn Street into this space which would destroy the value of the commercial space and they can't put windows or anything on that wall to look through to improve the visual aspect without actually having to put an entrance on the side of the door or on the side of the building. Nolan stated they could put a four foot wide hallway across there but would have to deal with another window and do a whole bunch of stuff and if they wanted to put glass in there it would have to be fire rated glass which means they could spend $100,000 on this hallway, which would just crush the value of this commercial space. Beck stated she is very sympathetic to the argument that delays are expensive but it should be obvious that they really respect and trust staff guidance so when the recommendation is for deferral for more time, whether it's time to consider alternatives to the new entrance or time to revise what that new entrance would look like, she'd like to hear a little bit more on what that extra time might do. Does staff have some further changes, it sounds like even if the Commission approves the exception there are some further changes that they would like to see to the design of the additional door. Russett showed a slide with both versions side by side and on version two staff liked the entrance in that location and in version one it's in a different location. One of the issues is they have two plan sets, so if they can modify version two to actually look more like version one and have it look more like a storefront door as opposed to an interior vestibule, that's one thing that they would want to work on. She acknowledged with Public Works there is kind of a chicken and egg thing and who gets the approval first, but she would like to have some understanding of what type of access is needed and if it's feasible to maintain that five foot sidewalk that Byler talked about in his presentation with the landings that they're proposing. Russett feels with a little bit more time they can come back with a positive recommendation, they just want some more time to tweak a few things. Lewis asked if that positive recommendation was based on the fact they're ignoring version one. Byler explained he was trying to replace version one because the window is actually not the same size and one of the reasons they moved the door to this location is they wanted the bigger existing opening. And then to Nolan's point, it's going to be shaded so in keeping with the look of the building it's actually important to move the door back and have that vestibule, because nowhere else on the facade is there a door exactly like what they had here. If the concern is that these doors need to be shifted left or right to make it look less like two doors and more like one door, they will make that work 100%. As he said, they will do whatever the Commission needs him to do to make this work but the facts remain they're not changing any of the massing, any of the vertical elements, any of the horizontal elements all they're doing is adding the stairs and taking out a piece of glass and some non -historic brick. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 10 of 14 Thomann noted the biggest asset of this space is its space and not chopping it up and making money here and making money there. It seems like that's the biggest asset of this building. The Icon building, the sister building, it seems like they have enhanced what was already there, they got awards for preservation, they weren't about changing what was there but enhancing what was there and making the old shine. This building is 163 years old and from the evidence seen that east facade hasn't changed which is miraculous, it's the same facade that they saw 163 years ago. This was built during the Civil War, it's a landmark and it's on the National Register of Historic Places. Byler stated this building is not from the Civil War, half of the building is from the Civil War, where this door is going was added 35 years afterwards. They're putting back a wall on the interior that was there until the 1980s, the space was divided by a big brick wall. With the demo they're doing they can see the steel beam in here that was put in in the 1980s holding up the bricks on the top two levels. That brick is the original brick wall, which was the outer wall of the original building. It was two spaces until the 1980s and it's been posited that you got from one space to the other by entering and walking through. They also know that the bricks along the bottom are not original so the openings have been modified. When it was Goosetown it was a really cool space but it's a big space and only a certain kind of business can survive, they're not in this to make a ton of money, they are just about capital preservation for themselves, they don't raise rents of the tenants more than CPI, and if they make enough money in a given year they don't raise the rents at all. They are not money grubbing landlords, and this isn't about creating more rent it is about letting the business tenants succeed, because the only business tenants that can succeed in this space, unless they just give it away, are serving alcohol. Thomann doesn't agree with that either and has faith that there's somebody out there. Looking at the sister building, Icon, it feels like they've preserved that open feel, and it's not a bar, it's there for education and arts and this space could be that too. She loves the idea of a bakery and they don't have a say about the interior but what's happening on the exterior is just another extension of chopping up historic space, and it doesn't sit right with her. Byler respects that but comes back to the fact that they cannot touch anything in the building. They cannot touch the residences, they're rooms with one shared toilet for 10 people, they can't touch any of that without letting them get out onto Linn Street so they're trying to minimize the effect of all of that. If they had a great tenant who wants to run an art or an educational school there that's be great but they don't. Sellergren asked what some of Byler's other properties are. Byler stated on Linn Street they own 211 and 213 which is where the Sacred Collective, a nonprofit is. Between that is Willow and Stock, Brix, and then there is the building that may be developed into a store and bistro. Across the alley Byler said they bought that building and