HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-01 Info Packet=,.®~~
~ui~' ~
--tip
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
October 1, 2009
OCTOBER 5 WORK SESSION
IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Taxes on flood buyout properties
IP3 Memorandum from the Interim City Manager: Utility Franchise Fee
IP4 Summary of Pending Work Session Issues
MISCELLANEOUS
IP5 Memorandum from the Economic Development Coordinator: Final Report on Economic
Development Activities through 2008
IP6 Memorandum from Coordinator of Information Services and the Recycling Coordinator: Panel
Discussion-Growing Local Foods Growing Healthy Communities and Book Discussion-
Barbara Kingsolver's Animal Vegetable Miracle
IP7 Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff vs. The City of Iowa City and the City Council of Iowa
City, Defendants
IP8 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development: Update: Flood-
related activities
IP9 Invitation: Workshop - "Strangers, Tourists, & Hood Rats" October 22, 2009
IP10 Plant some shade residential tree-planting program -offered by MidAmerican and the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
IP11 Minutes: Joint Informal Meeting of Johnson County Board of Supervisors and Justice
Center Coordinating Committee: September 2, 2009
Invitation: Grant Wood Neighborhood Association -October 15 [Distributed at 10/6 Council
formal meeting]
DRAFT MINUTES
IP12 Youth Advisory Commission: September 27, 2009
IP13 Board of Adjustment: September 9, 2009
~~r ~~~
,~®~~~
-.ti...~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
October 1, 2009
OCTOBER 5 WORK SESSION
IP1 Council Meetin sand Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum fro the City Attorney: Taxes on flood buyou properties
IP3 Memorandum from th Interim City Manager: Utility Franc ise Fee
IP4 Summary of Pending W k Session Issues
MISCELLANEOU
IP5 Memorandum from the Economic evelopment Coor inator: Final Report on Economic
Development Activities through 20
IP6 Memorandum from Coordinator of Infor tion Servic sand the Recycling Coordinator: Panel
Discussion-Growing Local Foods Growi g Healt y Communities and Book Discussion-
Barbara Kingsolver's Animal Vegetable M acle
IP7 Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff vs. The C
City, Defendants
IP8 Memorandum from the Director of Planning
related activities
IP9 Invitation: Workshop - "Strangers, Touris
IP10 Plant some shade residential tree-plan in
Iowa Department of Natural Resource
Iowa City and the City Council of Iowa
Cort~nunity Development: Update: Flood-
& Hood Ra "October 22, 2009
g program -off ed by MidAmerican and the
IP11 Minutes: Joint Informal Meeting of ohnson County Board
Center Coordinating Committee: Se tember 2, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
upervisors and Justice
IP12 Youth Advisory Commission: S ptember 27, 2009
IP13 Board of Adjustment: Septemb r 9, 2009
~ = ' 10-01-09
,,,~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas October 1, 2009
www.icgov.org
• MONDAY, OCTOBER 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Council Work Session
• Agenda Items
• Property Taxes for Buyout Properties (IP2]
^ Utility Franchise Fee (IP3 and Agenda 4f(1)]
• Information Packet Discussion (Oct 1]
• Council Time
^ Budget Priorities
^ Schedule of Pending Discussion Items (IP4]
• Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations
^ Discussion of Meeting Schedules
• TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Formal Council Meeting
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• MONDAY, OCTOBER 19 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Council Work Session
• TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBA Regular Council Work Session
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Orientation/Joint Meeting -outgoing and incoming City Council
• MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Council Work Session
• TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Council Work Session
• TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, DECEMBER 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:OOp Meeting with Legislators
~ - i
r ~~~
' """'®'"~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
-n...~._
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas October 1, Zoos
www.icgov.org
• MONDAY, DECEMBER 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBA Regular Council Work Session
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20 North Liberty
4:OOp Joint Meeting
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 30, 2009
To: City Council
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Taxes on flood buyout properties
When the City purchases property other than right-of-way in the middle of a fiscal tax year
(July to June) the state code imposes a "token" tax liability on the City for the remainder of
the tax year. Iowa Code Section 427.18 (2009). In other words, the property does not go
off the tax roles until the beginning of the new fiscal year. HMGP grant money cannot be
used for the payment of taxes. For that reason, we closed on the purchases of as many
buyout properties as possible before July 1, 2009. Seven of the 40 properties closed
before July 1, 2009. For the remaining properties, the City is responsible for the taxes
from the date of closing to the end of the fiscal year that are due in September 2010 and
March 2011. The City has collected the prorated portion of the taxes from the property
owners (from July 1, 2009 to the date of closing) but would have to pay the remaining
taxes from local funds. Staff estimates the amount of this tax liability to be roughly
$37,000.
Section 446.7 of the Iowa Code prohibits property owned by municipalities from being sold
at tax sale. This section provides that when taxes are owing on property owned by the
City, after notice from the Treasurer that taxes are owing the City "shall then pay the total
~~
amount due" but if the City fails to do so the Board of Supervisors shall abate the taxes .
In essence, there is no penalty for non-payment of this "token" tax liability and the taxes
are abated if not paid.
Please discuss this matter at your work session and give staff direction as to the payment
of these taxes.
Cc: Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
Jeff Davidson, Planning Director
Steve Long, Community Development
David Purdy, Community Development
Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney
r -
~!,~®~,~ C[TY OF IOWA. CITY IP3
~,.`~r~ ~ t Y 1
~E
Date: October 1, 2009
To: City Council
From: Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
Re: Gas/Electric Utility Franchise Fee
In response to Council's expressed intent to facilitate passage of a franchise fee ordinance prior
to the first of the year, the City Clerk has prepared the following timeline for your consideration.
October 20 - Resolution setting public hearing for November 2, and authorizing publication of
a revenue purpose statement and notice of hearing
November 3 - Public hearing on proposed franchise fee ordinance
November 17-First consideration of franchise fee ordinance
December 1 -Second consideration of franchise fee ordinance
December 14-Final consideration of franchise fee ordinance
December 22-Publication of ordinance
July 30, 2010- First payment received from MidAmerican
This schedule allows:
- Passage in 2009
- Utilizes the existing Council meeting schedule
- Provides 90 day required notice to MidAmerican from the effective date of ordinance
- Provides collection date effective April 1, 2010
Prior to adoption of a franchise fee ordinance the City must publish a revenue purpose
statement specifying the purpose or purposes for which the revenue collected from the
franchise fee will be expended. In accordance with your discussions the following is a proposed
purpose statement for your consideration. The proposed language mirrors the language of the
statute with the exception that "public safety" is limited to police, fire and emergency services
and does not include "sanitation, streets and civil defense".
October 1, 2009
Page 2
REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT: The revenue collected from the franchise fee shall be
used for the following purposes:
1. Inspecting, supervising and otherwise regulating the MidAmerican gas and electric
franchises.
2. Public safety, including the equipping of fire, police and emergency services.
3. Economic development activities and projects.
Based on your recent discussion and on the estimate from MidAmerican Energy that a one
percent franchise fee will generate about $840,000 annually, I am proposing that you consider a
two percent (2%) franchise fee. I believe that revenue would approximate the cost of funding the
franchise regulatory function (one-half percent), the staffing and operation of Fire Station #4
(one percent), and the addition of six new police officers (one-half percent). You will recall that
the economic development purpose was included to afford the City an alternative for the use of
any excess franchise fee revenue that becomes temporarily available if we are successful in
obtaining federal grant money for short term funding of new police and/or fire personnel. Such
grants would undoubtedly require that we demonstrate our commitment to fully fund those
positions upon expiration of the grant period.
Time for discussion of this matter has been included on your October 5, 2009 work session
agenda.
IP4
SUMMARY OF PENDING WORK SESSION ISSUES
9/29/09
Farmers' Market (OCTOBER)
Inclusionary Zoning and Scattered Site Housing (NOVEMBER)
Crime Related Issues Update (OCTOBER/NOVEMBER)
Meet with Historic Preservation Commission re: energy efficiency/green
issues (after guideline revisions are drafted) (NOVEMBER)
2010 Legislative Priorities (NOVEMBER)
Site Options for Proposed Justice Center (NOVEMBER/DECEMBER)
Nuisance Enforcement
Site of New Animal Shelter (after FEMA final decision)
Taft Avenue -Land Use Designations for Adjacent Areas
Flood Response & Mitigation Update (PERIODIC)
Alley Inventory (FALL `09)
Backyard Chickens (SPRING ' 10)
r
~~I~®~,~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P5
~,,,~ .~
®~~~ RAN D U M
NI E 1VI O
Date: September 25, 2009
To: City Council
From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator ~~
Re: Final Report on Economic Development Activities, through 2008
Following is a final report on the activities of the Economic Development Division for the two
year calendar period of 2007 and 2008. The City Council Economic Development Committee
requested that it be forwarded to the full Council for inclusion in your information packet.
The report provides an overview of the strategies and activities to achieve the Iowa City's
Economic Development objectives.
As you may recall, the following six economic development policies served as the guideposts for
determining Iowa City's Economic Development objectives. These policies, corresponding
objectives and strategies were adopted by Council in January, 2007.
1. Diversify and increase the property tax base by a) encouraging the retention and expansion
of existing industry and b) attracting industries that have growth potential and are compatible
with existing businesses and industries.
2. Develop the available labor force consistent with the needs of employment opportunities.
3. Provide and protect areas suitable for future industrial and commercial development.
4. Continue to cooperate with existing local and regional organizations to promote economic
development within Iowa City.
5. Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through the efficient use of
resources.
6. Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above.
The four key objectives for economic development are:
1. Foster the retention and expansion of primary sector existing businesses and attract new
businesses to Iowa City.
2. Support the development of Downtown to ensure a healthy mix of retail, services,
entertainment, office, residential, lodging, and nightlife.
3. Assist in the development of entrepreneurial businesses in Iowa City.
4. Workforce development.
The Economic Development Committee of the Council is currently reviewing policies and
strategies and will be recommending an updated plan in the coming weeks.
FINAL REPORT ON
city of Iowa City
Economic Development
Objectifies and Strategies
CALENDAR YEARS 2008-2009
xw - , Yt(tW,AA%tltlp+ d.., <. o-, um .. .u ~:.. mU.
~~
-~
~--"I ~
T
-~..~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Economic Development
Committee
2009
Regenia Bailey, Chair
Connie Champion
Matthew Hayek
Wendy Ford, ED Coordinator
Jeff Davidson, PCD Director
U
Foster the retention and expansion of primary
sector1 existing businesses and attract new
businesses to Iowa City.
How to Measure
Success 2 expansions; 2 new businesses; 0 business losses (of those City has
assisted)
• Create/update marketing materials
Completed Assisted ICAD in the hosting of site visit for wind power manufacture,
high tech security services firm, and blood plasma research and
development firm
• 2 expansions-Alpla, a manufacturer, $5 million building expansion
to add new product line, Kleffman North America, an agricultural
research company, $300,000 expansion of facilities in downtown
Iowa City
• 3 new businesses-ITC Midwest, a supplier to the electric power
industry, BioTest, a blood plasma research firm, and Rock Tenn
Alliance, a display manufacturer
• Assisted ICAD in marketing to several wind energy companies; at
press time, we are still awaiting company decisions
• Completed Working Numbers, a booklet highlighting Iowa City's
benefits and features to interstate commerce companies
STRATEGIES
A. Have ability to respond as needed to infrastructure needs.
• Plan and budget for economic development infrastructure in Capital Improvement Plan;
including roads, utilities, telecommunications, water and sewer.
• Apply for RISE (Revitalize Iowa's Sound Economy) and other financial opportunities for
assistance.
' Primary sector includes business and industry who can CHOOSE to locate here and whose market is not dependent on
Iowa City.
Completed Purchased 173 acres of land, worked with Urban Planning Division
to annex and rezone the property
• Working with JCCOG staff, successfully submitted application for
RISE funds for 420th Street improvements
On-going Work with PCD Director to maintain high priority for economic
development-focused capital improvement projects
• Participate in ICAD's Shovel Ready Site Program initiative as Task
Force Member and as facilitator in Wind Energy Supply Chain
Campus Pilot Project
• Work with developers of EC04 Moss Green Urban Village concept
on Oakdale Boulevard from Highway One west into Moss Farms
B. Market new and existing land for development and redevelopment.
• Fully utilize LOIS (Location One Info System) system to post information on the
community, buildings and sites in the market
Completed Assisted ICAD in getting concept plan for new industrial area to
prospective businesses
• Concept plan, annexation and rezoning complete; in process of
platting of new Industrial Park for development lots
• Distributed new marketing materials to larger employers in Iowa
City
• Updated LOIS information
On-going Work with listing agent for Aviation Commerce Park land sale/
lease
• Working with Urban Planning Division, use Southeast District Plan
to facilitate growth of expanded industrial area
Planned Distribute new marketing materials to larger employers in Iowa City
• Begin 2008 update of LOIS information
• Complete southeast Iowa City annexations
C. Design comprehensive marketing and presentation package in concert with ICAD (Iowa City
Area Development Group).
Completed Assisted ICAD with their response package update
• Worked together on new marketing brochure to be completed 1/08
• Financial Assistance Package information in production, scheduled
for completion 2/08
• Doing Business in Iowa City, 20 page booklet with wide range of
business information
D. Develop system of regular communications about business in Iowa City.
• Maintain positive relationships with existing businesses with public recognition of
accomplishments including long term businesses in Iowa City, good corporate citizens in
Iowa City, and stability of permanent full time employees of the labor force
• Act upon ICAD's annual retention surveys and gather information to evaluate satisfaction
with governmental and area support services.
