Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-16 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 4.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 16, 2025 Airport Commission: July 10 Attachments: Airport Commission: July 10 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION July 10, 2025 _ 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Hellecktra Orozco (arrived late), Ryan Story, Judy Pfohl, Chris Lawrence Warren Bishop Members Absent: Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Jennifer Schwickerath Others Present: Adam Thompson, Fred Gerr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None DETERMINE QUORUM A quorum was determined at 6:04 pm and Lawrence called the meeting to order. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Lawrence nominated Story to be Chair, and Bishop to Secretary, seconded by Pfohl. Motion carried 4-0 (Orozco absent). Chairperson Story took over conducting the remaining meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Tharp stated he received a couple of corrections from Pfohl. Lawrence moved to approve the minutes as amended by Pfohl, from June 12, 2025, seconded by Bishop. Motion carried 4-0. (Orozco Absent) PUBLIC COMMENT - None ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1 ACTION a. Airport Construction Projects: i. FAA grant projects — 1 . Runway 12130 Displaced Threshold — Tharp stated they were going to be waiting for a bit for the manufacturer to get new equipment certified by the FAA. Bishop asked about what that mean and Tharp responded that because. the manufacturer had issues with the system at several airports, the equipment was de -certified by the FAA and the manufacturer has to go through the certification process again. Airport Commission July 10, 2025 Page 2 of 5 ii. Iowa DOT grant projects 1. T-hangar Building -- Tharp stated that they did not make the recommendation list for grant awards. Tharp stated that he had spoken with Shane Wright, the Program Manager for the state. Tharp stated that then they filled out the grant application they used the lowest local match (15%) because they weren't sure exactly how the money was going to end up. Tharp stated that the state awarded 4 projects for the entire infrastructure program and that the competing hangar projects were at matches of 30% and 50% which awarded bonus points for those airports. Tharp stated that he would recommend the commission hold and reapply next year and they would utilize a higher local match. 'Tharp stated that the main reason they didn't get the AIP grant award recommendation is because when airports apply for what is effectively a combined project like the hangar and taxiway. If the airport doesn't get the hangar portion, then the need to building the pavement supporting it doesn't exist, so they don't get that portion of it either. Tharp stated they would want to talk about other projects that would be delayed because of the delay in the hangar project. Lawrence asked about the FAA and the wait time for the use of discretionary funds. Tharp stated that even with this they shouldn't have an impact on the FAA dollars. Tharp noted they are still eligible this year for the dollars. 2. Wildlife Mitigation Study — Tharp stated he hadn't seen the guys out, but they were supposed to have started. Story stated that he had seen the USDA truck at the airport. b. Airport "Operations i. Budget — Tharp stated that they are finishing up the fiscal year and that he did put in the FY26 budget that was submitted to the city. Tharp stated that they had a budget surplus anticipated to be about $30,000. Tharp stated that they will have a few large bills at the beginning of the year saying he ordered a large quantity of seal material for hangar doors. Tharp also stated that the AC in the terminal building went out briefly. H. Management I. Enforcement of T-Hangar Lease (2026-2026) requirement to house an aircraft that is operational or under active construction or repair - Tharp stated they he put a copy of the T-hangar lease in the packet and that he had talked with Lawrence and Story about the leases and Tharp suggested that in order to avoid having airplanes or parts of airplanes on the ramp and in the way, they address the hangar lease issues with the renewals and send personalized letters with the hangars stating that this would be the last lease unless those lease conflicts were resolved. Members discussed that and sending out letters via certified mail. Lawrence asked about when to reevaluate the conditions and to refresh the Commission. Tharp noted that new leases would be sent out in late August and suggested that January would be a good time for that check. Members discussed notification options for the hangars. Members agreed to update information in January. Airport Commission July 10, 2025 Page 3 of 5 2. Motion to authorize Chairperson to sign Hangar 319er LLC memorandum of ground lease — Tharp stated that this agreement was a result of the need to plat out the ground that was part of the lease so that if for some reason the bank needed to..repossess the building and ground per the mortgage, they had something tangible to repossess. Schwickerath also described the agreement to the members. Lawrence moored to authorize the Chairperson to sign the memorandum, seconded by Orozoo. Motion carried 5-0 3. Iowa Open Meeting/Record Law Updates — -Tharp stated that the state updated the laws around the open meeting rules and that there was a new requirement for training of people that would be appointed or elected to a public role. Schwickerath further described the details of the law and the process as it was still being developed by the Iowa Public Information Board. Schwickerath stated that as they found out more information they would inform the members. iii. Events — Tharp stated that next weekend was another Summer of the Arts movie and that August was going to be busy. Tharp also stated that September 2210 was going to be Climate Fest at the airport and they would have information and tours of the solar array. 1. Summer of the Arts Movies (July 19, Aug 9) 2. Young Eagles (Aug 16th) 3. Pancake Breakfast (Aug 24) 4. Autocross (Sept 14, Oct 19) c. FBO 1 Flight Training Reports i. Jet Air — Wolford stated that flight training was as busy as it had been in a long time. He also stated that he flew the Cub and tried out the grass landing area for the first time. Wolford noted that the guys had painted the light cans and the drains white so they were more visible. Wolford noted that he was a bit more nervous of publicly advertising the area but also was more comfortable with it being local use only. Wolford noted they had hired a weed sprayer to help with the weed control. d. Commission Members' Reports — Orozco asked about the intern. 'Tharp stated the intern had completed their time. Tharp stated that they helped with the hangar development plan, updated the hangar wait list, and worked on some social media posts for the airport. Story asked about putting the hangar waiting list online or having an online setup so that people could check their position on the list. Members discussed and Tharp asked if Story could send examples of airports that were doing that and he would see what could be done to do that here. e. Staff Report — Tharp noted that he was planning a vacation at the end of the month and that the FAA Conference was in August i. 4 States (FAA Central Region) Conference — Kansas City (August 20-22) ii. Vacation Dates (July 29-Aug 6) SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING — Set the next meeting for August 14, 2025. Airport Commission July 10, 2025 Page 4of 5 ADJOURN -- Pfohl moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:45pm. Seconded by Bishop. Motion carried 5-0. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission July 10, 2025 Page 5of 5 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 TERM o 0010 o 3 1 r��v w Q c�s, ® � co K N 0 � NAME EXP. 4�1 4th to ->, .a p a, v, U1 N U1 N cn N cn N cn Warren 06/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X OIE XIE X Bishop Christopher 06/30/29 O/E X X OIE X X X O/E X X X X X Lawrence ktra 06/30/28 X OIE X OIE X X O/E OIE X O/E X X XIE Orozco rozc Judy Pfohl 06/30/26m X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X Ryan Story 06/30/27 O/E X X X X X mm X X X X X X X KeT 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 September 16, 2025 Board of Adjustment: July 9 Attachments: Board of Adjustment: July 9 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL JULY 9, 2025 — 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT CALL TO ORDER: FINAL Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Paula Swygard, Julie Tallman Mark Russo Sue Dulek, Anne Russett Jeff Clark, John Beasley, Mike Vandermeir, Mike Welch, Bob Downer, Jessie Singerman, Robin Christianson, Kim Miller The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC25-0003: An application submitted by Jeff Clark requesting two special exceptions to allow ground floor residential in a commercial zone and a parking reduction in a Central Business Zone (CB-10) for the property located at 17 and 23 South Gilbert Street. Baker opened the public hearing. Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the subject property along with the zoning map noting the property is zoned CB-10, which is Central Business District zone. The property is a mixed use structure, there's ground floor commercial on the Washington Street side of the building, and then there's residential on the upper floors. The City's parking regulations state that for buildings built on or before December 31, 2008, parking is required for residential uses after the first 10 bedrooms and 0.5 parking spaces are required for each additional bedroom beyond 10. So although this building has no parking on the site, the building is built from property line to property line, it does have credit for one parking space and the additional residential units would require two additional parking spaces, but they are requesting that that be reduced to zero. Russett noted that the CB-10 zone is the downtown zoning district and is meant to allow intense mixed use development. Service parking is not allowed and commercial uses do not require parking in this zone. For some background, the property was built in 1899 as a factory and then converted to a hotel in 1922 and is significant for its role in the history of Iowa City education, industry and pharmacy. It's a contributing structure in the Iowa City Downtown Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2021, the property is also eligible to be designated as a local historic landmark. The property was developed prior to the existing Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 2 of 23 zoning, which is the CB-10 zone. The applicant is seeking to allow two ground floor residential units and a 100% parking reduction to protect the building's historic character. The proposed residential uses would be on the Gilbert Street side of the building, on the ground floor. The role of the Board of Adjustment is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based on the specific standards and general standards to be considered. First is the exception for residential uses on the ground floor in a commercial zone. The first finding is related to whether the property is located in an existing Historic District Overlay zone, which it is not and therefore this criteria is not applicable. Second criteria is that the proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of the subject zone. Russett explained the CB-10 zone is intended to accommodate a wide range of retail, service and residential uses and private off street parking is strictly regulated in this zone in order to preserve valuable land for active building uses and to maintain a pedestrian oriented streetscape. The ground floor residential uses will fill the commercial spaces located on the Gilbert Street side of the building as these existing commercial spaces have remained largely vacant over the past 10 years. The commercial use and storefront at the corner of Washington Street and Gilbert Street will remain unaltered, so there will still be an active commercial presence on that corner, which will help activate that pedestrian streetscape. The conversion to residential requires the addition of two parking spaces. The third criteria is also related to whether the property is in a Historic District Overlay zone, which it is not so this criteria is also not applicable. Russett then moved on to the second request, which is the parking reduction for unique circumstances. The criteria here is that where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic esthetic or cultural attributes, the Board may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces up to 50% and for properties that are listed in the National Register up to 100%, which is the request here. Staff findings note this property is listed in the National Register and a contributing property to the Downtown Historic District and eligible for being designated as a local historic landmark. The building was constructed in 1899 and it takes up the entire property so no parking is provided on the property. The property currently has 12 bedrooms, which would require one parking space today, and that parking is a legal non -conforming situation, so they can continue to operate as is with that legal non- conforming situation. There are four new bedrooms that are being proposed on the ground floor, which requires two parking spaces. Surface parking, again, is not permitted in this zone, and accommodating parking would require significant alterations to this historically significant structure, which would diminish or remove all historic integrity. A 100% parking reduction will help preserve and protect the property's historic attributes, because providing parking will require significant alterations to the structure and finally, the parking reduction will also allow the current vacant space to be utilized, which has been vacant for around 10 years. Russett next reviewed the general criteria that must be met for all special exceptions. The first criteria is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff finds that the existing development will not be altered as all work will be interior renovations. Without a parking reduction redevelopment of Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 3 of 23 the vacant commercial space to residential will require the property to accommodate parking which would not be possible on site or within the street. The addition of residential units will further the intent of this zone by converting currently unused space into residential units, increasing density and encouraging pedestrian interaction in the vibrant downtown. Without a parking reduction, providing parking for the residential use would again require structural alterations which would damage the historic building. Access to the surrounding properties will not be affected. The second criteria is that the exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or substantially impair property values. Staff finds the proposed renovations and parking reduction will not impact the ability of neighbors to utilize and enjoy their properties, nor will it negatively impact property values. Additional traffic is not likely to be generated by the proposed conversion to residential as they will utilize vacant commercial spaces which do not require parking and are proposing to reduce the parking requirement from two to zero, aligning with the existing conditions on the site today. The proposed renovations would reinvest in underutilized, vacant commercial spaces to provide housing for the community. Third, the establishment of the special exception will not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding property. Again, the surrounding property is already fully developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses. The residential units proposed will occupy the existing structure that has been in the neighborhood since 1899 and will provide services that will not substantially impact the development or improvement of surrounding properties. Again, the site currently does not have any parking, so the existing conditions will not change with this request. The fourth criteria is that adequate utilities, roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Russett reiterated the subject property is already developed so all utilities, streets, drainage have already been established within this neighborhood. There's pedestrian access along the sidewalk on East Washington Street and South Gilbert Street and the site is also within walking distance of transit. The fifth criteria is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion. The existing site does not have any vehicular access and none is being proposed so no impacts on vehicular traffic congestion are proposed as part of this exception. Also, no changes are being proposed to the existing sidewalk or street and additional parking would impact traffic flow for surrounding developments at a busy intersection. Parking reduction would ensure existing conditions are met and limit potential traffic impacts. Criteria six is that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the project complies with zoning regulations. Staff finds that the subject property meets the requirements of the base zone, with the exception of open space, and that is a legal non -conforming issue that may remain and with this proposed exception that legal non- conforming situation will not be expanded. The seventh criteria is that the exception is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Russett stated the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area as general commercial. The property is also located in the Downtown District, which has master plan Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 4 of 23 objectives to protect historic character and key buildings, maintain a balance of uses and provide residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan's vision includes investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major employers in the City, to preserve opportunities for people to live close to work, school, shopping, promoting walking and bicycling and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Additionally, the proposed exception would provide downtown housing and opportunities for people to live close to work and the reduction in parking would align with the Plan's vision for maintaining historic resources and promoting alternative modes of transportation. Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0003 to: 1. Allow ground floor residential along South Gilbert Street in a commercial zone while maintaining the commercial space along East Washington Street, and 2. Allow a 100% parking reduction in a Central Business (CB-10) zone for the property located at 17 and 23 South Gilbert Street in order to accommodate two additional residential units. Carlson wanted to confirm there are currently 12 bedrooms in the building with no parking for any of them. Russett confirmed that is correct. Baker asked if this is the first such application to convert commercial to residential downtown. Russett is unsure but they do have commercial buildings that are occupied by residential uses that may have received a special exception before her time with the City. Baker asked if downtown currently has ground floor residential properties. Russett replied yes, there is the one up the street across from Ecumenical Towers, the old Press Citizen building, that entire building is residential. Baker noted that was converted as all residential and is wondering if there is anything comparable to this application where it's an existing commercial that's underutilized or vacant and converted to ground floor residential. Russett stated the other building that she is aware of is the old Carnegie Library, which is across the street from the public library on Linn Street, that has ground floor residential uses in it. Baker asked if this building had ever been used by the City for offices. Dulek replied that yes, at one time The Housing Authority had used the building, in the 1990's. Baker also wondered about commercial versus residential tax rates and if this change would affect the taxation. Baker noted they are talking about a special exception here, which is permitted and the City may grant the special exception but are there any clear guidelines for denial of a special exception request. Russett replied for this case it's the terms of the specific criteria and that it would degrade the commercial character of the neighborhood or of the district and what staff has found is that they're maintaining commercial uses within the building. Baker stated on page three of the report it says the properties have remained largely empty over the last 10 years and on page four the report says the commercial space has been vacant for around 10 years, do those two things mean the same thing and what are the uses that they're looking at here to justify the change. Is it how long has it been vacant intermittently or has it been consistently vacant, what's the history of the property that would justify changing the use. Is there a guideline because what if some other downtown commercial property wants to say they've been vacant a year so they want to go to residential, what are the other possibilities here. Dulek stated that is what the Board has to consider is whether that standard has been met. Russett added which is not about number of days, weeks or years it has been vacant but Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 5 of 23 rather the criteria is that the proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of the subject zone. Baker is concerned if other applicants wanted to also go from commercial to residential. Dulek stated those applicants would also have to come forth with whatever facts are applicable to that applicant and prove to the Board that the proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of that subject property in that subject zone. Each application the Board has to consider independently and granting one is not precedential to granting one in the future. Baker still feels the long term justification opening up all sorts of things in the future. He asked if there has been any research done, any patterns or any guidelines, for what's the vacancy rate for downtown commercial properties. Russett is unsure, just walking downtown one can see that there are some vacancies, but some have also been recently filled. Baker asked why commercial on ground level is mandated in the zoning code as opposed to being an option. Russett stated it isn't mandated, residential is allowed on the ground floor, but just through a special process, which is the special exception. The reason that in commercial zones they want to see commercial, especially in the downtown, is because they want a vibrant streetscape with large windows that people can see into for shops and that's harder to do with residential uses. Baker wondered that in downtown Iowa City would developers rather put in residential but just puts in commercial on the ground level because the City is going to force them to. Russett replied this is something that property owners could do now, they could approach the City and ask for residential uses in the ground floor, it was asked earlier how often has that happened and she could only think of two instances, they are just not seeing a lot of requests to convert commercial space to residential, but it is an option for property owners that has to be evaluated by this Board. Jeff Clark (414 East Market Street) is the property owner and stated this property has been vacant over the last 10 years about 95% of the time, there's been some short term rentals in there, which are usually political groups, but other than that it sits empty. He noted it has short ceilings, roughly 8', in it so it's not very desirable inside and it faces Gilbert Street instead of facing in towards downtown, which does not make it as desirable. Clark stated they are just trying to figure out something to fill it up and make it look used again and they've had no real success in the last 10 years with having any long term tenants come take a look and want it. Carlson asked if office space was the only type of commercial use ever in the space. Clark replied in the last 10 years there's a political group that went into the bigger space in the middle, but there used to be a tanning salon that was in there for a year or two also, but that was about 10 years ago. As far as interest in the property, there has been some people that have looked at it for office space, but nobody ever seems to be interested in it, so it just sits empty. Carlson asked if he thinks they would be more successful in running it as residential space. Clark confirmed yes, there's a much more likely chance to occupy it. Baker asked Clark how long he has has owned the property. Clark stated he has owned the property 25 years. Baker asked about the commercial business in the corner, the tattoo parlor, how long has that been there. Clark replied roughly five years, and they have a lease so they're going to be there longer hopefully. Baker asked what the rate is he is charging the commercial space and noted he asks this in the context of the empty properties right now, the rates that Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 6 of 23 they're currently paying for the tattoo parlor versus what they would be charging for the property right next to it. Clark is unsure of the exact dollar, he is assuming that the tattoo parlor is probably at the $20 per square foot range. Baker asked then what would Clark be charging for a one bedroom apartment down there, or what is the current residential occupancy rate for that building. Clark stated they are at 100% in that building currently. Baker asked how does Clark market those spaces. Clark explained most of it's signage, there's some online venues that they use, but for the most part their hits come off of signage. Baker asked if someone were to come in today and want that space as office space what would they be charging them. Clark explained the corner space is much more expensive, they were probably offering the center spaces in the $10 to $13 per square foot range. Baker asked about the difference between commercial versus residential taxation and which is higher. Clark noted there would not be a difference because the building's currently being taxed as commercial because it's multifamily, it's taxed as one structure at the commercial rate. Baker noted they are planning one of the residential units to have three bedrooms but the plans make it appear to be about the size of a closet so how big are these rooms in the units. Clark stated they all qualify by code to be a bedroom. Baker closed the public hearing. Carlson moved to recommend approval of EXC25-0003 to: 1. Allow ground floor residential along South Gilbert Street in a commercial zone while maintaining the commercial space along E. Washington Street, and 2. Allow a 100% parking reduction in a Central Business (CB-10) zone for the property located at 17 and 23 South Gilbert Street in order to accommodate two additional residential units. Tallman seconded the motion. Swygard noted the one thing that she's considered in looking at this is the location of the property, it is in a commercial zone but it's towards the north end of Gilbert before it transitions to a lot of residential and she doesn't see a lot of foot traffic whenever she drives by there. As far as people looking for offices or buildings she just thinks that it's not going to significantly make a big change in the commercial spaces to approve it. Tallman agrees it's not a very pedestrian friendly place to be, she remembers when the Housing Authority was there it sort of felt like if the door opened you were going to be pushed backwards out onto Gilbert Street so this just makes sense. Carlson is wondering who's going to want to live there, because the same conditions that they're talking about that don't make it very appropriate for commercial may also apply to a residential unit because when they walk outside their door Gilbert Street is six feet away. She acknowledged it is a very difficult piece of property. Baker stated he is going to vote no as he has general concerns about the process of converting commercial to residential on the ground floor downtown. He doesn't see any compelling reason and is not comfortable letting this change over. Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 7 of 23 Dulek reminded the Board that they have to determine whether or not the criteria are met so the question is do they find that the proposed dwelling will not significantly alter the overall commercial character or one of the other standards, that's the question they have to answer. Baker replied for the purposes of this vote he does do find that there's significant damage. Carlson stated regarding agenda item EXC25-0003 she does concur with the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report of July 9, 2025, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that the Board adopt the findings and conditions in the staff report for the approval of this exception. Carlson wanted to add special things from the findings that surface parking is not permitted in the CB-10 zone and accommodating parking would require significant alterations to a historically significant structure, which would diminish or remove all historic integrity. This exception will help preserve and protect the property's historic aesthetic and cultural attributes, and the reduction will allow the current vacant space to be utilized. A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-1 (Baker dissenting). Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC25-0004: An application submitted by Mike Vandermeir of Evans Scholar Foundation requesting a special exception to allow a parking reduction in a High Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM-44) for the property located at 729 North Dubuque Street. Baker opened the public hearing. Russett began the staff report noting the property is located just east of the Iowa River and south of the Park Road Bridge. The corridor along North Dubuque Street is all zoned multifamily with multifamily uses as well as some fraternal group living uses. In terms of background, the Evans Scholar House intends to purchase the property and renovate the space from 19 rooming units to 46 rooming units. Without a parking reduction, the property must accommodate a minimum of 34 onsite parking spaces and the applicant has requested a special exception for a 50% parking reduction in order to provide 17 parking spaces onsite to preserve the unique historic character of the site. The property was built in 1923 and it's known as Phi Delta Theta. The property is eligible to be placed in the National Register of Historic Places for both its architectural and historic significance. The property was constructed prior to the current multifamily zoning designation. Russett noted also the loss of several historically significant fraternity houses over the years increases the importance of those that remain and a parking reduction would reduce the impact to the historic property and maintain its important location along the east bank of the Iowa River. Russett next shared the site plan that was submitted with the application showing the location of the 17 parking spaces as well as the access to the site off of North Dubuque Street. She explained this is a parking reduction for unique circumstances, which can be approved where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the number of Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 8 of 23 parking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic aesthetic or cultural attributes. In these cases, the Board may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces by up to 50% and that's the request before them this evening. In terms of findings, this property is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places and also is not locally designated, but according to the State Historical Society the property maintains architectural and historical significance that's eligible for listing in the National Register. In 2012 the City completed a study that noted the potential for nine remaining fraternity houses within the 700 and 800 North Dubuque Street block that could be placed within a local conservation district in order to preserve these historic properties, but no district has been established to protect these sites. The property is currently vacant based on the City's rental inspection data and has not been