are going to be turning over tenants because they're developing another property that will better fit the commercial tenant in that building, who's a friend of theirs in Iowa City. That's what they own on Linn Street and they also own a few townhomes on the east side but are selling those currently to finance the renovation here. MOTION: Sellergren moves to recommend deferral of this application to allow staff and the applicant time to revise the plans to align with the guidelines. Villanueva seconded the motion. Sellergren wanted to comment that of the two options the exterior presentation of option two is better but the way the doors are set in is worse so if the staff prefers a combination of the two, with the front facing three sided stairway with the option one door so the two doors aren't visible. She feels some combination of that would be much less jarring. Lewis likes the version making it to look like a storefront, even if they're walking into a vestibule with HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 11 of 14 two different doors that go one or the other. Lewis noted it is a bit like what is seen at The Paper Crane, where you walk in and you go one of each way to get to the two different places. Villanueva asked what would match on the sister building across the street, because they had similar entrances across the street. Thomann stated she walks by this stretch all the time and lives very close to it. Tonight she took a look at the sister building and the openings that are there and those seem like in the past, it was maybe meant for heavy deliveries, the kegs or whatever and it was not a door that pedestrians were using. It looks like they're just wooden doors meant to swing out get something in and then close up. There are no stairs leading up to those doors. She stated they do need to think about back in the day when this building was built walking was still the major means of getting about town and they can argue that that's still the case today for this area of town, there are pedestrians through there all the time and how might this interrupt the flow. Russell would say the same thing's true when the patio furniture is out there with the restaurants, it just makes the sidewalk even smaller so it's not taking up any more space than it's already taken up Sellergren stated her opinion is if it looks really good and it's structurally sound, and the interior changes 400 times between now and when the building falls down, the world ends, or whatever, an additional entrance is not going to be the end of the world. In following the guidelines, working with staff to make sure that the materials and the presentation is consistent with what it should be, but in terms of altering the use or adding more pedestrian movement she doesn't personally see an issue with those things. Whether the space is divided into two spaces or changed back into a single space in the future, the door would stay. She thinks there are so many elements to this issue and she maybe doesn't have all the information she needs but all the things considered, the affordable housing, the code requirements, and then in terms of creating something that they can't then remove in the future, a door that looks beautiful, that's very well done, would not be the end of the world. Burford stated he can see the practical need for that egress entrance and a plus for him is that it would be potentially restorable at some future date if someone wanted to go back and undo the door. He would be supportive of version two so that it looks like one door going into one building. Thomann is concerned and feels like there's a disconnect between hearing a door on the south side is not possible, but then hearing from staff a door on the south side is possible. Russett clarified staff did not determine that a door on the south side is possible, it was just a comment to the applicant if they explored that south facade. Villanueva noted if it's not going to be a usable building without that door, what does it be, what does it do to the City because this is an issue where places are getting priced out and they're leaving and they're just staying vacant. So if there's a solution to bring in local businesses to these areas that everyone will love to visit and also still protect the historic property they should approve it. Sellergren agrees they do have to consider progress, what the economy looks like, what people are willing and able to pay in this town, and how the downtown is currently looking with people being evicted left and right because rents are being raised so high and storefronts being vacated by original tenants and replaced with vape shops. That's the worst fate she could imagine on this corner. They have the opportunity to create a more community focused, smaller space here that's highly functional, and then also could be reverted back to a larger space if needed. Russell stated the space has been empty for how many years and if there was a bakery it would attract HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 12 of 14 more people to that community. It is a great space, but there's only like three places to go to when you get there because the Webster is not somewhere you just can walk into so he is inclined to say yes if they figure out the door situation, which he likes option two with the stairs. Lewis likes the option of making more spaces but doesn't necessarily agree with the threat of a bar. He agrees with the fact that it has been empty for a while and it would be nice if something was there right now and having more access to that would be fine, as long as it is something that is version two and looks like it is one door that goes into the building. Lewis noted it sounds like they are inclined to say yes to an entrance there, if it follows the guidelines and everything gets approved so what does that mean right now, do they want to defer this and wait for a plan? Sellergren would go with the staff approval to defer, but it's assuming that staff will work with the applicant on what was discussed tonight. Beck wanted to go on record as supporting an edited door. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was passed 7-0. Byler noted moving forward is problematic because half of Commission said that they wanted the steps flowing out and others said they wanted the door right at the facade and they can't have both of those. Sellergren stated maybe there's a couple different options presented to staff and overall the Commission is in favor of this project, it seems interesting and it seems helpful. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review: HPC25-0008: 538 S Gilbert Street - Local Historic Landmark (repair and replacement of exterior wood elements): Bristow stated this is Close mansion and some of the wood trim around the window and around the front entry canopy is deteriorated so they will be replacing that. Minor Review —Staff Review: HPC24-0041: 930 E College Street- College Hill Conservation District (basement egress window): Bristow noted this house had the porch reconstructed last year and now they're making an egress window. She did state the top of the egress window well will match the brick on the house. HPC25-0007: 431 S Summit Street- Summit Street Historic District (replacement of first floor asphalt shingles with metal roof): This roof will be replaced from what is some kind of a bitumen or rolled rubber roofing to a standing seam metal roof. HPC25-0012: 220 S Johnson Street -College Green Historic District (replacement of flat porch roof): This porch roof is going to be replaced with a rubber membrane roof. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 13, 2025: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2025 Page 13 of 14 MOTION: Sellergren moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's March 13, 2025, meeting. Russell seconded the motion The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Work Plan Update: Bristow stated she will start on the map updates. Sellergren noted her last meeting will be July of this year and then there's going to be an at -large vacancy. ADJOURNMENT Villanueva moved to adjourn the meeting. Beck seconded The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 TERM 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10 NAM E EXP. BECK, 6/30/27 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X MARGARET BROWN, 6/30/26 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X X O/E CARL BURFORD, 6/30/27 --- --- X X X X X X X O/E X X KEVI N LEWIS, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X ANDREW RUSSELL, 6/30/27 --- --- O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X RYAN SELLERGREN, 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X JORDAN STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- THOMANN, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X DEANNA VILLANUEVA, 6/30/25 X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X NICOLE WAGNER, 6/30/26 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X O/E FRANK WELU- 6/30/25 X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X O/E REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member Item Number: 4.e. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 3, 2025 Library Board of Trustees: April 24 Attachments: Library Board of Trustees: April 24 Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes April 24, 2025 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, DJ Johnk (remote), Joseph Massa, Claire Matthews, Robin Paetzold, John Raeburn, Tom Rocklin, Dan Stevenson. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Elsworth Carman, Karen Corbin, Melody Dworak, 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 5:01 pm. A quorum was present. Approval of April 24, 2025 Board Meeting Agenda. Massa made a motion to approve the April 24, 2025 Board Meeting Agenda. Boothroy seconded. Motion passed 7/0, Johnk abstained. Public Discussion. Dworak introduced herself as a librarian on staff who will be serving as the staff representative for the library director search. Roche and Shultz entered the meeting at 5:02 pm. Items to be Discussed. Director Evaluation Discussion. Rocklin shared Carman's evaluation was completed using the new evaluation process. Appoint Interim Library Director. Rocklin recommended appointing Mangano as the interim library director on 5/20/2025 until a new librarian has been selected. Rocklin recommended Mangano be paid 10% above her current salary and an additional week of vacation should be awarded at the completion of her interim service. Rocklin said Mangano has a plan to cover the workload of her current position. Rocklin recommended Mangano's salary return to her current salary plus any across the board raises at the completion of the interim director role. Shultz made a motion to approve Rocklin's recommendation 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. to appoint Mangano as interim library director with a 10% increase in wages, to award Mangano one week of vacation at the completion of the interim position, and to also return Mangano to her current wage as Collection Services Coordinator plus any across the board raises at the completion of the interim director position. Matthews seconded. Motion passed 8/0, Johnk abstained. Rocklin thanked Mangano. Rocklin said it is nice when someone begins an interim position to have expectations from the board they will be reporting to. Rocklin asked trustees to share their thoughts on expectations during that time. Matthews noted the timing of the director vacancy will coincide with the end of the strategic plan, end of the fiscal year, and budgeting work to hire a consultant. Matthews said she assumed the trustees might consider placing the strategic plan on hold, saving that work for a new director. Carman said there is one year left in the strategic plan but the planning for the new strategic plan would normally be done next fiscal year. Rocklin said he hopes Mangano can manage that so we're ready when a new director arrives. Paetzold asked what the plan is to introduce Mangano to professional colleagues, noting the importance of reinforcing the idea there is stability at this time. Carman said now that the interim director appointment has been made, he will begin to invite Mangano to stakeholder meetings, and he will meet with Mangano to review in progress projects and HR situations. Carman said the appointment of the interim director could be used to create an announcement for Carman's departure and the interim director. Carman said we're looking at a small-scale public event that can function as an introduction to both of those pieces. Rocklin said Helmick shared there was a draft press release ready to go announcing the