• Respond to selected set of targeted business leads
• Communicate through local media the positive economic climate in Iowa City
• Communicate through City's economic development web pages
2
Completed Helpedtobuildrelationshipswithlandownersforfuturedevelopment
of commercial/industrial and office growth
• Attended a meeting of ICAD-surveyed businesses to listen to
concerns
• Served as Iowa City government liaison to Business Friendly
Communities Task Force of the Chamber of Commerce to improve
perceptions of doing business in Iowa City
• Roberts Dairy land swap agreement drafted
• Updated slide show "Use of TIF in Iowa City"
• Completed Downtown Market Niche Analysis
• Updated Community Profile
• Updated CDBG guidelines and application forms
• Letter to business community with Working Numbers brochure
• Updated City's Economic Development website
On-going Maintain positive relationships with business community
• Setup meetings between key City staff, elected officials and key
business and industry leaders
E. Review, refine and improve programs for providing incentives to increase tax base through
construction of new facilities or improvements to existing facilities.
Completed CDBG guidelines updated
• Attended information session on State Historic Tax Credit program as
first step in assessing feasibility of facade improvement program
On-going Improvement of application and processing of tax incentive
applications
• Redesign application materials to eliminate duplication with and
complement State of Iowa applications
F. Propose redevelopment plans and/or invest in public spaces in areas of the community, such
as South Riverside Drive, Towncrest, South Gilbert Street, North Dodge Street, Muscatine
Avenue/First Avenue, Mormon Trek, and Aviation Commerce Park commercial areas.
Completed Assist private pub/private partnership with Dolphin Pointe
Enclave (Lakeside) Apartments renovation
On-going Towncrest area urban renewal plan underway
• On-going work with realtor on Aviation Commerce Park
G. Develop local, regional and state business network by active involvement and presence with
• Chamber, Chamber government affairs committee, ICAD (Iowa City Area Development
Group), CVB (Iowa City/Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau), IDED (Iowa
Department of Economic Development), PDI (Professional Developers of Iowa)
• University of Iowa departments
• Mid-American Energy
3
Completed Assisted with letter to UNESCO in Iowa City's bid to be a
UNESCO Literary City
• Involved with Chamber, Gov't Affairs, Business Friendly
Task Force, ICAD, DTA organizations and committees
• Assist CVB in Great Place application
On-going Continue work with ICAD in attracting new businesses
Planned Do more with University of Iowa Centers for Enterprise
and Pomerantz Career Center
• Do more with PDI
OBJECTIVE 2
Support the development of Downto~zvn to ensure
a healthy mix of retail, services, entertainment,
o~ice, residential, lodging, and nightlife.
STRATEGIES
A. Facilitate market niche analysis for downtown
B. Create a facade renovation incentive program
C. Explore development of creative business incubator
D. Capitalize on the Cultural District designation
How to Measure Success Begin implementation of program of marketing to
commercial tenants; retain existing retailers, gain 5 new
businesses
Completed Completed work with consultant on Downtown Market
Niche Analysis, setting the stage for the program of
marketing
• Worked with local partners to build support for a
downtown business incubator
• Secured EDA funding for feasibility study on downtown
business incubator
• Entered intoagreementforcost-sharingprojecttoenhance
the Sheraton Hotel exterior walkway
• Provided $50,000 financial support to the Englert Theater,
year one of a requested three year commitment
• Participated in Retail Caucus group of businesses in
downtown and Northside Marketplace to promote
shopping destinations with events, promotions and
website
On-going Work with business community to build support for
recommended downtown business manager
• Meet with Northside Marketplace merchants to hear
concerns and begin dialog of working together to make
safety and aesthetic improvements
4
OBJECTIVE 3
Assist in the development of entrepreneurial businesses in Iowa City.
STRATEG 1 ES
A. Market financial assistance programs via bankers, the web, and community outreach.
B. Explore possibilities of incubator development.
C. Develop relationships with Technology Innovation Center (TIC) businesses and opportunities
for their expansion in Iowa City.
D. Collaborate with the Chamber's Small Business Education and Entrepreneurial Development
(SEED) program to provide informational and/or coaching resources for small businesses.
E. Use $250,000/year in CDBG funds to assist new businesses.
Haw to Measure Success Support 10 new businesses
Completed Presented City financial programs to Chamber member
seminar
• Worked with local banks to promote CDBG ED program
• Assisted nine entrepreneurs with CDBG funds: Discerning
Eye, La Reyna, Nile Valley Restaurant, Gluten Evolution,
The Wedge Pizzeria, Home Ec. Workshop, Alfie's Beauty
Supply, Textures Salon, Atlas Home Service
• Networked with Operator Performance Lab director at
the airport to gain knowledge of work and be ready to
assist in clustering complementary new business nearby
• Developed Flood Recovery $5,000 Forgiveable Loan
program that was duplicated in Coralville and Johnson
County; distributed $74, 400 to 18 businesses
• Administered Jumpstart Business Disaster Recovery
Program; distributed $1.2 million to 49 recipients
On-going Continue promoting CDBG economic development
funds
• Business Rental Assistance Program of Flood Recovery
Workforce development
STRATEG 1 ES
A. Be a partner in communicating the workforce business resources of the Cedar Rapids-Iowa
City Technology CorridorTM to business and industry.
B. Encourage and advocate local industries' use of UI Career Center's Expo for internship and full
time job postings to attract young professionals to Iowa City
C. Create recognition program/positive public relations opportunity for companies employing
permanent full time employees.
D. Reserve dollars from City's CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds for job
training.
E. Maintain information about and actively supportworkforce development strategies of Kirkwood
Community College, ICAD, Priority One, and Skills Advantage.
How to Measure Success Ensure workforce/laborshed data is shared with targeted
industries
• Benchmark Iowa City-based companies' use of Expo at UI
Career Center,
• Complete annual public relations on permanent
employment programs
Completed Partnered with ICAD in communicating the workforce
business resources of the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City
Technology Corridor'"" to business and industry
• Maintained information about and actively support
workforcedevelopmentstrategiesofKirkwoodCommunity
College, ICAD, Priority One, and Skills Advantage
On-going Maintaininformationaboutandactivelysupportworkforce
development strategies of Kirkwood Community College,
ICAD, Priority One, and Skills Advantage
• Work with Planning Office on concept for Mixed-Use
Parking Facility that would increase downtown workforce
housing
Planned Create recognition program/positive public relations
opportunity for companies employing permanent full
time employees
• Benchmark area use of UI Career Center's Expo online
job posting
-10=0_T 09
IP6
Iowa City
Public Library
123 South Linn . Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1820
Susan Craig, Director • Information (319) 356-5200 • Business (319) 887-6001 • Fax (319) 356-5494
To: City of Iowa City City Council
From: Maeve Clark, Coordinator of Information Services/Jennifer Jordan, Recycling Coordinator Public
Works Division City of Iowa City
Date: September 30, 2009
Re: Panel Discussion- Growing Local Foods Growing Healthy Communities and Book Discussion -Barbara
Kingsolver's Animal Vegetable Miracle
Please join ECO Iowa City, the grant-funded initiative to improve environmental sustainability in Iowa
City funded by International City /County Management Association. The $57,000 grant, allows ECO Iowa
City to provide a series of opportunities for Iowa City residents, including hands-on workshops,
programs and seminars and to offer information and free resources.
The program on Thursday, October 8 is one of many ECO Iowa City has presented and will continue to
offer through the summer of 2010. The panel discussion on local foods and their importance in Iowa
City will begin at 7 pm. Regenia Bailey, Mayor of Iowa City, will be the moderator. The panelists are
Scott Koepke, Laura Dowd, Kyle Sierck and James Nisly. The book discussion to follow will begin at 8 pm
and will be lead by Pat Schnack. We have asked the panelist to remain for the discussion to act as a
panel of experts. Refreshments will be provided by New Pioneer Coop from produce purchased from
the Iowa City Farmers Market on Wednesday, October 7.
Please join us for what is sure to be information packed and stimulating evening. For more information
on ECO Iowa City and to see what other programs will be offered as well and ECO Iowa City's many
partners, visit http://icpl.org/eco-iowa-city .
~~.~
,'au
_ ^1;;7 -sa
r
IP7
In the District Court for Johnson County
Plaintiff's Motion for Setting a Hearing on
Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff ) EQCV070796
vs. )
~
The City of Iowa City and the ) ~.~
,
cI'
City Council
of Iowa
City, ) ,, `r`,r cry f:
`-; , ,
~`
` ~ '
Defendants )
~~;
'
'~
~
Motion for Setting a Hearing ", ; ~ u'~
~~~
Plaintiff respectfully requests that a hearing be set
on Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the above
case. Plaintiff's brief in support of the Petition has now
been filed, so Plaintiff requests that the date of the
hearing give adequate time for Defendants' Brief and a
possible reply brief.
,r, '~
~~~ ~
Y , f ~/- `~ ~/-
Rober J. geMtan
44 Tucson P
~ Iowa City, Iowa 52246
~~ t~ Roberthegeman@mchsi.com
~? ~~' `=' 391-338-5818
,-~,
~~~ -- 319-530-0553 (cell)
~:_ : _-~:
~3.,f 319-668-2491 (fax)
~~_~ 1..'-• ..
a i.r~
is^,''
19
Original filed
Copies served by US Mail on September 23, 2009 to the
defendants addressed to the Office of the City Clerk of Iowa
City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Copy served by US mail on a party in interest S&J
Development LLC, 2231 East 45th St, Davenport, Iowa 52807
563-332-2123.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (PRIVATE)
I certify that PLAINTIFF'S Motion for Setting a Hearing
on Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated
9/23/2009 was served on the City Council of Iowa City and
the City of Iowa City by depositing the 2 copies of the
original in the US mail postage prepaid on September 23,
2009, addressed to Office of the City Clerk of Iowa City,
410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
.~1:
;~:,
. ,~ .
~
'
: ~
,~ - ,
~
>_
:
~_''' ~ .
~ ~ .~ ...
., f..
19
In the District Court for Johnson County
Plaintiff's Motion for a Stay
Pending a Hearing on Plaintiff's Petition for Writ
of Certiorari
Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff ) EQCVO7O796
'-`'a
vs . ) ~~n
The City of Iowa City and the ) f=~- r ~N
;,
City Council of Iowa City ~"
:- ~ w ~_
~~
Defendant s ) ~' ~' ~° `~'
`~ ~ ~
_. ~
`~ N
'%~ ~.-~ W
~.~ ~
Motion for a Stay
Because Ordinance 09-4336 would not have passed but for
the Defendant's wrongful failure to recognize the protest
petition in count 1 and the Defendant's wrongful failure to
provide notice in count 2, Plaintiff requests a stay of the
ordinance 09-4336 pertaining to rezoning proposal REZ08-
00011. Arguments in support of this motion are based on the
merits of Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Petition for Writ
of Certiorari. Without the stay, irreparable harm will
continue to occur to plaintiff and other surrounding
landowners whose petition and rights under Iowa Code 414.5
have been wrongfully denied by the Defendants. Given the
merits of the case, Plaintiff submits that no bond is
c:a
n~e'essay. 'J
t= r~ ~--~ ~\-)
~~:~ .4„_
G ~ s' - - Robe~'~J. e eman
~~' ~`~ 44 Tucson ,Pl ce
.~_G_, ~'" Iowa City, Iowa 52246
_Roberthegeman@mchsi.com
~-- 391-338-5818
319-530-0553 (cell)
319-668-2491 (fax)
17
Original filed
Copies served b_y US Mail on September 23, 2009 to the
defendants addressed to the Office of the City Clerk of Iowa
City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Copy served by US mail on a party in interest S&J
Development LLC, 2231 East 45th St, Davenport, Iowa 52807
563-332-2123.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (PRIVATE)
I certify that PLAINTIFF'S Motion for a Stay Pending a
Hearing on Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated
9/23/2009 was served on the City Council of Iowa City and
the City of Iowa City by depositing the 2 copies of the
original in the US mail postage prepaid on September 23,
2009, addressed to Office of the City Clerk of Iowa City,
410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
~o
c, ~s
~~, ,. ,.
a ~ a
~o ~~ ._
..
~..
:
~
~~: _..
~~ =~,
19
In the District Court for Johnson County
Plaintiff's Brief
In support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari ~
:; ~
_. ~- .n
~ ~~~
Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff ) EQCV070796 ~'.=~ r.,
a w
) -=; ~~
v s .
The City of Iowa City and the ) ~ ~ N
City Council of Iowa City, ) "~~ w
-•_ rn
Defendants )
Plaintiff states:
Introduction
Count 1 turns on the interpretation and application of
Iowa Code 414.5, which gives landowners adjacent to property
being rezoned the right to file a protest petition and
thereby compel a three-fourths affirmative vote before-a
rezoning measure can become effective:
414.5 Changes -- protest.
The regulations, restrictions, and boundaries mays:
from time to time, be amended, supplemented,
changed, modified, or repealed. In case,
however, of a written protest against a change or
repeal which is filed with the city clerk and signed
. .by the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which is located within two hundred feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property for which
the change or repeal is proposed, the change or
repeal shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council. The protest, if filed, must
be filed before or at the public hQaring. The
provisions of section 414.4 relative to public
hearings and official notice apply equally to all
changes or amendments.
x
., "E
__
`i ^a,~
~`
..:~:.
,;~
~:z~ .