occupied since March 2022. The property previously housed 19 roomers and provided 17 parking spaces. In order to accommodate the 46 roomers, the property would require 34 parking spaces. Russett noted the site is significantly sloped, the eastern portion of the site is at an elevation of 672' and the western portion along the river is at 644' and this change in grade makes it challenging to add additional parking to the site. In addition, parking would be required to be located behind the building and along the riverbank, which would not only diminish the historical riverfront character, but also impact the stream corridor and protected sensitive features in that area. Altering the structure to accommodate additional parking would diminish the historically significant architectural character as well as the historic riverfront integrity that has remained largely unchanged since the fraternity was constructed in 1923. Russett reiterated that over the years several of the existing fraternity and sorority houses in this area have been demolished or negatively impacted so a parking reduction would preserve the site for one of the few remaining historically significant fraternity houses in the City, provide the opportunity for more housing in the community and allow a building that has been vacant for several years to be reused. In terms of the general standards, the first is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety and welfare. Russett stated the existing development will not be altered if granted the special exception, all work would be interior, and the existing parking area would accommodate the parking. Without a parking reduction the property would need to enlarge the parking area which would alter the riverfront view, the open space and the historic character of the site. She noted access to the surrounding properties will not be affected. In addition, the parking reduction would use and maintain the existing 17 spaces, which would generally maintain the existing conditions for access to the site. If the additional 17 parking spaces were required it would increase the vehicles required to use North Dubuque Street, which is a major arterial street. Russett noted there is no onsite parking along North Dubuque Street and the added roomers would not lead to further street congestion. The second criteria is that the exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity, or diminished property values. The proposed renovations and the parking reduction will not impact the ability of neighbors to utilize and enjoy the properties, nor will it negatively impact property values. Additional traffic generated may be minor due to the proposed renovation from 19 roomers to 46 however if a 50% parking reduction is approved, the existing parking lot and 17 parking spaces would remain in use so those existing conditions would remain. Again, Russett noted there is no on street parking along Dubuque Street so the additional roomers would not lead to further congestion due to off street Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 9 of 23 parking. The renovations would provide additional student housing and provide the Evans Scholar Foundation with space to further serve the University and the community. The property does not have neighbors to the north, it abuts the Iowa River to the west, there is multifamily residential located to the south and to the east, and the uses in the immediate vicinity are similar in intensity. The third criteria is that establishment of the exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in the district. Again, Russett noted the surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of residential and institutional uses. The additional roomers will occupy the existing structure that has been in the neighborhood since 1923 and been vacant for several years. The project will provide much needed housing that will not substantially impact the development or improvement of surrounding properties. If a parking reduction were granted, the parking area would remain in use and the existing conditions would not change. The fourth criteria is that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been provided. Russett again stated the subject property is already developed, all utilities, access and drainage and necessary facilities are already established for this neighborhood. She also stated there's pedestrian access along the sidewalk on the west side of North Dubuque Street and Iowa City Transit is also accessible from the subject property. There is access to the City's bicycle infrastructure, including the Iowa River Trail, from the subject property. The fifth criteria is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion. Russett stated no changes are being proposed to the existing driveway, sidewalk or street. Traffic would be mostly limited to residents. A minor increase in traffic may be generated to accommodate the additional roomers. However, if a parking reduction is granted, the existing parking area would not be increased. The subject property is accessible to Iowa City Transit and the City's bike infrastructure. Additional parking would impact traffic flow for surrounding development along a major arterial street. A parking reduction would ensure existing conditions are maintained and limit potential traffic impacts. The sixth criteria is that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception, the project conforms with zoning regulations. Russett stated the subject property meets the requirements of the base zone with the exception of parking for multifamily being located between the street and the building. Elements that do not currently meet these standards can continue as legal non -conforming situations. If a parking reduction were not granted, future parking stalls would need to be located behind the building and along the Iowa River, which would diminish the historical significance of the property's placement along the riverbank. The seventh criteria is that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as appropriate for higher density residential development at 25 or more dwelling units per acre. This property is also located in the Central Planning District, which identifies this property as appropriate for fraternity and sorority housing. The Comprehensive Plan also supports investing in historic neighborhoods to help preserve the culture and history, and it notes that investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to the major employers in the City preserves opportunities for people to live close to work, school and shopping and promotes alternative modes of transportation and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The proposed exception would grant the ability to provide additional student housing Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 10 of 23 and opportunities for people to live close to work and school and shopping, and the parking reduction would align with the Plan's vision for maintaining historic resources and promoting walking, biking and transit within the area. Russett noted staff did receive two pieces of correspondence on this application, one was in support of the request, which was included in the agenda packet, the second came in earlier today, which was in opposition to the special exception, and provided to the Commission at this meeting. Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0004, to reduce the onsite parking requirement by 50% (from 34 to 17 parking spaces) for a Fraternal Group Living use at 729 North Dubuque Street. Swygard asked how staff arrived at there would be 46 rooming units. Russett replied that was the request from the applicant. Swygard noted in the applicant's statement that they provided it said they would like to provide housing for 45 to 55 individuals so would they be allowed to have 55. Russett replied they would be restricted to 46 and that would be a firm cap. Swygard asked if any of the units are multi occupancy. Russett explained they're not technically dwelling units, they're rooming units but that's probably a better question for the applicant on how they plan to lay out the building. Swygard asked if there are any bicycle parking required and if so how many spaces. Russett replied bicycle parking is required but she is not sure of how many spaces and will look into that. Carlson noted they do not allow parking in the front yard of a residence and they don't want parking in the backyard, there is parking on the one side so is there any way they could get to the other side or are there other alternatives on this piece of property to increase the parking. Russett confirmed the multifamily site development standards which this property is subject to does not allow parking between the building and the street but the current parking area is located between the building and the street, and that is allowed to remain as a legal non- conforming situation. However, they could not add additional parking in that location here and would have to put it all in the back. There is also not really any room on the south side and there are sensitive features to the north. Carlson noted then basically the parking that is there is the maximum amount that can be developed on that property. Russett noted the project's civil engineer is here and that may be a good question for him, but staff thinks adding additional parking on this site would be very difficult. Baker noted the report says the property has been shut down for a couple of years and the prior occupancy was 19, do they know how long that occupancy was the standard, had there been more occupants there in the past or was it always just 19. He asks because one of the concerns of the neighborhood is the impact of an increased population so he is just trying to figure if the property has had a history of higher population than 19. Russett is unsure, City records available show that it's been 19 for several years but it could have been more in the past. Baker asked if the purchase of the property is contingent on the approval of this application and Russett noted that's a question for the applicant. Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 11 of 23 Baker noticed that the current parking area is completely overrun so would be part of the approval be based on a clear delineation of the parking lot. Russett confirmed yes, they would need to stripe the spaces. Baker asked if they need to put that in the approval and Russett stated they could add it as a condition if the Board feels that's justified. Baker asked if the intended use is for another fraternity to be using the property. Russett replied the Evans Scholars Foundation are the applicant, they're a nonprofit entity that provides scholarships to golf caddies so they can speak more to their mission and vision. Baker noted it would be good to know if it's more comparable to a boarding house or a rooming house than a fraternity house, because that could change the neighbors' concerns about the kind of population in the space. Russett confirmed the use is classified as fraternal group living, it's not independent group living, which would be a boarding house, it's fraternal group living because they have a partnership with the University and the University has sanctioned them as a fraternity. Baker asked for a quick clarification on a definition, under the findings they talk about additional parking would be required to be located behind the building along the riverbank, which would not only diminish the historical river character but also impact the stream corridor. What does that mean to impact the stream corridor. Russett explained the City has a Sensitive Areas Ordinance which regulates development near streams such as the Iowa River and there needs to be separation from the river and the floodway and any development. Carlson asked about the current parking situation, because there are 17 parking spaces but there were 19 people living in the house, if they did not grant this exception for the reduction, how many people would the 17 parking spaces allow. Russett stated it would be 19, which was they were allowed previously, with the 17 parking spaces. John Beasley (Evans Scholars Foundation) stated the Evans Scholars Foundation is out of Chicago, they're a 501(c)3 tax exempt not for profit, they're not developers and not out to make a profit. They've been in existence since 1930 and what they do is provide scholarships, tuition, room and board, to young individuals who otherwise might not have the opportunity to attend college. These individuals have limited financial resources and many of them are first generation college students. Beasley noted he hadn't heard of the Evans Scholars Foundation until he got involved and since 1930 the Foundation has awarded young people of limited financial means 12,300 scholarships. Last year they gave approximately 340 scholarships. These are scholarships for freshmen, sophomores, junior or seniors, and are full scholarships. He noted there's a selection process, and it's quite unique as they meet these young kids because they have relationships with golf courses, young kids working as caddies at golf courses, and they get to know individuals. As part of that process they are then permitted to apply for a scholarship and there is a very strict selection process that involves academics, need and character. Once the individual gets a scholarship they have expectations from the Evans group, not only in the house, but in the community. Evans has 20 plus locations throughout the country that they own, properties in 17 major universities throughout the country such as University of Illinois, University of Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin, University of Washington in Seattle, and they just opened a house in Kansas. Beasley reiterated they have expectations for these young kids, to maintain that scholarship their GPA Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 12 of 23 has to be 3.0 or better and the average currently is 3.2. Historically, they have had a 98% graduation rate in four years with a GPA average of 3.3. 