appointment. Boothroy noted Mangano's ideas for the interim period, and suggested after Mangano meets with Carman she could report to the board what her plan looks like and how she sees it coming together. Consider the Future of Standing Committees. Rocklin said there are two standing committees, finance and advocacy. Rocklin said he had come to understand that those meetings are subject to open meeting laws. Rocklin said while that work could be done publicly, it would require a formal agenda published to the public. Rocklin said there is always the possibility of a future board president asking a couple of trustees to work on a task, as opposed to the standing committees. Rocklin said the bylaws call for a nomination committee, which should be meeting publicly. That committee's work is scheduled for next February. Rocklin said the board should consider the bylaws. Rocklin said there is a specific requirement that the board approve the president appointment to any search committee. Rocklin noted there won't be search committees of that nature in the future. Paetzold said the bylaws should be revised at a future meeting. Rocklin agreed. Shultz said the finance committee is new and asked if that has been helpful. Stevenson said that he learned a lot which helped with his understanding but as far as helping library staff he was not sure they'd offered much. Stevenson said he was comfortable with eliminating the committee, and use a working group as needed. Carman said it has been helpful to have focused and longer form conversations with trustees about finances, but at this point the group has normalized. Carman said the finance memo has been worked out and it is a functional document that shares information leading to more complex questions. Carman said the ad hoc idea or trying without a committee seemed reasonable. Carman said Mangano as the interim director could ask for that kind of meeting if needed. 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. Paetzold said to Mangano there may be value in having a finance committee during the interim period of change. Paetzold said trustees may need to look at this in two stages: the interim period, and the more permanent structure. Matthews said the formalized memo in the packet is helpful in the way it is laid out. Matthews said now there is a roadmap that is public that someone in the future could look at. Matthews said she was fine with it being ad hoc as needed. Rocklin agreed the director could always ask a couple board members to look at something. Rocklin encouraged Mangano to use board members wherever it would be useful. Rocklin expressed there was consensus the board could eliminate the finance committee and asked about the advocacy committee. Matthews said she didn't think the advocacy committee could be dissolved. Matthews said trustees have discussed how having a formalized process doesn't work for the timeliness of the work. Matthews suggested using an informal working group. Paetzold agreed and noted the committee had seasonal patterns and a standing committee isn't the best structure. Rocklin suggested in November or December the president could ask for volunteers to keep an eye on legislation and inform the board. Stevenson made a motion to eliminate both the finance and advocacy committees. Shultz seconded. Motion passed 8/0, Johnk abstained. Paetzold asked if the bylaws revision should be added to a future meeting. Rocklin said this could be done as soon as the next meeting and have the city attorney review the bylaws. There was a discussion about the policy schedule. Rocklin proposed having a discussion at the May meeting with feedback from the city attorney and to formally review the bylaws at the June meeting. There was consensus among the trustees. Election of Officers. Shultz proposed a slate of officers to the board: Paetzold as President, Stevenson as Vice President, and Matthews as Secretary. Rocklin said the proposed individuals privately agreed to serve in these roles. Rocklin asked if there were any nominations from the floor; none were proposed. Boothroy made a motion to approve the slate of officers. Raeburn seconded. Motion passed 8/0, Johnk abstained. Board Recognition Discussion. Carman said in the past there has been a regular event to acknowledge trustees, to come together outside of regular meetings, and to celebrate achievements. Carman said the last event was two years ago. Carman said Royer asked City Attorney Eric Goers if that type of event constitutes an open meeting. Carman said as long as there is no time spent on active library business it is okay to recognize past success. Carman asked the trustees if they would like to have an event planned and if so what month. Rocklin said at the last event a lot of problems were solved by doing it in conjunction with a staff retreat with low expenses. Rocklin asked if there is a staff retreat scheduled. Carman said no, there was one a few months ago. Carman said there may be another one in the fall if trustees wanted to look at a fall date, but there was a lot of flexibility if trustees would prefer to do it sooner. Shultz said her memory was that the last event happened because there hadn't been one schedule since the COVID-19 closure. Shultz thought the recognition normally happened every other year when there was a major board transition. Shultz said the last regular event was in 2018 and it included the outgoing and incoming trustees. Paetzold said the idea was to introduce the incoming trustees and recognize the outgoing trustees. Paetzold said it was an annual event only if there were new trustees joining the 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. board, noting it was an opportunity for leadership to meet them as well. Rocklin and Paetzold proposed holding it in July or August. Royer said in the past the library paid for the trustees being honored, and everyone else paid their way. Stevenson said he liked the last event saying it was a good way to provide food without the expense of a venue. Paetzold proposed using a library room and there was general agreement. Carman said an August event at the library could be planned. Matthews said to plan for early August. Review and Consider Adoption of Tentative FY26 Wage Rates. Carman shared this item was reflective of the wage reopener that was part of the collective bargaining agreement. Carman said the city