;-,
~;~1
!i
ff"~
F il'~
p~
s~
1
Iowa Code 414.5 confers upon city councils the
authority to rezone property. Compliance with 414.5 is
mandatory and jurisdictional. Specifically, the language
"shall not become effective except by a favorable vote of at
least three-fourths of all the members of the council" is
similar to language in other authorizing statutes which has
been so interpreted. See Bowen v. Story County Board of
Supervisors, et al, 209 N.W.2d 569 at 571 (Iowa 1973); B.&
H. Investments, Inc. v. City of Coralville, 209 N.W.2d 115
(Iowa 1973); and OSAGE CONSERVATION CLUB, Appellant, vs.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MITCHELL COUNTY, IOWA, Appellee, 611
N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2000). Adoption of a rezoning ordinance by
simple majority vote short of the three-fourths required by
414.5 is a jurisdictional issue appropriate for review by
certiorari.
Count 1
Facts
Plaintiff admits that the Defendants provided statutory
notice for rezoning an 82 acre tract in southwest Iowa City
known as REZ08-00011. Hearings were held March 10, March 24
and April 6, 2009.1 Defendants admit that owners of 200 of
land within 200 feet from the area originally proposed to be
rezoned did submit a protest petition on the first day of
the hearing. Def Ans., Ct 1, No 4. On the last day of the
hearing, the area to be rezoned was reduced by more than 20
acres.2 Defendants admit the Council voted 5-2 in fav~ of'`~`
,:a
. ~ ~ ~ . '~
,`_.
~
, ~~
~,,,.
See Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts, Paragraphs 2,6,7. See
_
^-t ? .
attachments 12, 10, & 11. ~ ~ "'""' ~,,~
z The changes were: (1) The area being rezoned from ID-RS to RS-5 decre6d fr~YA
18.58 acres to 0.98 acres, a 95$ decrease. (2) The area being rezoned from RR-1..~
to RS-5 decreased from 44.29 to 40.13 acres, a 9~ decrease. (4) the area being
rezoned from RS-5 to OPD-5 decreased from 79.27 acres to 60.28 acres, a 24°s
decrease. (4) A new outlot D was created (20 acres more or less) and now
excluded from the original REZ08-00011. See Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed
Facts, Paragraphs 7,8, p 2. Compare attachments 1, 12, 10' with attachment 11.
2
Ordinance No. 09-4336 adopting the changed REZ08-00011 on
April 6, April 20 and May 5, 2009. Def Ans., Ct 1, No 6.
None of these votes met the three fourths affirmative margin
required by Iowa Code 414.5.3 Defendants admit that the
council has treated the ordinance as having passed. Def
Ans., Ct 1, No 6.
Issue
Once a protest petition has been filed and met the
requirements of Iowa Code 414.5, can a City Council, by
making late changes to the area being rezoned, pass the
measure by a simple majority vote and avoid the three
fourths majority vote required by Iowa Code 414.5?
Argument
I. PLAINTIFF'S PROTEST PETITION MET THE RQUIREMENTS OF IOWA
CODE 414.5, TRIGGERING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A THREE FOURTHS
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.
Iowa Code 414.5 requires (1) that a protest petition be
signed by the owners of 200 or more of property within 200
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which
the rezoning is proposed and (2) that the document be filed
with the city clerk at or before the public hearing.
Defendants have admitted that plaintiff's protest petition
met these requirements:
Defendants admit that owners of 20% of land within
200 feet from the area originally proposed to be
rezoned did submit a protest petition at the March
10, 2009, City Council meeting during the public
hearing on the proposed rezoning. D Ans., Ct.l, Nu 4.
_- ,..~
~,
-~i '~~
..~ ~ _.~.
.. 6
. ~ ~~
' A vote of 5-2 is a 71% majority vote. 5/7 = 0.714. '/< = 0.75. 0.714<0.75. ~~~~ ~ ~` ~'"' a,~q
°~ %'` ~:
3 `~ -a
~~
c~
Note that because the area being rezoned was reduced by
20 acres on the last day of the hearing, there are two
different areas against which one might measure the
sufficiency of a protest petition: the area originally
proposed for rezoning in the official notice or, after the
change, the area being voted upon and enacted. Count One
turns on which area is chosen.
Although a few cases in other jurisdictions have used
the latter, they did so without explicitly raising this
issue in the holding. See Herdeman v. City of Muskego, 343
N.W.2d 814. In this jurisdiction, however, the plain
meaning of Iowa Code 414.5 seems clear: the protest
petition is to be measured against "the property for which
the change or repeal is proposed." See full text of 414.5
above.
Absent a statutory definition of-the word "proposed",
the Supreme Court gives words their ordinary and common
meaning. T&K Roofing Co., Inc. v. Iowa Dept. of Educ.,
1999, 593 N.W.2d 159. The dictionary is consulted to give
words in a statute their plain and ordinary meaning.
Lauridsen v. City of Okaboji Bd. Of Adjustment, 1996, 554
N.W.2d 541. The word proposed in the Black's law _,
dictionary, 8th Edition, means: ~~
:~, '~~~
Proposed regulation. A draft administrative _
-~ 4.
,.~
regulation that is circulated among interested
parties for comment. -
~~.~ ~
,, ~~ "~`"
~-~
A proposed regulation is not the final regulation being~~~.
-
_,,, ~
voted on, it is the predecessor circulated for comment. ~A
property for which a change or repeal is proposed is not the
one being voted on, it is the one circulated among
surrounding landowners by public notice for comment at the
public hearing.
A close reading of Defendants Answer indicates that
4
Defendants have admitted that Plaintiff's protest petition
was adequate as measured against the "proposed rezoning~~:
Defendants admit that owners of 200 of land within
200 feet from the area originally proposed to be
rezoned did submit a protest petition at the March
10, 2009, City Council meeting during the public
hearing on the proposed rezoning. Answer, Ct. 1, No.
4.
In conclusion, Plaintiff's protest petition met all the
requirements of Iowa Code 414.5 on March 10, 2009. For
purposes of determining whether a protest petition meets the
20o threshold, the petition is to be measured against the
property proposed for rezoning in the notice, not against
the property being voted upon or passed. Additional policy
reasons for this are discussed in section III, pp. 6-8
below. Ordinance No. 09-4336 should not have become
effective except by a three-fourths affirmative vote. The
three votes of 5-2 never met this threshold.4 Having failed
to meet the express requirements of Iowa Code 414.5,
Ordinance No. 09-4336 is not and has never been effective.
II. THE REQUIREMENTS OF IOWA CODE 414.5 HAVING BEEN MET,
THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO DEFENDANTS TO SHOW LEGAL JUSTIFICATION
FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.
Plaintiff has carried the burden of showing that
Plaintiff's protest petition has met the requirements of
Iowa Code 414.5, thereby triggering the requirement for a
three-fourths affirmative vote on Ordinance No. 09-4336
before it could become effective. Plaintiff has also
carried the burden of showing that Defendants have failed ta,
pass Ordinance 09-4336 by that three-fourths affirmative ,:~
'~~`
~:~
;.. _. :,
~., , ,a
} ~ .~~
a There being seven city council members, six needed to vote in favor pf,the:.~: `a''
ordinance to exceed the three-fourths margin of 414.5. rte:>; ""'~
,~ `":~
5 -'' ``
E Y_i
vote. Finally, Plaintiff has carried the burden of showing
that Defendants have treated Ordinance 09-4336 as if it had
been passed. Plaintiff has established a prima facie case
that Defendants have exceeded their jurisdictional authority
to rezone property by not complying with Iowa Code 414.5.
The burden shifts to the Defendants to show legal cause as
to why Ordinance 09-4336 should not be ruled void for want
of jurisdiction.
There is no legal justification for Defendants'
position. There is nothing in the Code of Iowa that allows
for the three-fourths affirmative vote requirement, once
triggered, to be rescinded. Nor is there any case law
supporting such a conclusion.
_,
III. PUBLIC POLICY SUPPORTS PLAINTIFF'S INTERPRETATION OF,
IOWA CODE 414 .5 . _ - ~ ~ ~~
f...,a ,~
Iowa Code 414.5 confers an important right on _
~ ,'~~
~
landowners within 200 feet of property being rezoned tYSe
>, a "'
power to compel a three-fourths affirmative vote before an
adjacent property is rezoned. Consider what happened in
this case: landowner of more than 200 of property within 200
feet of the exterior boundary of an 82 acre tract filed a
protest petition on the first day of the public hearing.
The process of gathering the notarized signatures for a
protest petition was a substantial effort. Fourteen
landowners signed and notarized documents over a one month
interval from February 6 to March 6, 2009. See Plaintiff's
Supplement to Statement of Undisputed Facts, Attachment 19.
Because Iowa Code 414.5 requires that protest petitions be
filed ~~before or at the public hearing," a protest petition
must be signed, notarized and ready for filing by the first
day of the hearing. Were that not so, and the hearing
closed by the mayor on the first day when everyone had
6
spoken, the petition would be too late. This leads to an
important conclusion: Since a protest petition must be
prepared before the hearing, no petition could possibly
anticipate any changes made as a result of the hearing.
This is why Iowa Code 414.5 wisely requires that protest
petitions be measured against the boundaries of the property
for which the change or repeal is proposed, not against the
boundaries of the property being voted on. See Subsection
I, pp. 3-5 above.
Defendants would have this court rule that last minute
changes are fair, that those changes can by relied on to
invalidate an already filed protest petition, and that it
was sufficient that surrounding landowners, none of whom
received official notice of the altered rezoning proposal,
had sufficient time to file an amended protest petition
between the time the changes to REZ08-00011 were announced
on April 6 and the time the hearing was closed less than an
hour later. Aright conferred by an Iowa Statute that
requires notarized signatures of approximately 14 different
property owners that begins running without notice and
closes within an hour is no right at all.
Were defendants' position upheld, any city council,,,
once a protest petition were filed, could simply look a~t a ,a .~
~~
~
protest petition, adjust the boundary at the last minute, =? .
~~~'
~ a~
and then pass rezoning proposals by a simple majority~tgte
4
instead of the three-fourths required by 414.5. Sustaeiing~`
.>
defendants' interpretation of 414.5 and permitting last i~
minute boundary adjustments to invalidate already filed
protest petitions would completely undermine the very
purpose of Iowa Code 414.5, i.e. to confer important rights
on landowners adjacent to property being considered for
rezoning. Defendants' interpretation of 414.5 is contrary
to established rules of statutory construction. To construe
7
a statute a court must view its purpose to be subserved and
place on it a reasonable or liberal construction which will
best effect its purpose rather than one which will defeat
it. Monroe Community School Dist. Of Marion and Jasper
Counties v. Marion County Bd. Of Ed., 103 N.W.2d 746, (Iowa
1960). Defendants' position undermines the purpose of
414.5, Plaintiff's position upholds it.
Finally, municipal efficiency is important. This
rezoning process began December 5, 2008, and ended May 5,
2009. When the changes were announced on April 6, providing
a new notice to allow for amending the filed protest
petition would have delayed the process by two weeks. A two
week extension on a five month process is hardly a burden.
But even if it were, municipal efficiency simply cannot
outweigh rights explicitly granted to surrounding landowners
by the state legislature in the Code of Iowa.
IV. RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC POLICY
SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT TI3AT IOWA CODE 414.5 REQUIRED A
THREE-FOURTHS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE TO PASS ORDINANCE 09-4336,
FAILURE OF WHICH DEPRIVED DEPENDENTS OF JURISDICTION
REZONE PARCEL REZ08-00011.
~:-
In summary, once a qualifying protest petition is~ - -µ- r~
.,
filed, a rezoning ordinance shall not become effective`: ~=
~,
except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths~of
a ~:.~
all the members of the council." There is simply no "~
language in Iowa Code 414.5 or elsewhere that suggests that
the requirement for a three-fourths affirmative vote, once
triggered, can be rescinded. The language of 414.5 ("the
change or repeal shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members
of the council") is similar to language that has repeatedly
been held by Iowa Courts to mean that compliance with these
statutes is mandatory and jurisdictional, failure of which
8
deprives the city or county of jurisdiction to rezone. See
Bowen, B.& H. Investments, and Osage supra.
A protest petition meeting the requirements of 414.5
was filed. Three times Defendants voted 5-2 in favor, and
three times the vote was short of the three-fourths
affirmative vote required by Iowa Code 414.5. The
Defendants have treated Ordinance 09-4336 as having been
passed, but compliance with the three-fourths affirmative
vote requirement of Iowa Code 414.5 is mandatory and
jurisdictional, failure of which deprived the Defendants of
jurisdiction to act on Ordinance No. 09-4336. Bowen, supra.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court
grant the petition for a writ of certiorari against the
defendants; that this Court sustain that petition; and that
this Court void Ordinance No. 09-4336 for lack of
jurisdiction.
Count 2
,. ,:~ .~ 1
Introduction ~ ~ ~=~-
~.- 5
~~
Statutory requirements as to notice and hearing-a';~ ~.
-, ~r= ='`
mandatory and jurisdictional, and compliance therewitis
prerequisite to valid action by the city council. Bowen d
Story County Board of Supervisors, et al, 209 N.W.2d 569 at
572 (Iowa 1973). Proper Notice of a potential zoning change
is mandatory and must be complied with giving the City
Council jurisdiction to act. B.& H. Investments, Inc. v.
City of Coralville, 209 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 1973). Failure of
provide proper notice is a jurisdictional issue appropriate
for review by certiorari.