95% of their graduates are employed or in graduate school once they complete their undergraduate work. Beasley thinks Iowa City is privileged that Evans has selected Iowa City for a site to put up their scholars. There are currently 20 Evans scholars at the University of Iowa and the goal is to get a bigger facility that they can have all these young scholars under one roof and also would like to get that number up to 40 to 45, 46. He stated it is a fantastic program that's been around nearly 100 years, providing scholarships and opportunities for young kids. Regarding the staff report, Beasley supports their analysis in the recommendations. The one question that's come up and Mr. Downer, who represents the owner of the property, can address it as well is where the 19 roomers number came from. Historically, going back to the 1960s this building has had 40-45 young people in the fraternity, with the 17 parking spots. He doesn't know if the 19 is a result of the fact that it's been vacant but historically, as far back as they could find to the early 1960's, it's been that 40 to 45 range occupancy with the current parking. Evan's intent is to use and occupy that property consistent with what it had been used for since the 1960s and they're lucky that this group wants to be here and wants to maintain that historically significant property. Regarding Commissioner Carlson's question on how they came up with 46 is that for each roomer they have to have 0.7 parking spots so if they have 46 people that would be 34 spots and then with the reduction of 50% they get to 17. Beasley also answered Chairperson Baker's question and the purchase agreement is conditioned on getting the parking reduced, they would like to put 46 people in the house. Swygard asked if these individual rooming units or will more than one person be housed in a room. Beasley stated there are not 46 separate rooming units in this this house, there's spaces that can accommodate several roomers in one room. Tallman asked where the current 20 Evans Development Foundation students at the University of Iowa are living, are they in a fraternal setup or are they distributed throughout different places. Beasley replied he thinks they're distributed throughout campus so the goal is to get them all in one place. Mike Vandermeir (Evan Scholars Foundation) stated they are out of the Chicago land area in Illinois. His role is to oversee all facilities and construction for Evan Scholars Foundation. To reiterate they award full tuition and housing scholarships to deserving golf caddies of modest financial means, these will be some of the finest students on campus and some of the finest citizens in the community. Without the scholarship, they would not be able to attend the University of Iowa. As Beasley highlighted, they are not -for -profit student housing entity, these students do not pay rent. They are categorized as a fraternity or Greek because universities just don't have individual files for every type of entity out there, so they get.broadly categorized as Greek and treated as such or fraternal. They are a co-educational organization supporting both men and women in a living and learning community with incredibly successful outcomes. As their students are very limited financially many don't have access to cars while away at school, only certain students are permitted to park a vehicle on the site and any students in excess of the parking lot capabilities would have to pay for parking on campus, they would not push out into the neighborhood. Vandermeir noted in some of the places where this has become an issue, though many college towns have gotten away from parking altogether, they have rented spaces on behalf of the program to put everybody at ease and they're prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure that everybody realizes they're serious about being good neighbors and not congesting already congested neighborhoods. Most will just walk to class, these are golf Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 13 of 23 caddies and they walk a lot. Part of the criteria is certain number of qualifying caddy rounds, obviously high academic achievement," high character and volunteerism, and then they also have to have exhibited financial need in order to qualify. Of the kids that apply roughly 1/3 are awarded Evan scholarships, which again are full tuition and housing scholarships, and this is life changing for the families that receive them. Regarding relevant, realistic concerns over noise and behavior Vandermeir stated the scholars are going to be supervised by live-in graduate resident advisors, they police themselves and are substance free living with no alcoholic beverages allowed on site. He stated they have had no issues with neighbors anywhere, they don't get the police called on them, they're not loud and rowdy and wild and crazy. These kids go to work, they go to school, they study, they add value, and they're good citizens. This program just won national scholarship of the year and that's the quality of the young people that live in their houses. Vandermeir stated they have been around a long time and have never been disciplined off campus, they've never been shut down at any chapter, their properties are often award winning, and they will make this site something that the community is proud of. Carlson asked how they select people to come into the program. Vandermeir explained students have to apply for it and it's something that's well known in the caddy community. These kids will work at golf courses and country clubs where there's connections with the Evan Scholars Foundation. They have to get applications in by a certain date in order to be considered, they then go through the process, transcripts, financial statements, essays on why they should have a chance to apply for the scholarship, then there's scholarship interviews, where those that are awarded scholarships are then notified after the interview, and then they have to also be able to get into the schools that they're applying to. Carlson asked what the income level of most of the families who have students in the program. Vandermeir stated that is sensitive information, but he believes last application season was under $70,000 per household on average. Carlson noted regarding cars and the other campuses, what has the issue been if there were too many and they had to find rental space for them, is that written into their constitution, or how do they assure that will be done. Vandermeir stated that's a house by house issue, there's a couple of locations where they have enough parking for everybody but again most people don't show up with cars and a lot of their houses have zero parking spaces. They actually prefer to build at zero if they're developing in a new location. But, if it were needed and they were in excess of the 17 parking spaces, then yes, they would formalize agreements. Tallman asked where the current University of Iowa scholarship recipients are residing. Vandermeir replied that freshmen and sophomores are in dorms and others are in apartments in the area, but again their goal is to have everybody under one roof because community living is a pillar of their scholarship. Carlson asked if someone applies for this scholarship and is accepted how do they determine which school they go to. Vandermeir stated the student has to be able to get into that school. Ideally, it's preferential if they're able to attend schools in -state, that give the best tuition rate, the best bang for the buck, every dollar that they spend and invest in these communities is donated so they're careful about spending and try to be good stewards. When they apply for the scholarship the kids will put down what schools they've applied to and been accepted in, and then if there's available space in the scholarship houses at those schools then there's a much higher chance that they'll be able to end up there. Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 14 of 23 Carlson asked if they would require the current students vacate the dorms and apartments and move into the rooming house. Vandermeir replied yes, their goal has always been to have everybody living in a community together, it's just part of who they are, and that also includes graduate resident advisors that will live in the house and have supervisory roles. Carlson asked if the students get their meals there also. Vandermeir explained that is a little bit different depending on location, they don't serve food in the houses often so what they'll typically do the scholars get meal jobs at sororities and as part of that they could make some money and also often get free food. If they're able to purchase meal plans, they'll purchase meal plans and if somebody can't afford that they find a way to make sure that people eat, but they are not planning on serving food in the house at this time. Some places bring in food from the outside, so it's more serving of food and not an operational cooking kitchen. Tallman asked if they have 30 students currently at the University of Iowa and 10 more coming in, how many residents to graduate resident advisors do they typically have. Vandermeir stated they would plan on having two in the house. Tallman noted she is concerned about deliveries more than onsite parking, with so many people using DoorDash and 46 individuals hungry at different times, that incline on Dubuque Street, she concerned about any negative effects of a delivery vehicle stopping on Dubuque Street for a delivery and sifting there and waiting and causing problems. She noted there's probably a way around that like making sure that deliveries actually come into the driveway and pull up into the parking lot instead of just sitting on the street with lights blinking. Tallman also asked about the floor plans and noted there are only seven toilets for 46 people. Vandermeir explained the bathroom situation is something that they would address in interior renovations. He stated with renovations they build things the right way that's built to last and need to do the bulk of their renovations on the interior. They would refresh the exterior, with respect to the neighborhood right now it's overgrown and needs some love and some investment. They're prepared to make that investment but wouldn't radically change the outside, they would restore it. Vandermeir also added that with regard to individual bedrooms in the house there's some single occupancy, but for the most part, it's double, triple occupancy. Carlson noted regarding the student going to sororities or other places to get a job, can they get other kinds of jobs, are they allowed to work besides going to school. Vandermeir replied they are, their grades have to stay at a certain level or else they'll fall into probationary territory. They are allowed to work, these are not kids that are showing up with moms and dads credit cards. Mike Welch (Shoemaker and Holland) is the civil engineer working with Evan Scholars Foundation on the property. Regarding the couple questions that came up earlier on the parking feasibility on that site, everything west of the existing driveway and parking lot falls off very quickly down to the river and then from the parking lot and the building down to the backyard of the property, there's a couple sets of stairs there and he estimates that's a 12 to 15 foot drop off. So if they looked at adding parking on the west side of the building, they would have to find a way to get vehicles down there, and then back up. It is just a very challenging site parking wise. They really tried every possible combination to expand that parking lot or find a way to squeeze Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 15 of 23 a few more cars in, and there just really isn't any more space in that lot, Welch also wanted to point out looking at the aerial photography available from Johnson County over the last few decades, in most cases there's more than 17 cars parked there. People are parked parallel on the driveway and they're double parked and tandem parked. They're parked in spots making others unable to get their cars out. Carlson asked if this property flooded in 2008. Welch believes parts of the yard did but the building does sit up quite a bit from the river. Carlson asked if there would be assigned parking spaces, or first come, first serve. Vandermeir replied they are assigned and would be given a house parking permit. Welsch added with the question of deliveries, there is space with the 17 cars in the parking lot to still turn around and get back out so deliveries will have plenty of room. Bob Downer has some personal knowledge with respect to this property, from having lived across the street for approximately four years from 1957 to 1961 and was in this property a number of times because of friends that live there. The occupancy during that period of time would have been in the 40s, that house was packed and some of the pictures showed parking there that was somewhat irregular and likely exceeded the applicable restrictions at that time. Downer stated there have been many more people that have lived there than the 17 or 19 that was talked about earlier. Downer is here as the attorney for the Phi Delta Theta House Association, the owner of this property, and have represented them for approximately two years as they first looked toward rejuvenating the chapter that had gone off campus, in part because of some disciplinary issues with the University of Iowa and also with some dissension apparently within the membership. Their goal when at first started was to reactivate this chapter and get a sufficient number of members there to occupy the house and support it financially. It became clear during the course of reviewing this it was not something that was feasible, for a period of time it looked like it might be but then those plans didn't come to fruition. The next thing that they looked at after trying to reconstitute the chapter was to find some use for it that would preserve the building and to maintain the structure roughly in its present configuration, and not see it demolished and more apartments constructed, which was true of a fraternity that adjoined this property on the south some years ago. So, when Evans Scholars manifested an interest in this property this was felt to be a perfect marriage between the interests of the seller and the buyer. It so happened that Downer had some knowledge with respect to the Evans Scholars Foundation because that's an organization that has been supported for many years by the Western Golf Association and he has good friend who's a lawyer in Bloomington, Indiana, who has served on the board of the Western Golf Association and spoke to Downer a number of years ago about the wonderful things that they were doing and wondered about the possibility of establishing a chapter on the University of Iowa campus. He noted these chapters are largely centered in the Midwest and in Big 10 institutions, not entirely but the vast majority of them do have a Big 10 location. Things Downer has learned about the Evans Scholars Foundation over the years is that they attract high quality young people who would not be able to afford a college education otherwise, and that they go out and contribute to their communities and are solid citizens. Downer thinks this would be an excellent addition to the University of Iowa, permitting them to have a location where all of their scholars could be housed under one roof. He stated the plans going forward are being developed by Evans and their team, Downer is just here on behalf of the seller to indicate support for this and also provide a little additional background. Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 16 of 23 Tallman asked how Downer would compare car ownership at college in the late 1950s, early 1960s, compared to now, how many students came to college with a car. Downer replied it was a significant number, parking has been a significant problem in Iowa City for as long as he's been around. Jeff Clark (414 East Market Street) wanted to state this property is a beautiful property, he was involved with the Phi Delta Thetas back in the 1990s and it would be good to see it revitalized and used again. As far as the number of occupants back then, when he was involved as a member of Phi Delta Theta there was essentially between 30 and 40 members that lived in the house. Parking hasn't changed, it wasn't really a problem with that limited number of spaces. As far as putting parking in the backyard, that would destroy the look. He hopes that the Board approves this. Jessie Singerman (219 Ronalds St.) lives a couple blocks from this property and wanted to say a couple of things with all due respect to the people that have spoken. She knows the fraternal orders aren't developers and they're not in it for the profit, but they've heard the same type of conversation about members of other fraternities in the area, in terms of the young people who live there and their character and so on. But truth be told the people who've spoken won't be living in the house and there are significant problems in the north side neighborhood due to a number of the fraternities there and the rental properties. The house might have been crowded in the 1960s, but the whole neighborhood is now crowded in 2025 and a lot of residential properties have been turned into rooming houses for students and so on. Singerman noted last fall where she lives, which is in the middle of the block, in her alley there's something like 50 cars parked between the fraternities and the rooming houses. They have a serious problem with noise. Also, with parking in particular on this property the reality is there might have been 17 parking spots there but there were way more than 17 cars in that lot, and they were double parked in back of each other. There was no room to turn around, they were parked up the driveway and would have to coordinate with each other to get in and out. It's a dangerous spot to turn into or out of onto Dubuque Street and what tends to happen is not so much that cars stop to make deliveries, but they try to make a left turn into the property and they have to stop and wait for the traffic to be able to turn so in the meantime traffic backs up on Dubuque Street so there will be more congestion with this issue, particularly if there are 46 people living there. Additionally, most people have cars these days, low income people have cars, most of the students who come to the University have a car. The cars have to go somewhere and typically if they don't have a parking spot then they go park on the street on the north side. Singerman noted she has had service providers that won't come to her home because