met with AFSCME and a library leadership representative. The recommendation was a 2.75% across- the-board increase FY2026. Carman said the Library Board had an opportunity to support it. Mangano said Iowa City City Council approved it April 15 and it would be brought back to the May meeting to be finalized. Raeburn noted the Library Board wasn't mentioned on the document. Carman said traditionally the Library Board signs as a third entity because it is semi -autonomous department. Rocklin said the Library Board participates in the negotiation but is really not going to have a different contract than the city has, noting it would be hard to administer. Massa made a motion to approve the proposed FY26 wage rates. Paetzold seconded. Motion passed 8/0, Johnk abstained. Policy Review: 505 Volunteer Policy. Matthews asked if the policy was brought back from last month to finalize the previous conversation. Carman confirmed and said some edits were made to reflect the previous conversation, noting Helmick and Roche worked on it. Raeburn suggested cleaning up item C to, "Create and facilitate strong community connections so volunteers become empowered in their knowledge and advocate for the library in the community." Shultz made a motion to approve the policy with Raeburn's amendment, Boothroy seconded. Motion passed 8/0, Johnk abstained. Policy Review: 809 Library Use Policy. Carman said this policy is used daily and Paulios led a large staff committee to review the policy because of it's significance. Carman said it was a multi -month process. Carman said there was a lot of internal discussion around the changes suggested. Carman said historically the policy has generated significant conversation. Massa noted 809.301 and found the sentence starting with sleeping to be awkward; Massa suggested rewording it. Rocklin agreed it was awkward and endorsed the sentiment. Rocklin noted there has been a history of discussing sleeping. Paetzold asked if sleeping while sitting up on a sofa was okay. Paulios shared sleeping in a seated position is fine. Raeburn suggested recumbent sleeping or upright sleeping, noting patrons blocking resources isn't permitted. Paetzold felt it was not friendly to users. Paetzold asked if staff are comfortable enforcing the policy. Paulios said the language came about to split the difference, staff were finding that groups of individuals were on the floor or under furniture or using study rooms to sleep. Paulios said there were many unintended uses of library space and people didn't have access to tables because people were sleeping under them. Paulios said these spaces were becoming daily resting places for people and staff were trying to reset expectations. Paulios said you'd have to find a different way to say you're blocking access to furniture that's not accessible right now; the way it is worded now someone could be napping in a chair. Paulios said putting your head down after studying for two hours is normal human behavior, noting that sleeping is also impacted by the weather, especially when there are unavailable spaces for shelter. Paulios said sitting in a chair while sleeping felt different than laying on the floor. Carman said sitting on a chair also gives staff a visual to make sure 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. there are indicators that patrons are okay. Carman said it is much more difficult to do that if someone is on the floor or under furniture. Paulios said there is a separate internal document for staff that guides how to implement the policy when patrons break rules. Paulios said sleeping has always been handled as an unlimited warning scenario until something has been abused in a much larger way such as refusing to comply with staff requests. Paulios shared the proposed policy changes with two Shelter House outreach representatives and there was no direct feedback. Paulios shared he is always in conversation with different community groups. Paulios shared Helmick was his cohort on the policy revision. Boothroy asked what is meant by limited resources in regard to sleeping. Paulios said it could mean computers, or discussion rooms. Carman said when people are laying under tables it limits the seating, also noting the microfilm is a limited resource. Carman said sometimes people are looking for soft seating and if people are laying on the available couches that could also be a limited resource. Paulios said it could also mean a table, noting there are times when every table is in use. Raeburn said sometimes it is okay to sleep and sometimes it's not, saying the difference is that an amenity that is supposed to be available to everyone is blocked by someone that is recumbent sleeping. Raeburn said even seated sleeping can do that at computer terminals. Rocklin agreed. Raeburn suggested the language, "Recumbent sleeping or seated sleeping that limits other patrons access to a physical amenity is prohibited". Rocklin said that was a good point and noted patron posture helps staff check on patrons. Roche asked if listing the intended use of the resource could be useful and gave the example of, the study room is meant to be used as a study room. Stevenson asked if the Study Room policy addressed sleeping. Paulios said the hope for the Library Use policy was to capture the whole building in an umbrella policy. Paulios said legal reviewed the policy were okay with the language. Matthews said the policy is clearer now and assumed the policy was a public document that can be used to start the conversation with a patron. Matthews said brevity is important and it seems straight forward. Matthews agreed the sentence about sleeping could be clarified but appreciated it overall. Rocklin asked Paulios and Helmick to work on the one sentence and bring it back next month. Shultz requested the policy revisions not have red lines for the meeting. Carman said both could be included. Paetzold noted 310 and said it seemed like a new piece altogether and asked why. Pilkington said this originated out of behavior in the children's room. Paetzold asked if there were wanderers that weren't participating in the services offered in that area. Pilkington agreed. Paulios said adults were interacting with young people. Paetzold asked if legal was okay with limiting access to part of the building. Paulios agreed with the caveat that adults can be there to get materials but not