Facts
Plaintiff incorporates the facts of Count One by
reference. The City Council announced changes to REZ08-
9
00011 on the last day of the hearing 5 The magnitude of
these changes was significant: (1) The area being rezoned
from ID-RS to RS-5 decreased from 18.58 acres to 0.98 acres,
a 95o decrease. (2) The area being rezoned from RR-1 to RS-5
decreased from 44.29 to 40.13 acres, a 9o decrease. (4) the
area being rezoned from RS-5 to OPD-5 decreased from 79.27
acres to 60.28 acres, a 24% decrease. (4) A new outlot D was
created (20 acres more or less) and excluded from the
rezoning measure.6 There is no evidence the city provided a
separate notice for the revised sixty acre tract.
Issue
After changing the boundaries of REZ08-00011 by
approximately 20 acres and denying an already filed protest
petition, did the City Council violate Iowa Code 414.4, Iowa
Code 414.5 or case law by failing to provide a new notice?
Argument
The purpose of a notice and hearing is to provide
fundamental fairness in resolving the competing interests of
adjacent landowners. The notice for REZ08-00011 induced
adjacent landowners to prepare a protest petition for an
eighty acre tract. On the .last day of the hearing, the
Defendants announced that the eighty acre tract would be
reduced to a sixty acre tract. The Defendants then relied
on this last minute reduction to disqualify the original
protest petition. Was this a fair process? If the --
t
Defendants can change a rezoning proposal at the lash":`a.: r..,
J
minute, shouldn't surrounding landowners be given an''~• r.,.~
_:: .;
~.
s See Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts, Paragraphs 7,8, p 2~~v~a~th
attachments. Specifically compare attachments 1, 12, 10 with attachme 11.
6 See Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts, Paragraphs 7,8,and^`$b, p ~_")
2,3. Again compare attachments 1,12, & 10 with attachment 11.
' See Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts, Paragraph 11, attachment 15.
10
opportunity or amend their already filed protest petition?
Whenever an original notice induces adjacent landowners to
prepare for what was described in the notice, and then what
was described is sufficiently changed so that the protest
petitioners, in retrospect, should have prepared for
something quite different, then the original notice itself
was misleading. When a notice misleads, a new notice should
be required. Plaintiff believes that existing statutory and
case law is consistent with this conclusion.
I. IN CASES INVOLVING PROTEST PETITIONS, IOWA CODE 414.5
REQUIRES A NEW NOTICE AND HEARING FOR ALL CHANGES AND
AMENDMENTS .
Iowa Code 414.5 is clear and unambiguous regarding a
new notice and hearing when there are changes involving a
protest petition:
The protest, if filed, must be filed before or at
the public hearing. The provisions of section 414.4
relative to public hearings and official notice
apply equally to all changes or amendments.e
Immediately preceding this last sentence is a discussion of
the requirements of protest petitions. In that context, the
last sentence modifies the two preceding sentences dealing
with protest petitions. Therefore, 414.5 requires
compliance with the notice and hearing requirements of 414.4
__ ; ..,:~
for all cases involving protest petitions, not just some as"
Defendants argue. The notice and hearing requirements'of ~ ~~°~~~
x
,..~ ~~..
.;,.
;;
s If the protest petition was sufficient for the property described in~y~ke 4;:
notice, but insufficient for the property voted on and passed, then the,;yprope~y
described in notice and the property described in the ordinance were in fact k~ap
separate changes to the city's zoning code. The City's differential treatment
of the two properties is an admission that they were separate changes to the
zoning code. Although each bore the title REZ08-00011, they did so at different
times.
11
414.4 require "at least seven days notice must be given and
in no case shall the public hearing be held earlier than the
next regularly scheduled city council hearing." Defendants
provided no new notice whatsoever, let alone that which
would meet the express requirements of 414.4. Defendants
thereby violated the notice requirements of 414.4 and the
last sentence of 414.5.
II. CASE LAW REQURES A NEW NOTICE AND HEARING WHENEVER THERE
ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO A PROPOSED REZONING, AS THERE
WERE IN THIS CASE.
When events subsequent to publication of notice of a
proposed zoning change lead to an amendment that is
substantially different from that which is noticed, a new
notice and opportunity to be heard may be required.
Oliveira v. City of Milwaukee, 624 N.W.2d 117, (Wis. 2001).
In Iowa minor or formal changes made do not require a new
notice. Brackett v City of Des Moines, 67 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa
1954). There are three considerations in determining what
constitutes a substantial change that requires new notice:
(1) the size of the change, (2) who would be affected and
how and (3) what would be the outcome of a new hearing.
Absolute and relative size of any change is a
consideration. In a challenge to a comprehensive plan, a
change of 4.9 acres in a city plan of 32000 acres (50 square
miles) was not substantial. Smith v. City of Fort Dodge,
160 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 1968). This change was involved 0.0150
of the proposal, less than 2 parts in 10000. Here the area
changed was 21.76 acres out of a tract of 82 acres, a 26.50
change. The percentile change in this case was 1,768 times
larger than that which occurred in Smith. But the change in
the present case is substantial for more important reasons.
An established case law definition of a substantial
12
change is any change that affects different landowners, or a
change that affects the same landowners in a different way.
Oliveira v. City of Milwaukee, 624 N.W.2d 117, at 123. The
change made by Defendants most certainly affected the same
landowners in a different way. Fourteen landowners were
denied their right to file a protest petition and compel a
three-fourths affirmative vote. Clearly this change
affected the fourteen landowners in a different and
important way.
Defendants will argue that where the amendment as
adopted is embraced within the public notice, the notice has
satisfied it's purpose of alerting the public to potential
and contemplated revisions of the local ordinance, and the
notice will generally be deemed sufficient.. Garnett Asphalt
v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d 1226 at 1232, (New York,
1996). In Garnett, the notice clearly advised the public
that three separate though related amendments were
contemplated. When only one was adopted, the notice was
challenged. That ordinance was clearly described in the
notice and itself had not been changed. In the present
case, there was never any description of a sixty acre tract
for which surrounding landowners could prepare. Finally,
Garnett did not involve a protest petition where a reduction
in the area being rezoned could be used to defeat a protest
petition and avoid a statutory obligation to enact the
ordinance by a three-fourths affirmative vote.
The third and final consideration of what constitutes a
substantial change is utilitarian: the question of whether
a new notice and hearing would result in a different outcome
or only in repetitive statements by the same parties,
accomplishing no change in the final outcome except delay.~~
~.,,.
U :;'.-
_~.
13 '>
a ~.
~ .~~~
.~
~:::
! i t 3
-~w. ~~
~~
.,
See Herdeman v. City of Muskego 343 N.W.2d 814, at 816.9
Plaintiffs have clearly shown that a new notice would have
allowed plaintiffs time to prepare and file their amended
protest petition. See amended protest petition, attachment
20, Plaintiffs Supplement to Statement of Undisputed Facts.
A changed protest petition would by definition change the
speech at a second hearing; it would have compelled a three-
fourths affirmative vote; and it would have changed the
outcome. Had a new notice been provided, the 5-2 votes
would have defeated Ordinance 09-4336, not enacted it.
Plaintiff argues that current case law in fact
establishes the following rule: Whenever a change in a
zoning proposal invalidates a filed protest petition and the
changed proposal passes by a simple majority vote but not by
three-fourths affirmative .vote, the change should always be
ruled a substantial change requiring new notice. Only in
this way can the temptations discussed in the last paragraph
of page 7 above--using changes to circumvent protest
petitions--be avoided with certainty.
By all three measures of a substantial change, tie
changes made on the last day of the hearing were indeed' =;
~''a --
substantial and therefore required Defendants to prov:~;de a~.~a tn.,a
_.~. # Yak
~ ~
,.
c.
9 The Herdeman case seems to support Defendants' position. A prot~~~t' ••
petition was filed, the area being rezoned was reduced, the measure was~passed,~
4-3, and a new notice and hearing were denied. But there is a fundamental `~
distinction between Herdeman and this case. In Herdeman, the change made was
the creation of a 180 buffer between the protesters' property and that being
rezoned. By so doing, the Herdeman Defendants respected the Wisconsin statute
authorizing protest petitions by protecting the protest petitioners' legally
recognizable interest in adjacent property up to 180 feet. In the present case,
Defendants have not respected the protest petition or its underlying purpose.
They have provided no buffer, paid no respect to the interests of adjacent
landowners, and have attempted to use a process that undermines the very purpose
of Iowa Code 414.5.
There is another distinction between Herdeman and this case. After the
creation of a buffer, the Herdeman petitioners were outside the protected zone
and could no longer file a protest petition and compel a three-fourths vote.
The outcome of a new hearing would not change. In the present case, Plaintiff
and others filed a new protest petition which would have compelled a three-
fourths affirmative vote, completely changing the outcome of a new hearing--
Ordinance 09-4336 would have been defeated.
14
new notice and hearing. Having made a substantial change,
Defendants failed to provide the notice required by Iowa
Code 414.4, compliance with which is mandatory and
jurisdictional and is a prerequisite to valid city council
action. Bowen, supra.
In summary, Iowa Code 414.5 states that for amendments
involving a protest petition "The provisions of section
414.4 relative to public hearings and official notice apply
equally to all changes or amendments." Iowa Code 414.4
requires at least a seven days notice and never before the
next regularly scheduled city council hearing. Current case
law requires a new notice for substantial changes, which
occurred in the present case. The Defendants never provided
any notice for the revised sixty acre tract, thereby
violating 414.4 and 414.5, compliance with which is
mandatory and jurisdictional and is a prerequisite to valid
city council action. Bowen, supra.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this
Court grant the petition for a writ of certiorari against
the defendants; that this Court sustain, that petition; and
that this Court void Ordinance No. 09-4336 for lack of
jurisdiction.
I
Robert Hege a
44 Tucson Place
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Roberthegeman@mchsi.com
391-338-5818
319-530-0553 (cell)
319-668-2491 (fax)
Original filed
:__...
:..~ _:
1 S '/-' ~ G
.. .. ,. ...._.~ 7
` ~,... ~
--~ w~
Original filed
Copies served by US Mail on September 23, 2009 to the
defendants addressed to the Office of the City Clerk of Iowa
City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Copy served by US mail on a party in interest S&J
Development LLC, 2231 East 45t'' St, Davenport, Iowa 52807
563-332-2123.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (PRIVATE)
I certify that PLAINTIFF'S Brief in Support of
Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated 9/23/2009
was served on the City Council of Iowa City and the City of
Iowa City by depositing the 2 copies of the original in the
US mail postage prepaid on September 23, 2009, addressed to
Office of the City Clerk of Iowa City, 410 East Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
~~ M= ~~
~
,
.,
~
~
~
`
~
\ 1ru.uY
.^
`4
ig
_~ r -~
~.._.® ~
~ ~~~~~ ~
. ,~®,~~
CITY O F IOWA C I T Y
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 1, 2009
To: City Council
From: Director of Planning and Community Development
Re: Update: Flood-related activities
Planning and Community Development
• The first nine homes acquired through the HMGP buyout program have been
demolished.
• Iowa City has closed on 17 HMGP buyout eligible properties- 15 with HMGP funds and 2
with Community Disaster Grant funds. Several more homes in the HMGP program will
be acquired over the next 2 weeks.
• Doug Ongie attended the Johnson County Long Term Recovery Committee Meeting.
He updated the committee on the status of the housing buyouts in the Parkview Terrace
and Taft Speedway area.
• Staff continues to review Jumpstart applications for disbursing State Jumpstart 3
funding. There is $731,722 in Jumpstart 3 funds remaining for housing rehab/repair,
down payment assistance, and interim mortgage assistance. Residents that have
previously applied for Jumpstart funding do not need to apply again to be eligible for
Jumpstart 3 funding.
• Jeff Davidson participated in the Mayor's cable television show on Wednesday,
September 30 to discuss flood recovery projects.
• Several staff members from Planning, JCCOG, Engineering and the University of Iowa
participated in a conference call with staff from the Rebuild Iowa Office, Iowa
Department of Economic Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
representatives from a private architectural firm and representatives from a market
analysis company on Thursday, October 1St to discuss the redevelopment of the flood
affected area near the north wastewater treatment facility. A series or workshops and
neighborhood meetings will be held in mid-November.
• Planning staff attended a flood recovery coordination meeting with the University and
Coralville.
• Planning staff walked Elks Club property that we are hoping to acquire and is assisting
the City Attorney's Office with negotiations.
• The Business Rental Assistance Program is well underway. Applications have slowed,
though there are still some coming in and we continue to take calls from realtors trying to
get businesses in formerly flooded commercial properties. This week, the state added to
the documentation required for each recipient, so staff will be working with folks who
have already received funds and those eligible to, to gain the employee and payroll
information now required.
WORKSHOP PRESENTER
.
Virgil A. Gooding, Sr.
M.A, M.S.W, L.LS.W, LPHA
Virgil Gooding holds Master of Arts &
Master of Social Work degrees
I from the University of Iowa. He is a
Licensed Independent Social Worker
iLlsw~.
With over 30 years experience in
e individual and family therapy.
He has 25 years experience as a
correctional counselor for the 6`h
Judicial District Department of
Corrections in the State of Iowa.
' Mr. Gooding is a Clinical Forensic
Counselor Certified by the American
College of Forensic Counselors.
~ Mr. Gooding also serves on the Iowa
Mental Health Planning
~; & Advisory Council.
He has developed and provided cultural
competency workshops for public and
private agencies and organizations
locally and nationally. Mr. Gooding
has completed primary research
concerning female involvement with
gangs and gangsters. His research
1 resulted in the development of the
"Girls and Gangs: A Conversation with
Survivors" curriculum and the "Girls
and Gangs: AMother/Daughter
Perspective" video. He has also written
and published articles on gang
. development, recruiting in small and
rural communities, and presented
national workshops on gang
development in these communities.