there is no parking during the day. In particular, during the school year she has people come to work on her house and they have to park on the lawn because there is no parking. If she has guests coming she typically has to move her car out of her parking spot onto the street so people can park at her house where she usually parks. She is not making this up, it is a serious issue. Singerman understands this is a worthy objective and these kids sound really, really great, however if the developer wants to have 46 people there, they should be required to provide parking in accordance with the code. Robin Christianson (721 North Linn Street) lives between Ronald and Brown Streets and the alley that goes straight down from Linn Street to Dubuque Street is a busy alley for cars coming through. Brown Street and Ronald Street are crowded so people decide to zip down that alley to Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 17 of 23 get onto Dubuque Street and that's a problem. Her concern is 46 people and possibly a lot of cars and their neighborhood is already congested with cars. Christianson noted when people are looking for parking at night, or even during the day, there's a lot of noise, and they have been subjected to an incredible amount of disturbances during the day and at night. The thought of having more people without parking, parking up on Linn and beyond, and walking down on Ronald Street or their alley, because they're probably not going to walk down Brown Street because that's very steep, is really just very disturbing and it is a problem. Christiansen asks that the Board take this seriously and really hopes that they do not allow 46 people to move in there. She acknowledges that they are nice people, but the students who are around them now have been a lot of problems, and they're trying to work it out with the University, the police, City, the fraternity organizations, and really hopes that these people stay to 19 and not bring more cars and congestion and disturbance to their neighborhood. Kim Miller (721 North Linn Street) wanted to say he is impressed with the Evans Scholars and it sounds like a pretty good organization with quality kids moving into the neighborhood. However, having said that, that's not really the concern and it doesn't have anything to do with the variance that they're asking for. The reality is that there is a code for a reason. Right across the street from this property is 702 Dubuque Street which is also a fraternity, and it's also got a parking variance. There are 35 kids in that property and there are 10-13 parking spaces so there's already an issue with them finding parking spots. Adding another 40 kids into that neighborhood is going to exacerbate the problems that they see right now. Miller stated they run a bed and breakfast and their guests don't really appreciate being woken up at 2am on Thursday nights. It's like a clock going off, it's every Thursday night when the bars close, the guys in the fraternity come walking home and they are not quiet. They're in a good mood and having a good time, but they're walking down the alley and they're waking their guests up. With additional people parking in the neighborhood Miller stated they can be pretty confident that the problem is going to get worse and it does negatively impact the neighborhood, contrary to what the City staff seems to have determined without talking to any of the residents in the area. Miller asks that the Board not go along with this variance. There's the assumption that they have to expand the number of kids in that building for it to be a viable arrangement but likely no one has considered that the current number of people, 20, in that facility is probably totally fine. It's the assumption that they got to go to 46 because they have an ability to do a 50% variance is kind of a funny assumption. Baker asked if the existing parking problem in that neighborhood is such that there really is no parking in that neighborhood. Miller replied that there is parking at night because it's an odd and even neighborhood so after 5pm anybody can park anywhere until 8am and not get ticketed. However, if a car is on the wrong side of the street at 8am, they are likely to get a ticket. So that means those looking for parking are going to have to go further east to find parking and probably create the problem of late night conversations and disruptions. Vandermeir stated that nationally, with over 1200 getting close to 1300 kids in school, less than half of their kids are coming to campus with cars. All he can say is they will have 17 cars in that lot, permitted by their organization, and any overflow would have to be on campus or other parking arrangements that are paid for. That is what they do nationally. He stated they have 95 kids at University of Wisconsin with zero parking spaces and they're not all parking in the street, most of them didn't bring cars, and the few that did have paid parking arrangements elsewhere. He empathizes with the concerns and can only reiterate that they are different. They're in a lot of different college towns and parking is a huge problem everywhere, but they are a different Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 18 of 23 type of organization. Carlson noted one of the concerns is noise and wanting a calm and peaceful neighborhood, does their facilities have hours or how do they deal with things like coming home at 2am on Thursday nights. Vandermeir acknowledged college campuses come alive on Thursday nights, their houses are supervised and have two graduate resident advisors at a minimum on each property and then an additional person assigned to watch the help desk and front door. They usually try to follow whatever noise ordinances in the area and make the houses quiet down, they can't do anything about what the neighbors do, but they try to police their own and try to play by the rules. Carlson asked if residents are too loud do they get reprimanded. Vandermeir replied they try to run a tight ship and he thinks they're the very best at what they do. They are in a lot of different neighborhoods and don't typically have issues. There are penalty systems for people that don't follow the rules, they do get fined internally and they do the best they can to police it. Singerman reiterated again, with no disrespect to the people who've spoken, what they have found is once these things are approved there is no accountability for the students in the houses, it's very hard to find any entity that actually has any control or any supervision of them. It may candidly sound good, but what actually happens is that the University has limits on what they can and will do, the police have limits on what they can and will do and they've had a very hard time finding anyone to actually hold student behavior to any level of accountability. Baker closed the public hearing. Carlson moved to recommend approval of EXC25-0004, to reduce the onsite parking requirement by 50% (from 34 to 17 parking spaces) for a Fraternal Group Living use at 729 North Dubuque Street. Swygard seconded the motion. Tallman acknowledged she is real familiar with situations like this, where there's property that is causing problems with the neighborhood, anything from trash delivery before seven in the morning to garbage not being properly disposed of and she has heard many promises during those years from developers. She wants to believe that there's a better way of doing things and it's always the case that some landlords or entities or fraternities are more responsive than others and some property owners have a good grip on the behavior of their tenants so that they don't get problems called into them, but her experience at the City of Iowa City with multifamily housing and fraternities and all that's associated with that she is familiar. Having someone who is really, truly accountable in a circumstance where there is a negative impact on a neighborhood is refreshing. It's not unheard of and she feels like this group is presenting at least a different mode of operation than what they've seen in some other instances. Tallman also acknowledged once a particular type of use is approved on a site under a condition that subsequent uses can come in, and as long as they don't change the population or the use, they don't always have the same entities having control over the property. Therefore, the decision that this Board makes, the thing that they need to remember, is that they're not just approving this for the Evans Foundation they're approving it for use that could continue if the Evans Foundation sells the property. She stated she is conflicted a little bit, she used to live in that neighborhood, and lived there for a long time so is very familiar with the parking problems, noise Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 19 of 23 problems, that exact alley and is hoping that Dubuque Street buffers and the fact that this property is across the street means less likely impacts to the existing situation on the east side of Dubuque Street. Swygard agrees about the conflict about approving the amount of parking reduction for this use knowing in the future other owners may not be as careful with how they intend to handle the parking. She is very sympathetic with the neighbors but because Dubuque Street is wider now maybe it will provide some buffer. In her own part of town they are experiencing and will experience more the pressure of multifamily parking, and people do come into other neighborhoods to park, she knows that firsthand and experiences it, so that is a real big conflict for her. To go up to this maximum number of people in the house, 46, seems like a big jump. Carlson noted this was a fraternity and this is a big house, so 40 probably is an appropriate population. The question is if they do not let this group come in with 40, who else is going to come in and do they want to lose this building and have it torn down and another apartment house built. There are a lot of things to be weighed here. She loves these old buildings and wants to see them stay. She wants to see groups come into them that respect the neighborhood. She lives on Jefferson Street and knows all about traffic and all about noise so can understand what the neighbors are talking about. She is wondering if there is a way that they can have this populated with a reasonable amount of people, which probably is 40, and still answer some of the things that the neighbors are concerned about. Carlson would like to see a rider or something put in that all people who live in the house, if they have a car, have to have it registered and the people who own the property have to find another place for them to park their car. This group has said that this is something that they're willing to do, but it would be a way of protecting it if they moved out and someone else moved in to protect the neighbors. She wants to find a compromise between the neighbors and the people here so that they can make this building work. She is also concerned about noise and perhaps a rider can be added for that as well. This would protect the neighborhood in the future, by adding conditions to the approval. Tallman asked if they are supposed to focus themselves today on this application, and not who's going to continue this particular use in the future or is that something they can be considering with this application. Dulek replied it's about the what, not the who. So if it's granted for tonight, it can be for any other entity so if the Board wants to put conditions on for parking and can tie that to the special exception that would be imposed on the property so a subsequent user would have to adhere to it as well they can. Baker ask a question about possible language for this concern approving this condition on the fact that the owner would be obligated to provide 17 offsite parking places through a permit process or whatever. Carlson stated they should be required to provide designated parking elsewhere for any number over 17. Baker asked where would be that offsite parking be, in a parking ramp, where are they going to find this and are they going to provide offsite parking in a ramp 10 blocks away, is that a reasonable condition for the residents of this particular location. He stated people have a permit to park over at x ramp but really wants to park closer so they will still cruise the streets looking for parking so he is not sure this condition is a solution. Swygard agreed, when she was in college and living in the dorm she had parking at the lot clear out by the sports center but found parking on the streets. Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 20 of 23 Baker is very self-conscious about creating a solution that's not really a solution to the problem, it sounds good on paper but it doesn't really solve the problem. He does not feel they can obligate the applicant to add parking spaces as that defeats the purpose of the code. He doesn't want to sound unsympathetic, but he doesn't think this application exacerbates the current problem in any noticeable way. Allowing 46 people in this place with 17 parking places is not going to change the problem in that neighborhood or exacerbate it in any noticeable degree. Tallman agreed, they are all familiar with the problems of parking in Iowa City and it's not a problem that the applicant has brought in upon themselves. Baker stated there are advantages to approving this as presented and the advantages of that are mitigating against the possible problems. He thinks this is the right application for this site at this time under these conditions and these restrictions. Tallman stated regarding agenda item EXC25-0004 she does concur with the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report of July 9, 2025, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this exception. Swygard seconded the findings. Carlson would hope that this group would be respectful of the neighborhood and thinks they probably will be but she wants to make sure that the neighborhood has a voice and that they know that the Board hears them and appreciates what they put up with on a daily basis. She wants to make that known clearly that is her concern, it is not that she doesn't want to see this happen, because she does, and this is probably the best solution for this building, she just doesn't want the neighbors to be negatively affected by it. A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-0-1 (Carlson abstained). Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. DISCUSSION ON CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES: Russett noted this discussion item was a request that the Board made after reviewing the application for the drive through at 21 Sturgis Corner which included a condition that staff recommended about paying a fee for the sidewalk to be installed by the City at a later date, and there were lots of questions about how the City accepts fees. Russett prepared a memo that was included in the agenda packet that gives some other examples of fees that the City collects and how they're spent. She stated some have deadlines for when the fees need to be spent, like the neighborhood open space fee which is collected and then must be spent within five years. Other examples, like the affordable housing in lieu fee which applies in the Riverfront Crossings District, the City accumulates the fund but there's no deadline for when it needs to be spent. Fees for in lieu of parking also have no deadline for when that must be spent and then there are cost sharing fees for street upgrades, which happen at the subdivision process, where, in certain instances staff will recommend approval of a subdivision but the applicant must provide a fee to the City for future construction of a roadway, or share the cost of a future Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 21 of 23 construction of the roadway that the City will take on at a later date. Tallman stated when she read this over the summary it was very helpful but the question that remained was what mechanism triggered the ability to require a fee for installing a sidewalk, it wasn't a subdivision approval, it wasn't a neighborhood open space situation, it wasn't any of these examples specifically. Russett explained the example with 21 Sturgis Corner was a condition of the approval of the special exception. Staff recommended the fee in that instance, and staff could also recommend a fee as part of a condition of a rezoning. Baker asked for clarification on the neighborhood open space fee, it says fees collected must be spent within five years within the specific parkland district period, so what happens after five years if it is not spent. Russett stated then the fees would be returned. Baker asked then regarding the affordable housing in lieu of, there's no deadline by which the fees must be spent so the money is kept in perpetuity until the City spends it. Russett confirmed that was correct. With parking in lieu, the developer must pay a fee for each space otherwise required, he is familiar with this because they did that a lot in planning and zoning, so that fee goes to the parking system. Russett noted in general, it's a fee to not provide a space on site so then the City uses that money for parking ramps but that doesn't guarantee the developer a specific spot in the ramps, it's just contributing to the overall system. Baker asked if Russett has any idea of the amount of money that's currently being held that's with no deadlines. Russett is not sure what is currently being held for parking but for the affordable housing in lieu fee it's a significant amount of money in the millions of dollars, and the reason for that is they need to save it to spend on an affordable housing project. They will have to buy land, construct a multifamily building and that's millions of dollars so they need to accumulate a significant amount of money before they can actually spend. Baker doesn't disagree with that his original concern was based on the idea that the City was taking money in advance for work that was to be done. So why doesn't the City just collect the money when they do the work. Assess that property and collect the fee. Dulek stated Iowa City just doesn't do special assessments like that, but Coralville does. Baker asked when there's sidewalk repairs required in Iowa City they just send the property owner a bill. Dulek confirmed that is correct but explained that's a type of assessment, but it's not for the construction of new right of way or new sidewalks, it's the repair of an existing sidewalk. Baker noted there's a bookkeeping issue and a financial issue, the City is not spending the money until they actually do the right of way work so they don't need the money before then, but when the work is done somebody could be assessed the cost of their share of that work. Dulek stated there are special assessment processes that they can go through but they are cumbersome, they are expensive, and owners don't like it. Baker noted there are two options, they can pay now for work that's going to be done indefinitely in the future, or they can pay when the work is done and the City is saying the owners prefer the pay in advance. Dulek stated that is just how the City does it, plus if the right of way gets put in in five years, the current owner may not own the property and there's no way to do a future lien on somebody else on a City right of way. Tallman stated to speak from an enforcement recollection, it's a lot better guarantee to get that Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 22 of 23 money up front. She also noted it seems that it would behoove the City to do the work sooner, to not delay it unnecessarily because that fee is going to be based on the 2025 cost of labor and materials and so if it's 2030 when the work is actually done, the fee might cover half of what it costs. She stated practically speaking it's much simpler for the City to get the money up front as a condition of getting a building permit than it is to try to chase it down later. Baker noted it would be better for the City to then collect the fee at the time of construction rather than earlier if the cost of labor and materials are going to be more. Tallman said that would work if it was as easy to collect in five years as it is to collect the fee at the time of a building permit that might be a reasonable argument. CONSIDER MARCH 12. 2025 MINUTES: Carlson moved to approve the minutes of March 12, 2025. Tallman seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0 (Swygard not present for vote). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Dulek noted the State passed a bill that requires all board and commission members to attend a training. It'll be probably 90 minutes and the State is putting together the training so there'll be more information forthcoming. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm. Board of Adjustment July 9, 2025 Page 23 of 23 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2025 NAME TERM EXP. 7/12 11 /8 12/13 3/13 4/10 8/22 10/1011 /13 1 /8 2/20 3112 1] 9 BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X X X X X X X X X X X X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X X X X X O/E O/E - -- - SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X O/E TALLMAN, JULIE 12/31/2029 - - - -- X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member Item Number: 4.c. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QR T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 16, 2025 Climate Action Commission: August 4 Attachments: Climate Action Commission: August 4 MINUTES IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION AUGUST 4 — 4:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Emma Bork, Jamie Gade, Ben Grimm, Zach Haralson, Nadja Krylov, Wim Murray, Brinda Shetty, Michelle Sillman, Robert Traer MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Anderson, Angie Smith STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Gardner, Diane Platte, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Gade called the meeting to order at 4:00. APPROVAL OF JUNE 2. 2025 MINUTES: Haralson moved to approve the minutes, Krylov seconded, and the motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Action items from last meeting (staff): none Events: • Cooling station at National Night Out, Aug. 5, 5:30-8 p.m. - Wetherby Park • Volunteer Bike/Ped Count, Sept. 9-11 • Climate Fest, Sept. 19-25. Event descriptions and details at icgov.org/climatefest o Pop -Up Pocket Park, Sept. 19, 3:30-5:30 p.m., City Hall o Drive Electric Car Show, Sept. 20, 7:30 a.m.-noon, Farmers Market o Solar Energy Art Show and Tour, Sept. 22, 4-6:30 p.m., Airport o Tending Iowa's Land Read Aloud, Sept. 23, 10 a.m.-2 p.m., Lagoon Shelter House o Resilience Hub Hang Out, Sept. 24, 5-8 p.m., Bike Library o Film Screening, Sept. 25, 6:30-8 p.m., Dream City • Other events in the community (commissioners): none NEW BUSINESS: Discussed legislative changes pertaining to open meetings law training requirements and increased penalties. Currently state law requires the trainings for new appointees to boards and commissions, though the city is asking all appointees to participate in the trainings as a refresher and to ensure everyone receives the same baseline of information. • Open Meetings Laws Trainings: August 26, September 10, and September 24. Gardner will email commissioners with a reminder when sign-up portal reopens. Commission members were asked Climate Action Commission August 2025 Page 2 of 5 to send a certificate of completion to Gardner to keep on file. An email in agenda packet summarizes the necessity of Open Meetings law training. OLD BUSINESS: Comprehensive Plan Discussion with Anne Russett • Gardner invited commissioners to discuss issues of density, transportation, floodplain, and other comp plan considerations as they relate to climate. Russett answered questions that arose. • Commissioners discussed different approaches to density: a highly dense middle and less dense areas elsewhere vs. a mix of densities in all new development o Krylov suggested a highly dense center would create more pedestrians, a favorable outcome for climate o Traer suggested current bus system could be seen as a template for development, and the availability of free Cambus is a community feature that should be more known. o Sillman noted her neighborhood has mixed density, an environment that has desirability/advantages. Bike lanes are beginning to better serve the area, and there are green spaces and dining options nearby. o Haralson pointed out neighborhood centers on the map. Densifying around neighborhood centers would make the effort more deliberate than using vacant lots for upzoning (because vacant lots become available haphazardly). o Gardner summarized the emerging consensus as promoting medium density neighborhoods around employment center "nodes" and along bus lines connecting them. The Commission affirmed this description. • Commissioners asked Russett to define upzoning. Upzoning allows more intensity of development, i.e. single-family to multi -family or single-family to commercial. o Krylov asked how upzoning affects property values of adjacent properties. Russett noted no evidence of property values declining. Gardner asked whether consideration was generally given to character of the neighborhood, and Russett affirmed it was. o Gardner summarized the emerging consensus as are agreeable to upzoning if it is thoughtfully done within the character of the neighborhood. The Commission affirmed this summary. • Commissioners discussed land use along the river. o Gade voiced support for the current language that protects green space by the river. o Sillman described a community that thoughtfully designed streets around the flood zone, using natural areas as buffers. o Gardner asked commissioners to identify an area in town where green space and commercial space interact well. Krylov suggested not all commercial development should be allowed in the floodplain, but commercial development that is set back from the river and supports its enjoyment by cyclists and pedestrians could be beneficial. trails. Haralson identified Riverfront Crossings Park as a successful design in this regard in that it integrates the park as a buffer between the river, with a mix of residential and commercial development situated beyond it. Bork joined the meeting. Climate Action Commission August 2025 Page 3 of 5 o Commissioners discussed whether development in the 500-year floodplain should be allowed if the structures are raised one foot above flood level as is currently allowed, or should future development be prohibited from that area similar to the 100-year floodplain. Shetty asked Russett to describe best practices for cities similar to Iowa City regarding development along the floodplain. Russett shared it would be unusual to prohibit all development in the floodplain, but it is not uncommon to see cities try to transform previously flooded residential areas into parkland. Gardner described regulations that allow buildings in the floodplain if designed to allow floodwaters to flow through unimpeded and described efforts to adapt floodplain development to the changing climate. o Gade suggested the potential risks to residents such as having their property stranded residents during a flood might outweigh any benefit of building in floodplain, while for businesses that might be less of a concern. Krylov noted the expense of insurance. Bork asked to see a floodplain map. One can be reached via icgov.org/flood. The Commission looked at the floodplain map, noting the extent of impacted areas. Russett left the meeting. o Gardner asked commissioners if floodplain regulation should include creeks as well as rivers, noting historically cities have not regulated creeks in the same way but with increasing flooding seen in creeks, some long term planning could be necessary. Gade suggested talking to neighbors who live along creeks to work out areas of priority. Sillman asked how many creeks are in Iowa City, and expressed concern based on prior experiences in another community about residents being at risk as a result of being unaware of the flood history of their properties. o Gardner summarized the emerging consensus as moving toward treating the 500-year floodplain the same as the 100-year floodplain. Commissioners agreed generally, but decided to not make a formal recommendation on new development in the floodplain for lack of specialized knowledge but instead offered a set of considerations to guide future development: ■ How would insurance factor into cost? ■ To what degree can the city regulate the type of commercial and industrial development that could be allowed and factors related to potential downstream impacts from those entities in the event of a flood? o Gardner asked to return to the question of buyouts in terms of treating creeks similarly to rivers and if some distinctions should be made. Krylov asked about flood management in terms of regulating the flow of water versus regulating the development in the floodplain, and Gardner noted the management of rivers falls to the Corps of Engineers, while the management of structures in the floodplain falls to cities. Shetty asked about the number of residences potentially impacted by buyouts and how it might impact the current housing shortage. o Gardner summarized the emerging consensus as not pursuing proactive buyouts along the creeks but to consider buyouts for those properties similar to river -affected properties should they be impacted by flooding. The Commission affirmed this summary. • Commissioners discussed multimodal transportation. Climate Action Commission August 2025 Page 4 of 5 o Haralson noted that rail should be part of the mix in addition to bus, bike, and walking modes, to keep that discussion alive. • Commissioners discussed EV charging vision. o Traer advocated to keep chargers downtown but not add chargers to peripheral areas unless user is likely to stay (i.e. grocery shopping). o Krylov noted that Iowa City has the most charging stations of any city in Iowa and suggested adding charging stations to parks might be unnecessary, raising concerns about the costs of EVs. o Haralson asked how far into the future the plan is supposed to extend, and Gardner answered 10-20 years. o Sillman suggested EV chargers at workplaces makes sense in addition to multifamily dwellings and asked if there was a way for the city to encourage charging at workplaces. Gardner shared that climate action staff have also considered wither churches could be incentivized to host EV charging stations, as a building type that is widely distributed with parking areas that could serve neighborhood needs for charging during weekdays. o Gardner offered to share EV registration data pulled for the regional climate action plan with Commission members as well as current pricing information on EVs to help provide some context for future discussions and suggested continuing the discussion at the next meeting with a question as to how EV charging amenities might fit into the concept of the 15-minute city. Continued discussion of the prioritization scoring of Accelerating Iowa City's Climate Actions Plan was deferred to the September meeting. • Gardner suggested having nearly completed the prioritization scoring for the action items related to buildings, it could be possible to move more swiftly through the action items related to transportation. She asked Commission member to review the update provided on the transportation items and assign preliminary scores and note any questions on the score sheet provided in the agenda packet. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: • None RECAP: Confirmation of next meeting time and location: • Monday, September 8, 4-5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall Actionable items for commission and staff: • Gardner will send an email reminder to sign up for the Open Meetings training. Gardner will ask parking staff to follow up on Dubuque ramp EV charger issues. Gardner will share EV data that might be helpful for continuing the discussion. Commissioners will think about transportation items and how to score them. ADJOURNMENT: Sillman moved to adjourn, Shetty seconded, and the motion carried. Meeting adjourned 5:30. 