loiter. Paulios said it is the same for the teen room. Paetzold asked how it would be implemented. Pilkington said staff are good about asking adults when they come into the children's room to see if they can help them find materials. Pilkington said that usually stops the behavior. Carman said the children's room staff navigate this and he is confident in their ability to do so equitably. Carman said there are adult patrons that use the space independently and read materials from that section and said they are welcome to engage with staff and the collection. Dworak exited the meeting at 5:49 pm. Carman said if someone is monopolizing staff time or behaving inappropriately staff need the policy to 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. support them. Paulios said there is caveat language in the policy for exceptions. Paulios said patrons with different disabilities might prefer to use the children's room. Paulios said similarly with teens, there are some teens that aged out of the teen center but might still attend City High School. Paulios said the language was borrowed from the Boston Public Library and was modified to fit ICPL's space needs. Paulios said legal commented on the age requirement of 12 and under, noting the struggle when middle school went to junior high. Matthews referred to section 809.310, "and those interested in children's materials while retrieving or using resources from the collection." Matthews suggested the language, "and those retrieving or using resources from the children's collection" in the interest of brevity and placing it in line with language in other policy statements. Paulios agreed. Paetzold asked if there is protection around adults not using the bathroom in the children's room. Paetzold said a person could come in to use the children's bathroom. Pilkington said the only single occupancy bathroom is in the children's room. Paetzold asked if it was open to everyone. Pilkington agreed. Carman said there was at least one instance of someone using the lactation space as a quiet area as well, noting staff are very attuned to the room but doesn't think a limit can be put on the bathroom itself. Pilkington said she doesn't think we can and shared there was a state law to consider with offering single occupancy restrooms. Pilkington said usually that is the comment she gets when asking adults if she can help them find anything in the kids room. Pilkington said patrons want to use the bathroom because it is the only single occupancy restroom and it locks. Rocklin asked for the policy revision to be brought back next month. Review 3rd Quarter Financials & Statistics. Carman shared he is comfortable with where the budget is now. Carman said there has been a bit of bottom -line volatility in the past few months, but it hasn't been out of line with what is normal. Carman and Royer have been watching it closely. Carman said the finance committee met and had a good conversation, stating nothing rose to the group's concern. Carman said the chart of accounts Royer created is a good resource to learn about the object lines. Staff Reports. Director's Report. Rocklin shared it was Carman's final meeting. Carman said he counted the agendas and it was his 90th meeting. Carman said there is no additional information about Enrich Iowa right now. Carman said while the library funding for next year is not delayed, the agreement with the State Library has been pushed back. Carman said we don't yet know what resources will change or be limited. Carman said there has been some communication amongst Iowa libraries about this. Carman said both Enrich Iowa and IMLS funding are getting attention right now and we're working on additional communication to make sure that is clear. Carman said he also documented some next steps occurring in the library director transition. Carman said there is confidence among the leadership and staff that he and Mangano will create a smooth transition. Carman is working to introduce Mangano to stakeholder groups such as IUPLA and the Johnson County library directors at their upcoming meetings. Carman shared gratitude for the Library Board, stating he couldn't imagine a more dedicated and engaged group. Carman said it has made a huge difference in the experience of being the director. Rocklin thanked Carman. Departmental Reports: Children's Services. None. Collection Services. Paetzold said the report was very interesting and sad. Mangano said the library 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. book industry is imploding and there will be ramifications. Mangano is working to get Ingram accounts so there are multiple accounts to use. Mangano said she is working on acquiring a new ILS (Integrated Library System) which could integrate directly and would show book pricing. IT. Matthews said the report was very interesting. Palmer exited the meeting at 6:01 pm. Development Report. Rocklin said the Bright Future event was fantastic, fun, and had amazing energy. Roche said she was deeply appreciative of library staff, the Library Board, and Friends Foundation Board for their work. Roche noted Kami Zbanek-Hill spearheaded the planning and did an incredible job. Boothroy asked if Roche had analyzed the survey results. Roche said there was a lot of wonderful feedback and some constructive feedback. Rocklin shared he was looking forward to next year's event. President's Report. President Appoints to Foundation Board. Rocklin shared Boothroy and Stevenson agreed to serve as library representatives on the Friends Foundation Board. Rocklin said he assembled a working group to help with the director search and Paetzold would be the chair, and Massa and Boothroy will serve. Rocklin said Dworak will serve as the non -management representative, and Pilkington will serve from the leadership. Rocklin said at some point in the future the working group will present finalists to the Library Board who will then choose a new library director. Rocklin said while the group is working the city attorney advised that communications be one way only, from the working group to the Library Board. Rocklin said he doesn't believe that means questions can't be asked but there shouldn't be an appearance that the Library Board is doing the work of the search. Rocklin said the city attorney's preference is written reports to the Library Board for updates on progress. Stevenson