Mr. Gooding, through
Keys to Awareness
Seminar & Consultants,
WORKSHOP
IOWA CITY, IA
"STRANGERS, TOURISTS, & HOOD RATS"
OCTOBER 22, 2009
8:30 A.M. - 4:30 P.M.
HII-.L~
Brokera_ae Center
2010 Keokuk Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
~;-,
E ,~
c$ "'~
°
.~
~Chtitll[~.iti°R Yi
~ - ~.
lit Avg ~
Crass ~
St nth Ave F~k.'1vt~ _
~.in~u~kyt3r °~
Sponsored by:
Keyway Management Company
Hands & Hearts Associates
National Association for the
Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP)
Iowa Multi-Cultural
Substance Abuse Advisory
Coalition (IMSAAC)
• ~~
F
HEAL THE FAMILY INC. ~~
Family Counseling Services t
www. healthefamilyinc. org
"Strangers, Tourists,
_ & Hood Rats"
`~, STREET GANG
'1 DEVELOPMENT
% Special Focus:
Rural States
~ ~~;_~-~
~~~
`" ~~
A growing concern about
gangs, gang activity and gang
behavior has emerged in
many local communities.
During the last several years,
smaller mid-western
communities have begun to
experience a phenomenon
that was once thought to be
only endemic to large urban
centers, the proliferation of
criminal street gangs.
The developments of these
gangs cause an explosion of
violence, crime, and
terrorism that results in a
tearing of the social fabric
and encourages rejection of
pro-social values, especially
among our youth.
The "Strangers, Tourists, &
Hood Rats" workshop
highlights the trademarks of
various National and Local
Gangs and explains how they
recruit and retain members.
This workshop outlines
The Organizational
Structure of gangs and their
impact on communities.
Participants will have the
opportunity to understand
the signs of this culture and
gain tools designed
for prevention.
RegistrationfFees
EARLY REGISTRATION lS APPRECIATED
tY0 U MAY ALSO REGISTER
October 22^'D AT 8:30 A.M.
•SEATING IS LIMITED
$45.00 Individual
$225.00 Group Rate
(Up to 6 participants per,group)
i - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
I I
I Register Today!
I Mail this form ~'
I With payment to: l
I Keys to Awareness
I PO Box 5343 I
I Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
I IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS l
I AND/OR NEED SPECIAL I
ACCOMMODATIONS I
I PLEASE CONTACT: I
( CJ & ASSOCIATES LLC
I (319)365-2106
I Method of Payment:
I Amount$ [[
I Please check one:
I ^Credit Card-^MC ^Visa I
I ^Check Enclosed I,
I Make checks payable to:
I Keys to Awareness
I l
I CREDIT CARD NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE I
I l
I NAME ON CARD ~.
I I
I AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE I
I ~
I NAME(AS IT WILL APPEAR ON CERTIFICATE)
l'
I COMPANY/ORGANIZATION I
I ~
I ADDRESS
I l'
I CITY STATE ZIP 1.
l
I ~
I PHONE/ FAX (FOR CONFIRMATION)
I I
I EMAIL ADDRESS lFOR CONFIRMATIONI I..
~ -- ----- - -J
This training was designed to
comply with the social work
continuing education standards
published by the Iowa Department
of Public Health (IDHA)
Bureau of
Professional Licensure.
``~
~,\ ~__ a
__ end
h p Ag ---~
VII ks ;:
~~
8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Registration
9:00 a. m. -10:30 a. m.
Overview of gangs
10:30 a. m. - 10:45 a. m.
Break
10:45 a. m. -12:00 p. m.
Discussion and _
f ~`~,
Review of Iowa ,'
Gang Research `~~~~~'
1 Z: 00 p. m. -1:00 p. m.
Break for Lunch
1: 00 p. m. - 2: 30 p. m.
Introduction to the
Gangster Social World
2: 30 p. m. - 2: 45 p. m.
Break
2: 45 p. m. - 4: 00 p. m.
Interventions/Responding
to Gang Involvement
4: 00 p.m - 4:30 p.m.
Questions & Evaluations
Introduction of
Heal The Family Inc.
What is "Stranaers, Tourists,
& Hood Rats" about?
This workshop utilizes current practice
techniques, original research and survivor
accounts to raise participants' awareness of
gangster activities, styles and approaches
that often attract kids. The media and
formal presentation focuses on recognizing
signs of involvement and intervention
strategies that make disengagement
possible.
How will l benefit?
• You will learn how to work more
effectively with gang impacted individuals
and families.
• Become aware of high risk behavior
patterns that easily lead to gang
involvement.
• You will be able to fashion intervention
strategies that are individual/family specific
when gang related dysfunction occurs.
• As a professional, you will be able to
identify a youth's level of involvement in
the Social World of Gangs.
• As a parent or guardian, you will gain
knowledge and be
able to deal with issues should your family
be impacted by gangsters.
What will l learn?
• How levels of gang involvement
differ and why a "one size fits all"
intervention strategy will not work.
• Ten basic gangster attitudes and
values and how they affect kids and
families.
• How to recognize if a youth you care
about is involved with gangs.
• Specific information on types of
gangs and their activities.
• What you can do if a youth you care
about get involved with gangs.
Who should attend?
•Family Therapists
•Social Workers
•School Personnel
•Law Enforcement
•Professionals
•Substance Abuse
Counselors ~ ~~'~ `~
•Mental Health ~~,__~,~
Counselors
•Parents and Guardians
•Housing Authorities'
•Community
Leaders/Agencies
•Professional
Development
IP10
Plant some shade°.
MidAmerican partners with the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources in offering our Plant some shade
residential tree-planting program. MidAmerican's Plant
some shade program is designed to work with local ~ ~l~C ~~-~~~~~ ~~-I~,~
county conservation boards, resource conservation and
development councils, and/or county extension offices
(local project coordinators) to provide affordable and desirable landscape trees
(6-8') for residents to purchase and plant on their property for long-term
community reforestation.
Trees are ordered in bulk numbers from local nurseries to keep costs low and
then distributed at a centralized location to minimize transportation costs. Tree
recipients are given instructions on how to plant and care for their trees and also
receive safety information regarding the danger of planting trees near power
lines. A $30 per tree investment is required by tree recipients (this is a $5
increase per tree, effective Aug. 5, 2009). Trees are not guaranteed or covered
by warranty.
Know Before You Grow
• Plan before you plant. Know how tall the tree you plant will be when it
reaches maturity and plan appropriately. Planted too close to power lines,
branches from tall trees can cause outages and pose serious electric
hazards.
• Get the scoop before you dig. For no-cost assistance with locating
underground wires, phone Iowa One Call, Iowa's utility notification
service, toll free at 800-292-8989 or call 811. It's the law!
There is a maximum of two trees per customer; preordering and
prepayment is required. Watch this Web site for upcoming spring and fall events
and order forms. Spring events usually are posted by the end of April, and fall
events usually are posted in September. If you are a MidAmerican customer and
live in Iowa, you may apply at any event.
For additional information, e-mail kawiller@midamerican.com or call 800-434-4017.
keep it cool plant a tree keep it cool plant a tree keep it cool __ _
~~~.
.A ..~
.. .s 5 Y
• ^ ~.
• ~,y~..,,!!
r'", i\3
L+.B
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 1 of 6
~u-u~-uy
Ip11
MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND JUSTICE CENTER COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Decisions of the Board of Supervisors Regarding Committee Name,
with the Justice Center Coordinating Committee Coordinator.........
Cost Comparison Study ...........................................................................
Subcommittee Assignments .....................................................................
Set Next Meeting Date .............................................................................
Page
Membership, Meetings, and Contract
-- - - -~ ......................... 1
.................. 6
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County
Health and Human Services Building at 4:33 p.m. Members present were: Larry Meyers, Terrence
Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan; absent: Pat Harney.
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING COMMITTEE NAME,
MEMBERSHIP, MEETINGS, AND CONTRACT WITH THE JUSTICE CENTER
COORDINATING COMMITTEE COORDINATOR
Justice Center Coordinating Committee (JCCC) Coordinator Bob Elliott said it is his understanding
that at the last meeting the JCCC had with the Board of Supervisors, the Board decided that the
committee name be changed to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC). County Sheriff
Lonny Pulkrabek said the committee has been named the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee for
the last four or five years and sometime during the summer of 2008, there must have been some
discussion narrowing the focus to a justice Center. Pulkrabek said he does not support the name Justice
Center Coordinating Committee because this committee's charge is to look at the whole criminal justice
system. It just so happens that now, the focus is on a justice center, and if and when a justice center
comes about, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee will still need to meet. A primary focus of
the committee is to continue to make policy decisions affecting the criminal justice system. Pulkrabek
said the name should be the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee.
Neuzil said earlier in 2009, the CJCC decided to refer to themselves as the Justice Center
Coordinating Committee without a formal Board vote but with the consensus of the CJCC. Now the
question is whether to change the name back to the CJCC. Johnson County Bar Association Chair Jim
McCarragher said he is vehemently opposed to changing the name back because it will send the wrong
public message. If at this time, the committee is just conducting a study to determine whether a
possibility exists to do something different, changing the name sends the message that it is a fait
accompli. Elliott said personally he prefers the name JCCC but at the same time he understands
Pulkrabek's rationale. However, he thinks the name does not really make much difference.
Iowa City Public Library Adult Services Coordinator Kara Logsden said in referencing her personal
notes from CJCC meetings up until February 2009, the committee was called the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee. Neuzil said his notes indicates a desire to delete the words "criminal justice"
because it carried a negative tone and that "justice center" sounded more positive. Pulkrabek asked
Logsden if she was originally appointed to this committee or whether she simply attends the meetings.
He said he thought when the Iowa Policy Project Report was complete and the Board created this
committee he thought they added a few citizen members including Professor Emeritus John Stratton and
Logsden. Logsden said initially she was a resource person, but she doesn't know if she ever was
officially appointed but thinks she might have been. County Attorney Janet Lyness said she thinks
Dorothy Whiston and Mobile Crisis Team Leader Jessica Peckover were both members of the CJCC.
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/min/090902jccc-min.htm 9/30/2009
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 2 of 6
Stutsman said this is so confusing because she just saw Whiston downtown and she said Whiston
thanked her for un-appointing her to the committee. Neuzil said Whiston requested to be removed.
Lyness said Whiston requested to be removed from the Alternatives and Treatments Subcommittee
because it had completed its work, but Whiston did not ask to be removed from the entire committee.
Stutsman said either way the Board needs to clarify the committee membership.
Neuzil refocused the discussion on the naming of the committee. Stratton said that changing the
name seems to change the focus. Changing the name to the JCCC narrows the committee's focus. He
recalls a discussion which concluded with the need for ongoing conversations between various agencies
in the criminal justice system such as the courts, the Sheriffs Office, the County Attorney, and that this
committee was supposed to facilitate those conversations. If and when the focus is changed, that may
suggest that when the building is complete the committee will no longer be needed because the Justice
Center would be complete. Neuzil asked him if he prefers the name Criminal Justice Coordinating
Committee or Justice Center Coordinating Committee. Stratton said he prefers the name Criminal
Justice Coordinating Committee because of the broader concept. Pulkrabek said the focus of the
committee now has narrowed to look at a justice center, but that doesn't mean the name of the committee
should change. If and when a justice center is built, this committee is still vital to the criminal justice
policy making within Johnson County.
Neuzil said that consensus from last week's Key Issues Meeting was to change the name back to
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee and that this committee serves a greater need than just a
justice center. Neuzil said the committee's focus is on financing, facilities planning, alternatives and
treatments, and public information and outreach, and all this falls under the umbrella name of criminal
justice. McCarragher said the public perception will change again and this will send an unclear
message. He said he polled some lawyers and judges today to ask their opinions because he wanted to
make sure he was not solely representing his views. He said it gives the impression that something is
afoot to divide the two facilities.
Lyness said the focus is on a justice center now. She said the Treatment and Alternatives
Subcommittee concluded that until more space was available, other options for alternatives and
treatment were not viable. Neuzil said the Board never officially voted on a name for the committee,
they just agreed by consensus. Now they are ready to name the committee by taking an impromptu
vote, but first Neuzil said he wants to discuss committee membership.
Elliott said the committee process has been fluid since his involvement. Elliott said he was
comfortable with that until recent events dictated the need for votes and therefore the need for an official
committee. Neuzil asked Executive Assistant Andy Johnson to review the preliminary list of members
the Board proposed at last week's Key Issue's Meeting. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said the
Board appointed the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee in 2003. At the beginning of 2009, the
Board appointed two Supervisors to serve on the committee but never formally replaced the Sheriff and
County Attorney when those positions changed. The Board reached a consensus to include all five
Supervisors, the County Attorney, the County Sheriff, MECCA CEO and President, Iowa City City
Council Member Connie Champion, Department of Correctional Services Representative Jerri Allen,
McCarragher as Chair of the Public Information Subcommittee, a Public Defender Representative, and
John Stratton. Neuzil said the last time the Board voted on committee membership was when former
County Sheriff Bob Carpenter was still in office and it is time to update the records.
Lyness said that Whiston was one of the original people appointed to the committee. Lyness advised
in favor of having a member from Jail Alternatives on the committee or a subcommittee. She also said
John Neff was on the original committee but no longer wishes to be on the committee. Elliott confirmed
that Neff asked to be removed from the committee.