4 Climate Action Commission August 2025 Page 5 of 5 CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-25 CO l0 00 N F- N F- N W A V'1 Ql CO NAME TERM EXP. U, N W N V N00 �' N N 0) N W N W N V N U, N N N A N A A A A AU, cn cn cn cn cn cn Michael 12/31/2025 O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E Anderson Emma Bork 12/31/2026 O/E X X X X O/E X Michal Eynon- 12/31/2024 O/E X X X X Lynch John Fraser 12/31/2024 X X X O/E O/E Jamie Gade 12/31/2025 X O/ X O/E X X X X O/E X X X E Ben Grimm 10/31/2026 O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X Zach Haralson 12/31/2025 X O/ X X X X X X X X X X E Nadja Krylov 12/31/2026 X O/E X X X X X Wim Murray MiclAmerican X X X X O/E X O/E X X O/E X X Rep Michelle Sillman 12/31/20025 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X Brinda Shetty UI Rep O/E X X X X X X X X X X X Angie Smith 12/31/2025 X X O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E O/E Gabe Sturdevant 12/31/2024 X X X O/E X rRobert Traer 12/31/2026 X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused NM= No Meeting * No longer on Commission Item Number: 4.d. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 16, 2025 Community Police Review Board: August 12 [See Recommendations] Attachments: Community Police Review Board: August 12 [See Recommendations] r �,.®p� CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Connie McCurdy, Community Police Review Board Staff Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board At their August 12, 2025, meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following rec- ommendation(s) to the City Council: (1) Accept CPRB Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) Annual Report (2) Accept Public Report for CPRB Complaint #25-01 Additional action check one ® No further action needed ❑ Board or Commission is requesting direction from City Council ❑ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for City Council action CPRB — Final Minutes Approved by Chair Jensen August 12, 2025 Page 1 Community Police Review Board Final Minutes — August 12, 2025 Call to Order: Chair Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Colette Atkins, David Schwindt, Maurine Braddock Melissa Jensen, Audrey Moeller Members Absent: Jessica Hobart -Collis Staff Present: Staff Connie McCurdy, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford Others Present: Police Chief Dustin Liston Recommendations to City Council: • Accept CPRB Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) Annual Report ■ Accept Public Report for CPRB Complaint #25-01 Consent Calendar: • Draft minutes from the July 8, 2025, meeting Motion by Schwindt, seconded by Atkins to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Motion passed 510. Hobart -Collis was absent. Correspondence: Motion by Atkins, seconded by Schwindt to accept correspondence from Mary McCann included in the late handouts. Motion passed 510. Hobart -Collis was absent. New Business: Police training on search warrants using Electronic Document Management Systems (EDMS): Board member Braddock asked Police Chief Liston if search and arrest warrants are used and how much time it takes to get one. Liston said that it takes a while due to the amount of paperwork to be completed and the time it takes for the warrant to be reviewed by the County Attorney's office and a Judge. Complainants who frequently contact police for scenarios that should go through DHS or other social service agencies: Chair Jensen stated that this topic has been an item on previous agendas. Board member Braddock mentioned that those who frequently contact police can create frustration for the officers and she thinks it would be helpful for the officers to suggest to the complainants to review police policies and procedures as opposed to getting into a heated back and forth conversation. CPRB — Final Minutes Approved by Chair Jensen August 12, 2025 Page 2 Draft FY25 Annual Report: Chair Jensen asked to have FY defined in the report as Fiscal Year with the date, and the City Code for summary dismissals be added as a reference. Motion by Moeller, seconded by Schwindt to accept the draft FY25 annual report as amended and forward to City Council. Motion passed 510. Hobart -Collis was absent. Old Business: None. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda: Mary McCann thanked the Board for all they have done. Board Information: Board member Atkins thanked her peers for the good work they've done and for answering all her questions. Board member Braddock thanked everyone for their patience in answering her questions. Board member Schwindt commented on how much he enjoyed their conversations during the meetings. Staff Information: Police Chief Liston mentioned that at the August 5, 2025, Council meeting, the Council directed staff to draft an ordinance to dissolve the Community Police Review Board (CPRB). Liston mentioned that he and the City Manager will work on plans for what will be done in place of the CPRB. Liston thanked the Board members for all the work they've done over the years. Future Meetings (subiect to change): None. Executive Session: Motion by Braddock, seconded by Atkins, 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: 5:58 p.m. CPRB — Final Minutes Approved by Chair Jensen August 12, 2025 Page 3 Return to ❑ en Session: Returned to open session: 6:36 p.m. Motion by Schwindt, seconded by Atkins to accept the draft of the public report for complaint #25-01 as amended and forward to City Council. Motion carried 5/0. Hobart -Collis was absent. Adjournment: Motion by Atkins, seconded by Moeller to adjourn. Motion carried 510. Hobart -Collis was absent. Meeting adjourned: 6:37 p.m. Community Police Review Board Attendance Record Year 2024-2025 'term 10/16/24 Name isx tires 10/08/24 Forum 11/12/24 12/10/24 01/14/25 02/11/25 03/11/25 04/15/25 05/13/25 06/10/25 07/08/25 08/12/25 Colette Atkins 06/30/28 X X X X X X X O/E X X O/E X Maurine Braddock 06/30/26 --- - _.- _- _-_ -- X X X X X Ricky Downing 06/30/26 X O/E O/E O/E O/E -- - - --- ___ Jessica Hobart- 06/30/26 X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E Collis Melissa Jensen 06/30/25 X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X Jerri MacConnell 06/30/27 X X X X O/E X O/E X -- -" --' Saul Mekies 06/30/25 X X X O/E X X X X X O/E --- --- Audrey oeler 06/30/29 --- -" - " """ --- X X [Davi'd chwindt 06/30/28 X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E =Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting --- = Not a Member COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD FISCAL YEAR 2025 (FY25) ANNUAL REPORT GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Established in 1997, by ordinance #97-3792, the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board formerly known as Citizens Police Review Board and now known as Community Police Review Board (hereafter referred as the CPRB), consisted of five members appointed by the City Council. In February of 2022, the Board increased to seven members as per ordinance #22-4873. The Board was established to review investigations into claims of police misconduct, and to assist the Police Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council in evaluating the overall performance of the Police Department by reviewing the Police Department's investigations into complaints. The Board is also required to maintain a central registry of complaints and to provide an annual report setting forth the numbers, types, and disposition of complaints of police misconduct. The Board shall hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. To achieve these purposes, the Board complies with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code and the Board's By -Laws and Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FY 2025 (July 1, 2024 — June 30, 2025) Meetings The CPRB tentatively holds monthly meetings on the second Tuesday and special meetings as necessary. During FY25 the Board held 13 meetings which included 1 Community Forum. ICPD Policies/Procedures/Practices Reviewed By CPRB The ICPD regularly provided the Board with monthly Use of Force Reports, Internal Investigation Logs, Demographic Reports, and various Training Bulletins. The Department also provided various General Orders for the Board's review and comment. A senior member of the Police Department routinely attended the open portion of the CPRB meetings and was available for any questions Board members had regarding these reports. Presentations In October 2024 the Board held its 17th Community Forum required by the City Charter. Board members introduced themselves and shared a summary of the Board duties. No correspondence was received from the public. The forum was then opened to the public_ Topics of discussion included what is the Board's authority, what is the role of the Staff Attorney, has the Board ever subpoenaed anyone, the amount of time police spend on matters not associated with police work, concerns about bicycles and scooters on sidewalks in the Ped Mall area, cameras not available to attest to an accident, the importance of the Board to the community, the possibility of mediation between the complainant and the officer, procedures and follow-up, and the Board's responsibilities beyond complaints and into advocacy at the City or State level. Board Members In October 2024 officers were nominated and voted on with Saul Mekies as Chair and Jerri MacConnell as Vice -Chair. Ricky Downing resigned from the Board in January 2025, and Maurine Braddock was appointed to fill the remainder of his term. Jerri MacConnell resigned from the Board in May 2025, and to date, no appointment has been made to fill the remainder of her term. Saul Mekies's term ended June 30, 2025, and Audrey Moeller was appointed to replace him. Due to the resignation of MacConnell and the completed term for Mekies, officers were nominated and voted on with Melissa Jensen as Chair and David Schwindt as Vice -Chair in June 2025. CPRB FY25 Annual Report— Final COMPLAINTS Number and Type of Allegations: 13 — Complaints (24-06, 24-07, 24-08, 24-09, 24-10, 24-11, 25-01, 25-02, 25-03, 25-04, 25-05, 25-06, 25-07) 5 — Public Reports (24-02, 24-05, 24-07, 24-08, 24-09) 5 — Complaints summarily dismissed pursuant to City Code 8-8-3 (E) (24-06, 24-10, 24-11, 25-03, 25-06) 1 — Complaints filed in FY25 are pending before the Board (25-01) 4 — Complaints filed in FY25 that are not being processed by the Board due to the State Legislature passing into law Senate File 311, which bans citizens from reviewing police conduct (25-02, 25- 04, 25-05, 25-07). ALLEGATIONS Com saint #24-02 Allegation #1: Violation of 309.2 — Officer Response to Calls Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2: Violation of 320.5.10 — Safety Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Complaint 924-05 Allegation #1: Violation of 320.5.9 — Conduct Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2: Violation of General Order 00-01 — Search & Seizure Chiefs ReportFindings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #3: Violation of General Order 99-08 — Body Worn Cameras & In -Car Recorders Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: An additional allegation was included in the Chiefs report: Body Worn Cameras & In -Car Recorders. The Board discussed during their September 10, 2024, meeting that the Complainant did not directly include this in their complaint report, thus the Board does not support that this was an allegation from the complainant and should not be documented as such. The Board understands, however, that General Order 99-08: Body Worn Cameras & In -Car Recorders will be amended in response to the circumstances involved in this complaint. Complaint #24-07 Allegation #1: Violation of 320.5.9 — Conduct Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: NOT SUSTAINED CPRB FY25 Annual Report— Final Complaint #24-08 Allegation #1: Violation of 320.5.9 — Conduct Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2: Violation of 323.5 — Required Reporting Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Finding:NOT SUSTAINED Com P laint #24-09 Allegation #1: Violation of Section 320.5.9(f) — Conduct Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2: Violation of Section 300.3 — Use of Force Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's_ Findings NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #3: Violation of Section 312.3 — Search & Seizure Chiefs Report Findings: SUSTAINED Board's Findings: SUSTAINED Complaint #25-01 Allegation #1: Violation of Section 320.5.10(e) — Safety Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findinqs:NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2: Violation of Section 320.5.9(f) — Conduct Chiefs Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED Board's Findinqs: NOT SUSTAINED Level of Review The Board decided, by simple majority vote, the level of review to give each report, selecting one or more of the six levels specified in the City Code per complaint: Level a On the record with no additional investigation 4 Level b Interview or meet with complainant 0 Level c Interview or meet with named officer 0 Level d Request additional investigation by Chief or 1 City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation Level a Board performs its own additional investigation 0 Level f Hire independent investigators 0 CPRB FY25 Annual Report — Final Complaint Resolutions The Police Department investigates complaints to the CPRB of misconduct by police officers. The Police Chief summarizes the results of these investigations and indicates in a report (the Chiefs Report) to the CPRB whether allegations are sustained or not sustained. (If complaints are made against the Chief, the City Manager conducts the investigation and prepares and submits the reports.) The Board reviews both the citizens' complaint and the Chiefs Report and decides whether its conclusions about the allegations should be sustained or not sustained. The Board prepares a report which is submitted to the City Council. Of the 13 allegations listed in the 13 complaints for which the Board reported, 1 was sustained, 11 were not sustained, and 1 allegation was not supported by the Board. Comments The Board made comments and/or recommendations for improvement in police policy, procedures, or conduct in 1 report. Com taint #24-05 An additional allegation was included in the Chiefs report: General Order 99-08, Body Worn Cameras & In -Car Recorders. The Board discussed during their September 10, 2024, meeting that the Complainant did not directly include this in their complaint report, thus the Board does not support that this was an allegation from the complainant and should not be documented as such. The Board understands, however, that General Order 99-08 will be amended in response to the circumstances involved in this complaint. Name -Clearing Hearings The ordinance requires that the Board not issue a report critical of the conduct of a sworn officer until after a name -clearing hearing has been held. During this fiscal period, the Board did not schedule any name -clearing hearings. Complaint Histories of Officers City ordinance requires that the annual report of the CPRB must not include the names of complainants or officers involved in unsustained complaints and must be in a form that protects the confidentiality of information about all parties. In the 13 complaints covered by the FY25 annual report, a total of 13 officers were involved with allegations against them. ICPD Internal Investigations Logs The Board reviewed the quarterly ICPD Internal Investigations Log, provided by the Chief of Police. COMPLAINT DEMOGRAPHICS The following is demographic information from the 13 complaints that were completed in this fiscal year. Because complainants provide this voluntarily, the demographic information may be incomplete. Age: (3) 18-25 (1) 26-35 (3) 36-45 () 46-55 () 56-64 () 65+ Dish (1) Physical (1) Mental (5) None Annual Household income: (1) 100K+ (1) 75-99K () 50-75K (1) 25-49K (4) Under 25K Gender: (2) Female (5) Male () Other CPRB FY25 Annual Report— Final Sexual Orientation: (1) LGBTQ (4) Heterosexual (2) Other Ethnic Origin: (5) Black/African-American () Hispanic () Asian/Pacific Islander (2) White/Caucasian () American Indian/Alaska Native ()Other Were you born in the United States? (5) Yes (2) No Religion: () None (2) Other Marital Status: () Married (7) Single () Divorced () Separated () Widowed () Other " Information is reported as presented by the person completing the form. BOARD MEMBERS: Colette Atkins Maurine Braddock Ricky Downing (resigned January 2025) Jessica Hobart -Collis Melissa Jensen, Chair Jerri MacConnell, Vice -Chair (resigned May 2025) Saul Mekies, Chair (term completed June 30, 2025) Audrey Moeller David Schwindt, Vice -Chair CPRB FY25 Annual Report— Final COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 ?