asked if there should be regular updates to the Library Board at the meeting orjust along the way. Rocklin said that is up to the Library Board. Shultz asked if they had started meeting and Rocklin said no. Rocklin thanked everyone and said hiring the director is fundamentally the most important thing the Library Board does. Rocklin thanked Carman for his service to the Iowa City Public Library and shared it had been very gratifying to work with and learn from Carman. Rocklin said Carman is leaving a super solid attractive place for someone to succeed him and he was grateful for that. Rocklin said staff are organizing an event to celebrate Carman's tenure. Announcements from Members. None. Matthews exited the meeting at 6:06 pm. Committee Reports. Advocacy Committee. Rocklin distributed the advocacy statement that was discussed at the previous meeting. Paetzold asked trustees to review the final draft and determine if it was ready for graphics. Paetzold said the original goal was to place the sign in the lobby of the library. There was consensus to move forward. Rocklin said it was okay to go forward with an informal consensus. Paetzold and Rocklin agreed that a draft should be sent to Paetzold and Matthews with the graphics. Finance Committee. Raeburn said the committee reviewed the plus's and minus's and they come close to balancing out. Raeburn said the library wouldn't be over budget. Raeburn said a lurking problem was 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. determining the budget for hiring a director search consultant. Paetzold asked if salary funds from the director's absence could be used for marketing. Carman said the directive from the City of Iowa City is always to balance bottom line of the budget with a preference to spend it as allocated by category. Carman said an overage for a consultant would be processed to pay from the consultant line which may end up being 200-300% overspent, but functionally as long as the bottom line balanced against the personnel line that is okay. Paetzold said similarly with the overage for the interim director the same philosophy could be applied, with the goal being to balance and be transparent. Rocklin said the interim position wouldn't be noticeable because the personnel line would have excess in it. Carman said this could change any time, but historically the city budgets personnel at a maximum level. When there is a vacancy, especially at a higher paygrade, it results in that line being spent less. Paetzold said funds for a consultant will be available this fiscal year but the bill may come next fiscal year. Paetzold asked if an internal budget adjustment should be done for FY26. Carman said staff would need to look at where room could be found. Carman said now that an interim director has been formally appointed it will be a conversation that Royer, Mangano, and Carman can have to see which projects are most critical and if any can be delayed. Carman said it would be helpful to have a sense of what the cost would be. Paetzold agreed noting a down payment could be placed this fiscal year. Carman said with the last director search consultant there was an initial payment and then a balance payment. Mangano agreed. Paetzold asked if the RFP from the last library director hire was found. Rocklin said he had it and would send it to Paetzold. Carman said Des Moines Public Library may be doing a similar RFP so time is of the essence. Foundation Members. Massa said the Finance committee met and the Foundation is financially robust. Communications. News Articles. None. Consent Agenda. Boothroy made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Paetzold seconded. Motion passed 7/0, Johnk abstained. Set Agenda Order for May Meeting. Rocklin said the Library Use policy will be reviewed, there will be department reports, and Rocklin asked trustees to review the bylaws for the May meeting. Adjournment. Rocklin adjourned the meeting at 6:16 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. a`r%t IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Board of Commissions: ICPL Board of Trustees Attendance Record Name Term Expiration 6/27/2024 7/25/2024 8/22/2024 9/26/2024 10/24/2024 11/21/2024 12/19/2024 1/23/2025 2/27/2025 3/27/2025 4/3/2025 4/24/2025 5/22/2025 Boothro , Bonnie 6/30/2029 X OE OE X X X X OE X X X X OE Johnk, DJ 6/30/2025 X X X X X X OE OE X X OE X X Massa, Jose h 6/30/2027 X X X X X OE X X X X X X OE Matthews, Claire 6/30/2023 X X OE X X X O X X X X X OE Paetzold, Robin 6/30/2023 OE OE X X X X OE X X X X X X Raeburn, John 6/30/2027 X X X OE X X X X X X X X X Rocklin, Tom 6/30/2025 X X X OE X X X X X X X X OE Shultz, Hannah 6/30/2025 OE X X X X X X OE X OE X X X Stevenson, Daniel 6/30/2027 X X X X OE X X X X OE X X X KEY: X Present O Absent OE Excused Absence NM No Meeting Held R Resigned TE Term Expired Item Number: 4.f. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 3, 2025 Public Art Advisory Committee: April 3 Attachments: Public Art Advisory Committee: April 3 Approved, p.1 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 41312025 Minutes Public Art Advisory Committee April 3, 2025 Emma J Harvat Hall Public Art Advisory Committee Members Present: Leslie Finer, Juli Seydell Johnson, Andrea Truitt, Jen Jordan, Sophie Donta, Nate Sullivan, Rachel Kinker, Scott Sovers Members Absent: Jeremy Endsley, Anita Jung Staff present: Chris O'Brien Public Present: none Call to Order Truitt called the meeting to order at 3.31 p.m. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda None. Consider minutes of the March 6, 2025 PAAC meeting. Johnson moved and Donta seconded that the minutes from the March 6, 2025, meeting be approved. Motion passed (7 -0). Determine Funding Awards for 2025 Public Art Matching Grant Program O'Brien summarized scoring and questions submitted prior to meeting. The total requested funding was $31,453 and the budget was $25,500. Full funding of requests that remained below budget was $24,771 and consisted of 7 projects. Jordan asked about highlighted rows on spreadsheet for clarification. Sullivan suggested discussing 3 projects that fell short of funding Group discussed Zero to Sixty and as a whole felt that there was not enough included in application to fund the project. Group discussed Revision and discussed that the project was a good project but that it had received funding in prior years. No artist was chosen yet. Group discussed Minds in Bloom and did comment how the location was nice as there was not much art in the area. While they liked the potential of the proposal, no sketch was provided. It was also noted that the artist was the same as another project that had received funding. Approved, p.2 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 41312025 Seydell Johnson asked if we could pull additional funds to fund everything. O'Brien indicated that the group could fund as identified on the spreadsheet, redistribute funds, use the remaining budgeted funds to partially find a project or pull finds from the budget to fund more, but that this would be at the expense of maintenance. Also noted that assessment of existing inventory would be completed and that may need funding for maintenance of existing inventory. Staff Updates Jordan noted that the mural on the refuse building was one of her favorites. Seydell Johnson noted that the City Park Pool project is moving forward. O'Brien noted that Ethan Wyatt had completed touch up painting on bus stop project. Old or New Business O'Brien asked if there is any additional feedback or requests for the May meeting where the strategic plan will be discussed. Truitt requested that materials that were distributed in March related to the strategic planning process be resent prior to May meeting. Adjournment Jordan moved to adjourn at 3.58 pm. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (7-0). Approved, p.3 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 41312025 Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2023-2024 Name Term Expires 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 2/6/25 3/6/25 4/3/25 Ron Knoche N/A X X X* X* X X O/E X X* X X* X X* Juli Seydell- N/A O/E X* X O/E X X X X* X X X X X Johnson Steve Miller 12/31/23 X X X X X X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Eddie 12/31/24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Boyken Andrea 12/31/25 X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X Truitt Anita Jung 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X 0 X X 0 0 0 Jenny 12/31/23 0 X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Gringer Jeremy 12/31/25 X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X O/E Endsley Nate 6/30/26 X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E X O/E X Sullivan Leslie Finer 12/31/26 --- --- --- X X X X X X X X X X Rachel 12/31/27 --- --- --- X X O/E X X O/E X X O/E X Kinker Sophie 12/31/26 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X O/E X X Donta Key X = Present X* = Delegate attended 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member Item Number: 4.g. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 3, 2025 Senior Center Commission: April 17 Attachments: Senior Center Commission: April 17 Approved Minutes April 17, 2025 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION April 17, 2025 Room 311, Iowa City Senior Center Members Present: Nancy Ostrognai, Jay Gilchrist, Kate Milster, Lee McKnight, Warren Paris, Mary McCall Members Absent: Betty Rosse Staff Present: LaTasha DeLoach, Kristin Kromray Others Present: Skylar Hoffman, Ross Taylor CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Gilchrist at 4.00 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 20, 2025 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the February 20, 2025 meeting. Motion carried on a 6/0 vote. McKnight/Milner PUBLIC DISCUSSION: 1► •17T� OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: DeLoach reported the program guide for May and June is now available. A few program highlights include a collaboration between Senior Standing Room Only and the Tamarac school, which are doing a production of the Sound of Music, music concerts for the New Horizons Band, Voices of Experience, and Family Folk Machine, and Frisbee Fest at City Park on May 3. The Original Mature Groovers are hosting a trip to the Quad Cities on June 14t" with part of the proceeds brought in by the Black History Ball. The trip will include a stop at the Freight House farmers market, a lunch cruise on the Celebration Belle and the afternoon at the Figge Museum. The annual member, donor, and volunteer appreciation event will occur on April 29t" at Terry Trueblood Lodge. Approved Minutes April 17, 2025 The window and door project is expected to begin this summer. Various parts of the building will need to be closed for short periods. The largest impact will the first floor when the large windows are being replaced. Kromray gave a report highlighting what her role as Operations Assistant entails. She highlighted training, supervising, assisting in hiring, scheduling and supporting front desk staff including 2 permanent daytime receptionists as well as evening and weekend customer service attendants. Additionally, her role includes administering multiple software applications, overseeing membership, parking and locker programs, working with other City departments, overseeing day to day budget items, assisting in annual budget preparation, purchasing items for the department, working with volunteers including the ambassador program and tour guides, handling room reservation and rentals. Commission Discussion Commissioners are invited to be presented a proclamation for Older Americans month at the May 6t" City Council meeting. Commissioners asked questions regarding what programming people are asking for at the Senior Center. Ostrognai inquired about ASL classes. Meeting Adjourned. 2 Approved Minutes April 17, 2025 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Term 4/18/24 5/16/24 6/20/24 7/18/24 8/15/24 9/19/24 10/17/2 11/21/ 12/19/ 1/16/25 2/20/25 3/20/25 4/17/25 Name Expires 24 24 24 Betty 12/31/26 X X NM NM O/E X X X O/E X X NM O/E Rosse Jay 12/31/25 X X NM NM X X O/E X X X X NM X Gilchrist Mary 12/31/27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E NM X McCall Angela 12/31/24 X O/E NM NM X X X O/E X -- -- -- -- McConvill e Lee 12/31/27 O/E X NM NM X X X O/E O/E O/E X NM X McKnight Kathryn 12/31/27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X NM X Milster Nancy 12/31/26 X X NM NM X X X X X X X NM X Ostrognai Ross 12/31/24 -- -- -- -- O X O O O -- -- -- -- Taylor Warren 12/31/25 X X NM NM O X O X X O/E X NM X Paris Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E=Absent/Excused NM =No meeting -- = Not a member 3