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/min/090902jccc-min.htm 9/30/2009
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 3 of 6
McCarragher said he thinks he should be identified as Bar Association Chair rather than chair of the
Public Information Subcommittee since the views he presents are those of the Bar Association.
Stutsman said McCarragher was listed that way because the chairs of all the subcommittees are on the
JCCC. She said Lyness is Chair of the Alternatives and Treatments Subcommittee. McCarragher said
Lyness is listed as County Attorney. McCarragher said it makes a difference how members are
identified because that determines how he can make his views known at the meetings. He simply wants
to clarify whose views he should consider when presenting to the committee and he wants that to be
clear to the public. Neuzil asked whether a person from the Bar Association should be on the
committee, and how many representatives from the public should be included. Lyness said it is
important to have a representative from the Bar Association and the Public Defenders, both for input and
for community outreach. Elliott asked if the Bar Association represents all attorneys and judges.
Lyness said judges are members of the Bar Association. Elliott asked if the Public Defenders Office
would be represented as part of the Bar Association. Lyness said she does not know which individual
attorneys are members of the Bar Association.
Elliott asked if representatives from Coralville and North Liberty should be on the committee.
Stutsman asked if someone from the police department and the Department of Human Services should
be included. Lyness said there are attorneys involved in virtually every procedure at the Courthouse,
which is different from Human Services involvement. MECCA is included because of Treatment and
Alternatives. Stutsman said her concern is to keep an open mind in determining where the Criminal
Justice Center and the Jail will be located. It has been made very clear to her that the Bar Association's
view is to keep the combined services downtown. Stutsman is in favor of a committee with an open
mind that will weigh all the pros and cons before making a decision. She said she does not sense that
this is the sentiment of some members. She said she thought they were appointing a Chair of the
Outreach Committee, who just happened to be McCarragher who is represented on that committee by
the Bar Association.
Neuzil said that now, since all five Board members serve on the committee, technically one of the
Supervisors could again serve as chair of the Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee. Stutsman
said the committee should be determined after the function of the committee is determined. She asked if
the committee is a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee or if it is a Justice Center Coordinating
Committee.
Pulkrabek said McCarragher is a valuable member of the committee because he is a liaison to the
Bar Association and can affect the justice system in that role. What will remain to be seen is if the Bar
Association continues its involvement after a justice center is complete. Sullivan said the Board has
been at it for 35 minutes without accomplishing very much. His opinion is that it doesn't really matter
who is on the committee because ultimately, three of the five Supervisors have to agree to any action.
Frankly he doesn't value the input from anyone more or less depending on whether they are on the
committee or in the audience. He wants to hear from anyone who has something to add and he doesn't
care who is on the committee. He thinks too much time is being spent on defining the committee's
membership.
Department of Correctional Services Supervisor Jerri Allen said she agrees that the committee
should be named Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee to address the overall goal to have a safer
community in Johnson County. She suggested that the existing committee decide which members to
add, and then make that recommendation to the Board at a future meeting, rather than take more time
defining the membership at today's meeting. She then asked if a mission or value statement exists
noting that she has not seen one in the three years she has been involved.
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/min/090902jccc-min.htm 9/30/2009
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 4 of 6
McCarragher said the only reason he broached the subject of his title in relation to this committee
was to clarify who he should be representing. He did not intend to drag out the conversation, but was
just concerned with how he should present his views as a member on the committee. Neuzil asked
whether the membership spot for the Iowa City City Council representative should be changed to a
representative of local government instead. In the future, a member of Coralville or North Liberty might
be asked to serve. Sullivan said the representation has been from Iowa City because the focus is to build
something in Iowa City. Sullivan said that Interim City Manager Dale Helling would be a great asset to
the committee. Neuzil continued with listing which groups should be represented on the coordinating
committee: MECCA, and the Bar Association. Stratton said the Bar Association is a key player in the
criminal justice system and it should be represented. He disagreed with Sullivan and said committee
membership does matter because it will do more than just recommend a decision to the Board of
Supervisors. After the decision by the Board is made, it has to be sold to the community and Stratton
says one reason the Bar Association is involved is because they offered help with public outreach.
Lyness said it would be good to have a judge on the committee. McCarragher said it is wise to note
that judges feel they really can't publicly advocate on issues like this and therefore should first be asked
if they want to serve. Pulkrabek said judges can give valuable input on policymaking decisions within
the justice system. McCarragher agreed. Lyness said she will ask the judges opinion on committee
membership.
Neuzil asked about having a representative from the Public Defenders Office and members of the
public Stratton and Logsden. Lyness added she would be comfortable with adding Whiston also and
Neuzil agreed. Neuzil and Stutsman said they are comfortable with keeping the Alternatives and
Treatments individuals as a subcommittee resource.
Stutsman asked why a police department representative is not on the committee. Neuzil said that
Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine is on the Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee. Stutsman
said he is also listed on the Facilities Subcommittee. Elliott said that he spoke with Hargadine who said
he would like to be part of the committee when it is further along in its substantive planning. Stutsman
reiterated that if the committee is the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, then the police
department needs to be at the table. She asked again what the committee is trying to accomplish.
Sullivan said he wants to call the question if there is a way to do so.
Elliott asked Neuzil to confirm the committee membership as follows: the five Johnson County
Supervisors, Department of Correctional Services Supervisor Jerri Allen, Iowa City City Council
Member Connie Champion, MECCA CEO and President Steven Estes, County Attorney Janet Lyness,
Jim McCarragher, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Public Defender John Robertson, Dorothy Whiston,
Iowa City Public Library Adult Services Coordinator Kara Logsden, and Professor Emeritus John
Stratton. Neuzil confirmed the list and said that potentially a judge might be added to the committee.
Elliott then asked if he is a member of the committee, or serving as a volunteer staff member. Neuzil
replied Elliott is a volunteer staff member. Elliott said that is fine, he wanted to know only to
understand whether he is a voting member, and that now it is clarified that he will not have a vote.
Johnson reported that the committee decided to have the monthly meeting on the first Wednesday of the
month at 4:30 p.m. Elliott's contract expired in June 2009, but he has continued to volunteer.
COST COMPARISON STUDY
Facilities Manager David Kempf said his impression was that the Board will vote to proceed with
the cost comparison study and so Kempf has had some preliminary discussions with an entity on what it
will take to finalize the study. When the Board formally requests the cost comparison, then Kempf will
suggest his recommendations. The general concept is to develop a matrix to show the difference in
http://www.j ohnson-county.com/auditor/min/090902j ccc-min.htm 9/30/2009
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 5 of 6
operational costs between the Press-Citizen site for the Jail and the combined site downtown. Kempf
said he is not quite sure how a dollar value can be assigned to the intangible variables, presented by
McCarragher, for keeping the combined structure downtown. Neuzil summarized the three options to
place in consideration as the Justice Center downtown utilizing the Courthouse, using the Press-Citizen
building as a Justice Center, or the possibility of using the existing Courthouse for courthouse functions
and a jail at the Press-Citizen site. Kempf confirmed that those are the three options.
Neuzil asked Kempf how long it will take to complete the cost comparison study. Kempf said the
study could be complete in two to three months, depending on how soon the Board gives him direction
to proceed. Neuzil suggested that as part of the comparison process, the committee conduct site visits of
all three facilities as a group. Kempf agreed. He said if Novak Design is selected, he would like
Architect Jim Novak to meet with the committee prior to preparing the cost study in order to address any
unanswered questions. Neuzil said should they decide to move forward with Novak, he would like
Johnson to coordinate that meeting. Pulkrabek asked if this would be part of the Board's regular
Thursday meetings and Kempf said yes. Neuzil said the Board first needs to vote whether to move
forward. Sullivan said the Board will not vote this week because Harney is not present. Elliott
summarized that the sole purpose for recommending this cost comparison study is to determine if
significant savings are available at the Press-Citizen site.
Stratton said that comments relating to errors in the original Durrant Report prompt him to ask if a
review of the functional space needs will be conducted. He said this is essential to the cost comparison.
Neuzil said this will be addressed in the subcommittee meetings.
SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Neuzil said the Alternatives and Treatment Subcommittee needs to communicate with the
consultants regarding space needs and the Durrant Report will need refining. He said the Grants and
Funding Subcommittee really needs to get the conversation with the Government Service Association
(GSA) back on track. He also said that if the Press-Citizen building is an option, the Grants and
Funding Subcommittee will need to determine exactly how to pay for it. This is a time sensitive issue,
which at some point will go to the voters, most likely at the end of 2010, 2011, or 2012. If the Press-
Citizen site is selected, Neuzil said he presumes they are going to want a buyer long before the County
is ready to put the request to the voters. The County does not have the ability to write a check for $3.5
million to secure the site. Neuzil said the Information and Outreach Subcommittee can address the
advantages and disadvantages of a combined versus separate Justice Center.
Pulkrabek said he would like to step up communications with the GSA representative and invite
them to the table for a discussion. He asked if the Facilities Subcommittee should try to coordinate such
a meeting. Stutsman said it is unfortunate Harney is absent today because he is the Board's liaison with
the GSA people and so she said they should wait until Harney returns. Neuzil said he doubts the GSA
decision makers will come to a meeting, though he agrees they should be part of the conversation.
Sullivan said he has an issue with the GSA negotiations. He would like to know who is negotiating
and on behalf of whom. During his four and a half year term on the Board, Sullivan said he has never
had the opportunity to personally hear from any GSA representatives. All information is routed to him
second or third hand. If someone is negotiating on Sullivan's behalf, he is frustrated that no one has ever
asked him for his opinion. Pulkrabek acknowledged the frustration and indicated that is why he would
like to bring the GSA people to the table. Sullivan said he hears there are ongoing negotiations with the
GSA, with the City of Iowa City, and with the Iowa City School District, yet he is unaware of any
details, which leaves him uninformed despite his decision-making position. Neuzil redirected the
discussion back to the subcommittee work and asked if this conversation with the GSA should fall under
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/min/090902jccc-min.htm 9/30/2009
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 6 of 6
the Facilities Subcommittee. Lyness said it should be put there for now, and that she and Pulkrabek will
make it happen at the subcommittee.
Stutsman said she recalls someone saying the GSA people did not wish to address the County
regarding the Jail issue until the County had a definite plan, and the County does not yet have a plan.
Pulkrabek said the work for the Public Outreach Committee could include preparing a list of why people
voted no, and it would be good to refresh everyone's memories, developing a strategy to compile a list of
potential voters for a get out the vote campaign, and compile a list of service groups that is ready to go
when the time is right.
Stutsman said there are no representatives from either Coralville or North Liberty on the committee.
She asked if this contributes to the public perception that the Justice Center is a County issue. She
thinks Coralville and North Liberty should be included. Pulkrabek agreed with Stutsman and added that
the Mayor of Swisher has told him he is willing to attend committee meetings and to help with public
outreach.
Neuzil said he would like to find the mission statement to get a better feel for the committee's goal.
He said each subcommittee should meet before the next joint meeting on October 7, 2009.
Lyness gave the Treatment and Alternatives report. She said 38 assessments were requested and
completed, and 15 on them were on the weekend. One was a Spanish evaluation completed with an
interpreter. Of the 38 assessments, 25 were recommended to participate in treatment services. One
referral was already in treatment. Ten MECCA counselors are trained to provide assessments at the Jail
to ensure daily coverage.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE
Neuzil said the next meeting is scheduled for October 7, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. in the Health and Human
Services Building Conference Room B.
Adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the day of , 2009
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on September 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/min/090902jccc-min.htm 9/30/2009
Page 1 of 2
Marian Karr
From: Roberts, Cindy [cindy-roberts@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:36 PM
To: Council
Cc: Marcia Bollinger; 'thereseraffertymckenzie@yahoo.com'; 'stan@reclaimingroots.org'
Subject: Grant Wood Neighborhood Association meeting FYI-October 15, 6:30pm
Attachments: Grant Wood Neighborhood Assoc activities-2008-9.doc
Dear Mayor Bailey and Council,
The monthly meeting of the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association is next week. We
would appreciate having you attend our meetings from time to time. Our monthly
meetings are always held the third Thursday of each month/same time and location.
Below is our agenda for October 15. The attached document is an overview of the types of
events our neighborhood association has coordinated in the last year. I thought it would
be helpful for all of you to be aware of our programming. We always welcome new ideas
of events or workshops we can provide our neighborhood. Our monthly GW newsletter
should be available by the end of this week.
RE: October Grantwood Neighborhood Association meeting
reminder
DATE/TIME: Thursday, October 15, 6:30pm
Location: Grant Wood Elementary gym, 1930 Lakeside Drive
Thank you,
Cindy Roberts, GW Neighborhood Association
Grantwood Street resident
cindy-roberts@uiowa.edu
337-6034
October 15 Agenda (in progress)
•Guest Speaker: Henry Harper, Juvenile Court Liaison/City High
•Upcoming community events update -Therese McKenzie & Stan Laverman
Harvest Party, Saturday, October 17, 4:30 - 7pm
Neighborhood Clean-up Day, October 24, 9 am -noon
Stan Laverman from Reclaiming Roots will be available at our meeting
for questions.
•IC Chamber of Commerce visit with Davenport Police Department -Therese
McKenzie and Marcia Bollinger
Re: Davenport Crime Prevention Techniques
•Communication Coordinator update -Cindy Roberts
•Grant Wood Neighborhood Assoc web site update -Cindy Roberts & Jamie
Good
•Additional discussion items?