�?� N1 g) 356-5041 Date: August 12, 2025 To: City Council Complainant City Manager Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Community Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #25-01 A UC 12 Pr1 Ij: [, c This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #25-01 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY: Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chief's professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings on!v if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When thb•Board'has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a ejy a u�aed;�oKplusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained' or "not sustained ". ifowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(3)).) 6. Evgn_if to-1P0,,2i#finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE: The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 02/26/2025. As required by Section 8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was filed with the City Clerk on 05-22-2025. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the City Code, the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chiefs report. The Board voted on 07-08-2025 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: "On the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(1)(a)." The Board met to consider the Report on 07-08-2025 and 08-12-2025. Prior to the 07-08-2025 meeting, the Board had the opportunity to review the complaint, the Police Chief s report, the Complainant's response to the Chiefs report, and to watch and listen to body worn camera and/or in -car camera footage showing the interaction between the officers and the Complainant. FINDINGS OF FACT: On the evening of February 22, 2025, the Complainant was driving south on Dubuque St, and passed a vehicle on the right, that was waiting to turn left, or east, onto Iowa Avenue. A squad car, headed north on Dubuque St, began a left-hand turn (west) on to Iowa Avenue. The Complainant passed the vehicle in front of him on the right, and almost collided with the north bound squad car, which was in the process of turning west. The Complainant then began following the squad car, flashing his headlights, and then stopped behind the squad car at the next intersection of Iowa and Clinton. The Complainant got out of his vehicle and approached the window of the squad car, demanding the officer's business card. The officer repeatedly advised the Complainant to step away from the vehicle. The officer then called for another unit to respond and talk to the Complainant, as he could not talk with the Complainant with a detainee in the squad car. The responding officer arrived and spoke with the Complainant who was animated and still blocking traffic with his vehicle. The Complainant was advised he was creating an unsafe condition and if he wished to file a complaint, to do so with a supervisor. The Complainant went to the Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) and spoke with a supervisor. The Complainant eventually said he would file a complaint with a different officer. The Complainant was issued two traffic citations. COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #1 - Violation of Section 320.5.10(e) of the Department's Safety Poky which prohibits unsafe or improper driving habits or actions in the course of employment or appointment. Chief's conclusion: Not sustained Board's conclusion: Not sustained Basis for the Board's conclusion: The Complainant alleges the initial officer was driving in an unsafe manner. The Complainant's passing of a turning vehicle on the right, when there was only one southbound lane of traffic available, created the unsafe condition. The officer's driving was consistent with traffic laws and did not contribute to the unsafe condition. COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION 42 - Violation of Section 320.5.9(f) of the Department's standards of conduct, which prohibits "Discourteous, disrespectful or discriminatory treatment of any member of the public, or any member of the department or the City." Chiefs conclusion: Not sustained Board's conclusion: Not sustained Basis for the Board's conclusion: The Complainant alleges the officer was disrespectful of him. Although the officer appeared to be frustrated in dealing with the Complainant, who also seemed frustrated, the officer's behavior was not a violation of the Departments standard of conduct. COMMENTS: None Connie McCurdy NEEMEM From: Jensen, Melissa A <melissa-a Jensen@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:00 PM To: Connie McCurdy Subject: Fwd: [External] DRAFT Minutes from the August 12, 2025 CPRB Meeting Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; image007.png; image008.png; image009.png; image010.png; image011.png; image006.png; 8-12-25 mtg mintues to Melissa for approval.pdf i RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. Sorry, we had to hustle to Council Bluffs for an ill family member. I took a Quick Look, minutes look fine. Thank you! Mj Begin forwarded message: From: Connie McCurdy <CMcCurdy@iowa-city.org> Date: August 26, 2025 at 15:26:06 CDT To: "Jensen, Melissa A" <melissa-a-jensen@uiowa.edu> Subject: [External] DRAFT Minutes from the August 12, 2025 CPRB Meeting Hi Melissa, As your last official act as Chairman, please review the attached draft minutes and respond to this email as approved or approved as amended noting the amendments. Thank you! WWW.ICGOV.ORG Item Number: 4.e. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 16, 2025 Library Board of Trustees: July 24 Attachments: Library Board of Trustees: July 24 Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes July 24, 2025 2nd Floor — Boardroom Regular Meeting - 5:05 PM Robin Paetzold - President Dan Stevenson - Vice President Claire Matthews - Secretary Bonnie Boothroy Joseph Massa Kelcey Patrick -Ferree FINAL John Raeburn Cory Schweigel-Skeers Kalmia Strong Members Present: Bonnie Boothroy, Joseph Massa, Claire Matthews, Kelsey Patrick -Ferree, John Raeburn, Robin Paetzold (remote), Cory Schweigel-Skeers, Dan Stevenson, Kalmia Strong. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Anne Mangano, Jason Paulios, Brent Palmer, Angie Pilkington, Amanda Ray, Katie Roche. Guests Present: Gary Sanders. Call Meeting to Order. Stevenson called the meeting to order at 5:08 PM. A quorum was present. Introductions were made for the new members. Approval of July 24, 2025 Board Meeting Agenda. Stevenson asked for approval of the agenda. Raeburn made the motion, Boothroy seconded. Motion passed. Public Discussion. Stevenson shared board policy on public comment. Gary Sanders approached the Board. He said he's been a resident since 1978 and has had lots of contact with the previous library directors. He urged the Board to appoint Anne Mangano as the permanent library director. Items to be Discussed. Strategic Planning Update. Mangano gave an update of the strategic plan, reviewing the last six months. This is a public document, but intended for the library board, and will be presented differently for other audiences. Raeburn passed out a document with changes that had not been sent out previously and is primarily grammatical errors and diction. Patrick -Ferree commented on hearing loop updates and asked if the library has reached out to local audiologists to inform their patients. Roche suggested the Foundation could assist with getting the word out. Mangano said we have the existing 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. technology available and will adopt improvements as they are developed. Library Board of Trustees Annual Report. Stevenson asked for feedback or thoughts. Paetzold said this was a collaboration between the Board and staff. Mangano said it will come back in August and changes can be adopted. Boothroy suggested adding collaboration between the library and other city departments. Stevenson passed to Raeburn for diction and usage suggestions. Raeburn discussed the requested changes from the shared document of edits. An edited report will be shared in the August board packet for approval. Staff Reports. Interim Director's Report. Mangano discussed open meetings and records training and will send new dates as they come up from Iowa Public Information Board. Matthews recommended the training. Mangano added city council may require it. Departmental Reports: Adult Services. Paetzold asked if Paulios is satisfied with the numbers from the Summer Reading Program. Paulios said completions are down, but it doesn't feel that way from the responses seen at the service desks. The biggest change was to the completion prize. We are no longer giving out paperback books for financial reasons. The library decided to put the Friends gift toward program experiences, and offering a coupon to the Book End as a completion prize. Paulios has ideas for tweaking it for next year. Roche said coupons have been redeemed very happily at the Book End, and also increased sales, so Friends are happy to continue offering it. Matthews asked if Book End differing from the Library's open hours was an issue. Roche responded that there aren't enough volunteers to keep it open the same hours. Paulios said the coupon worked really well during the weekend book sale. Program attendance is the same or higher than previous years. Community & Access Services. Helmick not present, addressing the United Nations (noted in director report), Pilkington was available to answer questions. Pilkington mentioned the upcoming public reception for Helmick. Boothroy asked for a rundown of the event. Development Report. Roche mentioned the gift for the snack program with more details coming in the next board packet. Matthews thanked the Foundation for all the work they do and that it was great to see budget lines increase. President's Report. Paetzold mentioned the open position on the board of trustees, and someone to join the Friends Foundation. Also mentioned the working group for hiring the new director and that there will be updates in August. Announcements from Members. Foundation Updates. FY26 Memorandum of Understanding between the Friends Foundation Board of Directors and the Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees. This will be approved and signed later. Advocacy Updates. Paetzold and Matthews have no updates. Paetzold asked for the new members to be involved in the fall. Matthews said it's based on how the legislative session goes, and it's not a year- round commitment. They post value statements, advocate and support the staff. Roche added that the Iowa Library Association Government Affairs committee is working to turn around interpretation of 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. legislation in a more timely manner, and members can get on that mailing list for those communications. Paetzold asked when new board members get added to ILA. Mangano will discuss with Jen Royer. Mangano said there's an opportunity in December to talk to Johnson County officials. Stevenson is stepping down to run for school board effective August 1It. He thanked the staff for all the help, and the board for the collegiality and strong work. Paetzold asked if the library is reopening search or using previous applications. Mangano said they will post again on August 51n Communications. None. Consent Agenda. Stevenson asked for comments and approval. Motion to approve from Massa, seconded by Boothroy. Motion passed. Set Agenda Order for August Meeting. Continuing education on intellectual freedom, appointment of new vice-president and foundation board roles, and adoption of the trustee's annual report are on the docket for August. Paetzold said there may be an item on director position discussion. Matthews asked Paulios for brief updates on Summer Reading. Paetzold thanked Stevenson for his time served on the board. Adjournment. Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 5:50 PM. Respectfully submitted, Amanda Ray 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 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 6/26/2025 7/24/2025 8/28/2025 Boothro , Bonnie 6/30/2029 X X X X OE X X X X OE X X X Johnk, DJ 6/30/2025 X X X OE OE X X OE X X OE TE TE Massa, Jose h 6/30/2027 X X OE X X X X X X OE X X X Matthews, Claire 6/30/2023 X X X O X X X X X OE O X X Paetzold, Robin 6/30/2023 X X X OE X X X X X X X X X Patrick -Ferree, Kelce 6/30/2031 X X Raeburn, John 6/30/2027 OE X X X X X X X X X X X X Rocklin, Tom 6/30/2025 OE X X X X X X X X OE X TE TE Schwei el-Skeers, Cory 6/30/2031 1 1 1 X X Shultz, Hannah 6/30/2025 X X X X OE X OE X X X X TE TE Stevenson, Daniel 6/30/2027 1 X OE X X X X OE X X X OE X R Strong, Kalmia 6/30/2031 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 September 16, 2025 Senior Center Commission: July 17 Attachments: Senior Center Commission: July 17 Approved Minutes July 17, 2025 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION July 17, 2025 Room 311, Iowa City Senior Center Members Present: Nancy Ostrognai, Jay Gilchrist, Kate Milster, Lee McKnight, Warren Paris, Betty Rosse Members Absent: Mary McCall Staff Present: LaTasha DeLoach, Kristin Kromray Others Present: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Gilchrist at 4.00 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 15, 2025, MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the May 15, 2025 meeting as amended. Motion carried on a 6/0 vote. Paris/Ostrognai PUBLIC DISCUSSION: 1► •17T� OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: DeLoach highlighted a number of programs including the various social walking opportunities, making a gourd nightlight, upcoming summer concerts for New Horizons Band and Voices of Experience, intergenerational puzzle competition, and speed friendshipping. Looking into the fall there will be the Soul Train Block Party on September 20t", Pickleball Jamboree in October, and a new collaboration with the library called Grandbabies. SHIIP counselors are gearing up for open enrollment period this fall. One challenge this year is that the University of Iowa has a plan for its retirees that is no longer going to be an option. The SHIIP counselors have been working with the University and these people, so they are prepared to switch to a different Approved Minutes July 17, 2025 insurance plan during open enrollment. There are around 900 people who this change will affect. The window and exterior door replacement project will begin the second week of August. The HVAC digital control project will occur this fall. There will be a request for proposal for the design phase of the interior project later this year. DeLoach reported there are new open meetings laws at the state level. All members in appointed commission positions will need to attend an education course when they are appointed. COMMISSION OVERVIEW: McKnight asked about what DeLoach envisions for the interior design. DeLoach recapped the general plan but noted that the master plan was finished in 2020/2021 and many things have changed since then. The interior design phase will be about what parts of the plan still work and what items might change. Milster asked about the elevator, which is scheduled to be updated in the future. Ostrognai asked about the possibility of reopening the grand staircase. DeLoach explained the concerns about it being open to the public, which include the step irregularities and that there are not railing on both sides, and none at the bottom. People have fallen on these stairs, which is why they will remain closed. Milster noted the trip to Davenport was fun. Meeting Adjourned. 2 Approved Minutes July 17, 2025 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Term 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 5/15/25 6/19/25 7/17/25 Name Expires 24 24 24 Betty 12/31/26 O/E X X X O/E X X NM O/E X NM X Rosse Jay 12/31/25 X X O/E X X X X NM X X NM X Gilchrist Mary 12/31/27 -- -- -- -- -- X O/E NM X O/E NM O/E McCall Angela 12/31/24 X X X O/E X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McConville Lee 12/31/27 X X X O/E O/E O/E X NM X X NM X McKnight Kathryn 12/31/27 -- -- -- -- -- X X NM X X NM X Milster Nancy 12/31/26 X X X X X X X NM X X NM X Ostrognai Ross 12/31/24 O X O O O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Taylor Warren 12/31/25 O X O X X O/E X NM X X NM X Paris Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E=Absent/Excused NM =No meeting -- = Not a member 3