GW Neighborhood Association Contacts
10/6/2009
Page 2 of 2
Therese McKenzie, Event Coordinator - thereseraffertymckenzie@yahoo.com
Cindy Roberts, Communication Coordinator -Cindy-roberts@uiowa.edu
Laura McDougall, Newsletter Coordinator - lauramcdou~al_ I~a~ymail.com
Jamie Good, website development - jamie a moonrising_design.com
Marcia Bollinger, IC Neighborhood Services Coordinator -Marcia-Klingaman-
Bolli~er iowa-city.org
10/6/2009
Grant Wood Neighborhood Association Activities
Fall 2008 -Summer 2009
GWNA monthly meetings -held the 3rd Thursday each month
October Harvest Party -annual event/fall 2009 will be the 4th year of this event
Workshops held at Grant Wood School
-Sept 08 -After School Safety/IC Police Dept, Fire Dept & Ambulance Service
-Oct 08 -Positive Conflict Resolution/IC Police Dept & Mediation Specialist
-Nov 08 -Red Cross Certification for 12 babysitters
-Jan 09 -Home Improvement & Maintenance workshop/Ace Hardware
-Mar 09 -Pet Care Fair/Friends of Animal Center Foundation + other organizations
-Mar 09 -Curb Appeal & Care of Hardy Plantings/Board of Realtors & IC Landscaping
-Apr 09 -Outdoor Safety Dayl Safety Village Bike Rodeo Bike registration Police and
Fire Departments
-Monthly Movie Nights at GW gym
Fundraising activities
-"Splash Pad" to be built at Wetherby Park - $182,000 raised to date
Joint effort Grant Wood &Wetherby Association
-Oct 08 -Pizza Ranch fundraiser
-April 09 -garage sale
-Car wash working along with YES! (Youth Empowered to Serve) participants
Additional activities
-Coordinated area wide meeting (all areas south of Highway 6 and east of the Iowa
River) on May 21, 2009 to discuss juvenile activity in the area
-Held three Teen Movie Nights at Grant Wood gym
-Sought and received Neighborhood Grant Funds to sponsor additional GW workshops,
purchase roller skates for use in the GW Gym, hold a cleanup in cooperation with
Reclaiming Roots and provide food for the Annual GW Harvest Party
-Whispering Meadows Wetlands Park clean-up w/UI Law students
Gw assoc 9/09/cr
IP12
MINUTES
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 27, 2009 - 4:40 PM
Lobby Conference Room, City Hall
Members Present: Zach Wahls, Hannah Green, Jerry Gao, Luan Heywood
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Ross Wilburn
Others Present: None
PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
The Commission recommend against passage of the proposed juvenile curfew unanimously,
4/0. The reasons for this recommendation include:
The restrictive nature of this ordinance on law-abiding, productive young citizens
The negative effect that the confrontations mandated by this ordinance would have on
the perception of police by youth and the stigma associated with law enforcement
officials
The inequality with which this ordinance will inevitably be enforced
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. Hannah Green chaired the meeting.
MINUTES:
Wahls motioned to approve the August 26 minutes.
Heywood seconded.
The motion passed 4-0
YOUTH EVENT CALENDAR:
The Commission discussed the calendar, which has effectively little use since its inception,
reporting a total of two uses. The Commission unanimously agreed that it out to be put into
retirement.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED JUVENILLE CURFEW:
Before Wilburn arrived at the meeting, the Commission briefly discussed the mechanics of
passing ordinances in Iowa City. After Wilburn arrived, the Commission delved into the pros and
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 27, 2009
Page 2 of 3
cons of the issue at hand. Karr reported that the Chief of Police had requested the ordinance's
passage as another tool to deal with the spike in violence on Iowa City's southeast side. She
also stated that a number of communities in Iowa utilize curfews, Coralville among them.
Wilburn said that he doesn't believe that there is particularly strong support on either side of the
issue in the neighborhood that would likely be most directly affected, but those who do support a
side are quite vocal. Heywood expressed her opinion that this ordinance would be excessively
restrictive. Green and Wahls seemed to share similar concerns. The Commission went through
the particulars of existing State and City laws on the issues in Iowa City. In addition, it was
noted that a loitering ordinance has been proposed, but the Commission did not feel that it
pertained to the Commission's goals.
Heywood said that, from her research (distributing a fact sheet), curfews don't really stop crime.
Wahls agreed, saying that it seems it merely gives prosecutors another charge to stick
offenders with. Green said that she would have trouble supporting such an ordinance, because
she felt it would not be implemented fairly or evenly. Gao openly asked what youths aged
fourteen to fifteen would be doing outside after 11 p.m. (This is the time at which fourteen year
olds would be prohibited from being outdoors.) Heywood and Green both shared anecdotes of
their time in community theatre at that age, which kept them out that late. Wahls critiqued the
language of the proposed ordinance, which to him seemed foreign. Karr and Wilburn both said
that the ordinance was modeled on the ordinance passed by other cities and state rulings on the
subject.
Heywood asked what exactly the ordinance was hoping to prevent. Having spoken with
numerous citizens on the topic, Wilburn provided a list of reasons. These included roving gangs
of loud youth, kids cutting through yards, fights, open intimidation, acts with weapons and group
fights. It should be noted that these acts were not limited exclusively to youth. Wahls asked if
most of this was occurring at night. Karr said that this was not the case, but that the intimidation
and fear was heightened at night.
Wahls motioned to recommend against passage of the proposed juvenile curfew.
Green seconded.
The motion passed 4-0
The reasons for this recommendation include:
• The restrictive nature of this ordinance on law-abiding, productive young citizens
• The negative effect that the confrontations mandated by this ordinance would have on
the perception of police by youth and the stigma associated with law enforcement
officials
• The inequality with which this ordinance will inevitably be enforced
The commission again briefly discussed the loitering ordinance but decided to not take action on
it either in support or otherwise.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 27, 2009
Page 3 of 3
YOUTH ARTS INITIATIVE:
Wilburn shared the report from the City Attorney's office. He said that the City cannot link to a
commercial site, based on the City's Internet policy. Due to the nature of some of the content
on that website, the City's public website cannot link to it.
Another issue is the fact that the City would be unable to edit any of the content submitted,
possibly resulting in the creation of a forum for material that would be deemed obscene by the
community. As such, there would be concern that there would be taxpayer dollars going
towards things most would deem inappropriate.
Wilburn then got into what he believed the YAC was supposed to be in its original purpose. He
had hoped for the YAC to serve more as an advisory body than a project group. Heywood
expressed her support for returning more directly to the mission statement. Green agreed, but
added that in her two years, she's seen none of such activity. Wilburn said that part of the
blame of that lays with the Council and that he would like to make an effort to get the YAC
present at a Council work session. The Commission expressed interest in attending one.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Commission decided to meet again on Thursday October 1S'to discuss developments of
the September 29'h City Council meeting and to address agenda items that had to be tabled due
to Wahls's early departure. That meeting will happen at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday.
ADJOURMENT:
Wahls motioned to adjourn.
Green seconded.
The motion passed 4-0
Meeting adjourned 5:40 PM.
Z
O
~ ~
~_ ~
~ ~
~ U .-
OWa~,°~'
U ~ o ~
o p
O Z ~
~ Z ~ ~
~ W
Q ~
~a
O
X ~ X X ~ ~ X
N X 0 X X X
ti
N X X X X X
ti
an
X
X W
~
O
X
X
p
N
X , W
O
X
X ~
X ~
;
ti
X X X X X
X X 0 X X X
X ~ X X X
X X X X X
N X
X X 0 X X X
M
X
X
X
X
X
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i
Z Z Z Z Z ~
' ' '
N
N
Z
Z
Z
Z
i
Z
r
°~°
r, X X X X ~ ~ ~ 0
z z z z z
O
O O
O O
O O O O
~ O
O O
O
~ ~
~
W a
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H W
W
a
z -~
~
~
~
~
~
2
~
~
~
~
~
U
~
¢
~
~.
~
j
Q
~-
_
~ ~
J
N
~
7
3
L
d0
0
~? m
v ~~
x = ~
~~a~
r ~
y ~ d ~ IC
N to
a`aaZZ
II II ~ 11 II
X O ~ '
Oz '
>-
w
Y
Z
O
~o
N a,
~ ~
O W rn °~'
() ~ o ro
0 0
~ W N
~ V ~ C
N Q W a~i
Z } ~
Q W
I-
H Q
0
N X i i X X ~ X
m
N
w
X
X
X
X
~
~
W
H
d
X
W rn
0
M
N
~ rn
0
M
N
~ rn
0
M
N
~ o
M
N
~ 0
M
N
~- o
M
N rn
0
M
N rn
0
M
N
W
Z .~
~~
~.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~_
~
Q
~
~
U
~
~
~
~
~
~
-~
~
~
Q
~
7
L
'C C1
O
~ Z y
v ~~
w~~
_ ~
~°~N~+
rn .n
a`aazz
II II ~ II II
XOpZ
Y
IP13
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Barbara Eckstein, Terry Hora,
Will Jennings
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Ramirez
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:02 p.m.
An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the
procedures governing the proceedings.
ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Sheerin, Jennings, and Hora were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 10T" 2009:
Sheerin offered corrections to the minutes.
Eckstein motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Hora seconded.
The motion carried 40 (Thornton excused).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 2 of 10
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by AT&T Mobility for a special
exception to allow construction of a 100-foot cell phone tower in a Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone at 925 Highway 6 East. The tower would be located off Cross
Park Avenue, behind the building that houses Tuesday Morning.
Walz pointed out on the map where the CC-2 zone was located, explaining that it included the
entire Pepperwood Plaza area. She noted that the tower would be across the street from a
multi-family zone on the north side of Cross Park Avenue.
Walz explained that the applicant wishes to put up a 100-foot tall tower located approximately
102 feet from the south property line (the property line of the commercial property). The multi-
family zone begins in the middle of Cross Park Avenue, so the tower would be more than 100
feet from the residential zone as required by the zoning ordinance. The lease area for the tower
is an area of approximately 10 x 20 feet. The space will include some condensers and will be
surrounded by a privacy fence. All other equipment associated with the cell phone tower will be
housed inside the commercial building. Walz noted that in addition to the privacy fence, the
area would be screened from the residential zone by the tall (10-15 feet high) shrubs along the
south property line.
Walz said that the specific standards require that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot
be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing
structures in the area. Walz said that the applicant must document attempts to utilize existing
structures, towers, or industrial properties within cone-half mile radius. Walz noted that there
are not very many tall buildings in the area, and there are none tall enough to mount antennas
on. Walz pointed out a cell phone tower on Olympic Court, a 60-foot monopole structure, and
explained that the tower is not tall enough for AT&T to co-locate its cell phone tower there. She
noted that the area served by that tower is also slightly different than the area AT&T is
attempting to serve. Walz noted that AT&T would actually like to have a 150 foot tall tower, but
that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations limit them to 100 feet.
Walz stated that the second specific criterion requires that the tower will be constructed in a
manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area.
Walz noted that some communities go to great lengths to disguise cell phone towers as flag
poles or trees. Walz said that Iowa City encourages providers to simply make the poles as
unobtrusive as possible: no guy-wires, no trusses, no lighting, no strobe lighting, etc. Walz said
that such a structure has been proposed by the applicant. All antennas will be located inside of
the pole structure. Walz noted that the applicant has suggested providing some parking lot
lighting on the pole, but Staff does not think additional lighting is necessary. If the Board sees a
public benefit from additional lighting, Staff recommends that the lighting be kept lower than 35
feet so that it does not shine over the landscape screening into the residential neighborhood.
A third specific criterion requires that the proposed tower is no taller than is necessary to
provide the service intended. Walz noted that as this is a communication tower it is exempt
from the maximum height standards in the base zone, and is an allowable height (100 feet).
Walz explained that the service area that AT&T is trying to reach includes areas north of Lower
Muscatine and south of Wetherby Park. The applicant provided coverage maps demonstrating
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 3 of 10
the different levels of coverage provided by a cell phone tower of varying heights at the
proposed location.
Walz shared several photo simulations showing varying viewpoints to demonstrate the
unobtrusiveness of the proposed tower. Each viewpoint was shown both as it presently looks
and how it would look with the tower in place.
Walz noted that the application meets the remaining specific criteria, which are straightforward
in nature: it meets the required setbacks; associated equipment will be properly screened; the
tower will not utilize aback-up generator; there is no strobe lighting proposed; there will be
capacity for two additional users built into the tower to allow for co-location; and the applicant
would have to remove the tower from the site if its use was discontinued.
Walz reviewed the first general standard, explaining that the proposed exception would not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because it is
setback more than the required 100 feet from the nearby residential zone, as well as 100 feet
from the property line, and will be surrounded by tall landscape screening and a privacy fence.
This specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood, Walz explained, because of the setback and screening as well as the
unobtrusive design of the pole.
The third general standard requires that the proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
zone in which the property is located. For the same reasons previously given, Walz said, Staff
feels that this standard is satisfied.
Walz noted that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place for this use, and the tower will have no impact on ingress or egress from the
property.
Walz noted that if there is to be lighting on the pole, it would have to be reviewed by the building
official to ensure that it meets all lighting standards. In all other ways, the proposal conforms to
the regulations and standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
Walz said that the proposed structure will not detract from the commercial uses in the area that
are contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends that EXC07-00005 be approved subject to the following conditions:
• compliance with the site plan and all specifications regarding the tower design and
enclosure submitted as part of the application, including;
• the cell tower will have no strobe lighting;
• the cell tower will be finished in dark brown to match other light poles in the area, or in
another color to be approved by Staff;
• any lighting of the pole will be mounted at the same height as the parking area lighting
on this portion of the property (approximately 15 feet); and
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 4 of 10
• the maintenance of the landscape screening or equivalent S3 screening along the south
property line.
Walz offered to answer questions from the Board.
Eckstein asked if it was truly necessary for the proposed pole to be in that neighborhood in
order to get the service desired by AT&T. She said that given the nearby Olympic Court tower,
she worried somewhat about the accumulation of these towers in a neighborhood that might be
viewed as perhaps less resistant to these kinds of things than another neighborhood might be.
Eckstein said that if the coverage requires this specific site she would like to know that for sure.
Walz replied that there is currently a limitation on the zones where cell phone towers can be
placed. Walz said that presently they are limited to public zones (such as parks), certain
commercial zones, and industrial zones. Walz said it has proven to be difficult to get towers in
public zones because they are generally school or park sites, which often meet with opposition
because the towers are perceived to violate the visual sense of open space. Walz pointed out
the areas on the map where the cell phone tower could be allowed, and said that the applicant
could speak in detail about other areas that were considered to achieve the same coverage.
Walz noted that terrain issues have an effect on coverage and the chosen location of towers.
She said that another site, closer to K-Mart, had been investigated by the applicant but that the
site would have required equipment to be located outside the building and was at a lower
elevation that the site under consideration.
Sheerin said it seemed as though the problem was that AT&T could not locate their antennas in
the Olympic Court tower because it is only 60 feet high and therefore not high enough for their
needs. Sheerin asked if it would be possible to have U.S. Cellular move from the Olympic Court
tower to the proposed AT&T tower to eliminate the need for both towers. Walz said that the City
could not retroactively require U.S. Cellular to do that, and that she believed that the coverage
area the two towers served was different.
Eckstein asked where the two towers were in relation to one another and Walz said they were
about three and a half blocks apart.
Eckstein asked if there were any health effects from emissions to be concerned about with the
proposed tower. Walz said she was not aware of any, but that Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit the Board of Adjustment from considering that. Holecek
added that the Telecommunications Act limits what local governments can do in regards to the
location of these facilities.
Eckstein asked if the location of the tower would create any nuisance or interference that would
be injurious to the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Walz said she was not aware
of any. Holecek said that this would probably be an appropriate question for the applicant.
Eckstein said she applauds the City's efforts to make the towers unobtrusive; however, the lack
of trusses does make her question the susceptibility of the towers to strong winds. Walz stated
that the towers would have to meet engineering standards that are reviewed by the building
official, but advised Eckstein that the applicant could speak more to the issue. Walz said that
some of the cell towers approved in the past were designed so that in a strong wind they would
fold over. Walz said that the setback provides additional protection in that if a tower
catastrophically fails, it would fall on the property and not in the right of way or into the
residential area.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 5 of 10
Eckstein asked for clarification on Staff's recommendation that the tower be removed if it is not
in use for one year. She asked why the City would want to wait such a long time before
removing an unused tower. Walz said that the idea was to give companies up to a year to
remove them. Holecek said the reasoning may be because "abandonment of a use" is defined
as using a facility for its intended use for a period of at least a year. She said that because the
tower would be on leased land, the property owner would likely make sure it is removed.
Holoecek noted that it may be a good idea to add as a condition that the tower must be
removed if it ceases to be used.
Sheerin asked what the enforcement would be if a year went by and the tower was not
removed. Holecek said it would be enforced as a municipal infraction; she said she believed
that the market forces between the lessor and the lessee would likely take care of it before it
reached that point. Sheerin said she was just making sure that the City would not be held liable
for the costs of tower removal if it were not removed within the required timeframe and Holecek
said that it would not. Jennings asked what starts the clock ticking fora "one year" time period
such as the one being discussed. Holecek said the City would try to determine when it ceased
to be used for that purpose by examining FCC filings, rent records, utility records, etc. Jennings
asked if there was then an ongoing system of review in place where an abandonment of use
would be noted. Holecek said that a determination of when a use ceased could pretty clearly be
made in this case.
Jennings asked what the term "hazards" meant-were there certain hazards associated with
cell towers other than that of its stability or collapse. Walz said that the wording is general and
applied to all special exceptions. In each case Staff must consider whether a special exception
creates negative externalities: whether it generates increased traffic or odors that could detract
from surrounding properties or if they create noise or glare. Walz said the particular externalities
of a specific exception must be examined, in this case collapse could be considered a potential
hazard.
Sheerin asked about lighting. She said that while there may be no strobe lighting, there is
proposed parking lot lighting that is 35 feet high. She asked if this would not create more
lighting than was necessary. Walz said that it was the view of Staff that additional lighting was
not necessary. Walz said that the Olympic Court tower was in an area where some extra
security lighting could be useful; however, the proposed location is already well lit and no
additional lighting seems necessary. Staff does not oppose lighting if the Board wishes to
require it; however, Staff recommends that it be placed low enough not to shine above the
screen provided by the landscaping. Eckstein asked if lighting could be stipulated. Walz said
that it could. Sheerin said adding lighting to the area could be a potential nuisance.
Sheerin asked how much traffic would be generated by maintenance to the tower. Walz said it
would be minimal. Sheerin asked for clarification about collapse. Walz said Staff would want
this kind of use in an area with minimal traffic, such as the back of the building, so that in the
unlikely case of catastrophic failure, the tower would not present a danger to people-it would
not fall onto a sidewalk or ahigh-traffic area.
Hora asked if Staff had consulted the FAA about whether the tower was in line with flight
patterns. Walz said Staff had not, but that the applicant would be required to produce that
information in order for the building permit to go forward. Hora asked if there would be a
constant red light on top of the tower if there was to be no strobe light. Walz said there would
not be any light at all. Sheerin asked if this meant that the tower would presumably be too low
for a plane to hit, and Walz said she believed so.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 6 of 10
Hora asked if Staff had looked at the 150-foot towers at MidAmerican Energy and at Kirkwood
for possible co-location. Walz indicated that staff had not. She indicated that Hora could ask the
applicant about that location. Hora asked if Staff had talked to the applicant about the possibility
of raising the Olympic Court tower an additional 40 feet. Walz said they had not.
There were no further questions for Staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Brian Ramirez, an agent for AT&T on this project, said he would attempt to address the Board's
questions. He said that AT&T had done an extensive study with the FAA to conclude that 100
feet would not only be allowable at that location, but had no lighting requirements and would not
be a flight issue at all. Ramirez said that documentation of this would be provided.
Ramirez said that customers of all cell phone providers are demanding greater coverage and
more applications in all areas of their lives. As a result, the cell phone companies are struggling
to keep up with that demand. Ramirez said that if there is not enough coverage calls get
dropped, and that companies are running into capacity issues because they have such high
demand. Ramirez said that the cell phone towers can only support a certain number of cell
phone traffic. Ramirez pointed out areas on the coverage maps where proper service was
lacking. He noted that AT&T would be locating antennas on City High School. Ramirez noted
that elevation and terrain have an enormous effect on coverage range.
Ramirez said that the U.S. Cellular tower at Olympic Court is actually 64 feet tall. Walz clarified
that the tower is 60 feet tall and has a four foot lightning rod on top. Ramirez said that the
reason carriers like to have their antennas on the outside is because they can gain more
coverage area by adding more antennas than they could fit inside. Outdoor location also allows
companies to maneuver the antennas to target specific areas. Ramirez said that having the
antennas on the inside is limiting to providers and the coverage they can provide. Ramirez said
there are three canisters in the U.S. Cellular tower, but that the only room left in them is 30-40
feet high which is insufficient. Ramirez said AT&T would also need to use two levels in their
proposed tower because of the GSM and UMTS technologies which they are using to handle
roaming coverage, different kinds of phones, and roaming customers. Using the U.S. Cellular
tower was immediately ruled out for all of these reasons. Ramirez said that it is necessary for
AT&T to be higher in order to shoot their signals out further and connect with existing cell sites.
Then, those other cell sites could be pulled back and powered down a little bit and to handle
more capacity.
Eckstein asked if Ramirez was suggesting that connections to the existing towers could not be
made without a 120-foot tower. Ramirez said that AT&T was attempting to do the proposed site
in conjunction with City High's tower, and that it is possible that there may still be issues in some
areas north of there that, compounded by terrain issues, could result in coverage that is less
than the best AT&T can provide. Ramirez said there are different zoning codes in every city,
state, and town AT&T goes into, and nearly every zoning code in the country prohibits building
towers in a residential zone. Because of this, cell phone companies have had to become more
creative to accommodate the demand for service.
Eckstein said she is wondering how many of these requests the Board of Adjustment will be
receiving as time goes on. She asked how many years forward this particular tower would take
service if it were to be allowed. Ramirez said that demand continues to increase because of the
wide range of applications offered by cell phones now, but that with the elevation of the
proposed tower he hopes to provide increased coverage. He said he could not guess how long
that coverage would hold out. He remarked that AT&T actually has communities banging down
their door to get towers built and increase their service. He said that the vast majority of
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 7 of 10
complaints received by cell phone companies concern a lack of coverage or service. Ramirez
said he also works for I-Wireless and U.S. Cellular in this area and so he sees the issue from
the perspective of all the carriers. He said that everybody is looking for the best spot they can
possibly get. He said that customer demand is ever-increasing and the atmosphere ever-
changing.
Eckstein asked if Ramirez could speak to her question about nuisance and interference from the
tower. He said he could not because he is not an expert on it, and that the Telecommunications
Act prohibits it from being considered. Ramirez said that the emissions from these towers are
so low there is no cause for consideration; AM radio towers have much more powerful
emissions. Phone towers are so far below those emissions that multiple structures and
antennas are necessary, Ramirez said.
Ramirez asked for clarification on Hora's question regarding co-location. Hora said that to the
northeast of the proposed site there are two 150-foot towers sitting on MidAmerican property
that do have cell phone capacity. Ramirez said those towers were way too far away from the
proposed site. Hora said those towers were in an industrial area and all of the antennas could
be exposed. He asked why that tower could not be used and eliminate the need for the
proposed tower. Ramirez said he did not understand exactly what Hora was asking.
Eckstein said that they were asking what kind of coverage could be gotten from 150-foot towers
with external antennas in the MidAmerican tower location. Ramirez said he did not know the
answer to that because there are so many aspects that go into consideration of tower
placement. Sheerin asked if AT&T had considered these towers as a possibility. Hora said that
there are an exorbitant number of towers in town already. Sheerin said that the Board just
wants to know if AT&T has considered using the existing towers instead of building a new tower.
Ramirez said he can find out that information.
Hora asked if the technology was available to take the Olympic Court tower and raise it 40 feet.
Ramirez said he did not know what the specific network was for the other carriers. Hora said he
was asking if the tower could be extended by 40 feet. Walz said one of the things that would
have to be determined is whether or not the FAA would allow the tower to be extended 40 feet,
as Olympic Court is closer to the airport. Walz said that allowable height gets more restrictive
as one moves closer to the airport. Ramirez said that the number one issue with the present
location was what the FAA would allow, noting that an extended 90-day study with the FAA was
done to determine the height of the tower. Walz said that if this is a genuine concern of the
Board, the Board can defer and wait for an answer. Walz said if there is something that inhibits
the Board from finding in favor of the applicant then they can certainly wait for further
information. Sheerin asked if a vote would need to be taken on the deferral, and Staff said that
it would.
Ramirez said he can appreciate what the Board is saying, but that there are other towers
providing service to the areas near the MidAmerican tower. Hora said he understood what
Ramirez was saying but that his point was that the question needed to be asked as to where the
limit on cell phone towers would be. He said that somewhere along the line a limit needs to be
reached or technology improved because they cannot keep going until there is a cell phone
tower every fourth block. Hora said he is asking if there is another way to provide this coverage,
or if another tower really needs to be built. Hora said he wants to know if other options have
been explored.
Jennings said that he understood that not all sites are equal, and that it is possible that a 150-
foot tower in one location would not be as effective as a 60-foot tower in another. Jennings said
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 8 of 10
there also seemed to be a question as to whether it was better to amplify the signal until it was
so strong it could penetrate any wall, versus new technologies to amplify the signal within the
home. Jennings said the technological questions may be beyond the Board's purview, but as
things are evolving and changing so quickly it may be relevant. Jennings asked Ramirez how
many other sites AT&T actually considered and what the process was by which this particular
site was arrived at.
Ramirez said that the Olympic Court tower was looked at, as was a location behind K-Mart
which was referred to earlier in the meeting. Ramirez said AT&T is severely restricted by
zoning and terrain. Jennings said he understood all of this but wanted to know if there were
other sites considered by AT&T. Ramirez said that the zoning requires a search to be done
within ahalf-mile of the proposed location, and that this was absolutely done. Ramirez said the
proposed location is what works best in the allowable zones. Ramirez said it is much easier
and cheaper for AT&T to co-locate and to avoid building towers altogether and that building
another structure is the last thing they want to do. He said a multitude of different things were
considered in arriving at that location.
Sheerin asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. There were none.
Ramirez said again that there would be no lights on the pole if the board does not want them,
that there would be room for two additional carriers to co-locate, and the equipment will be
inside of the building to keep the structure as unobtrusive as possible. Ramirez said a gray
paint for the pole may blend into the sky better than the brown color suggested by Staff.
Sheerin asked if there were further questions for the applicant. Eckstein said she would like to
thank him as the discussion had been very instructive.
Ramirez said he wanted to quickly demonstrate how important height is for the pole, and asked
Walz to once more run through the set of slides that shows the different coverage areas that are
possible based on different heights of the proposed cell phone tower. He said the coverage
pattern shows obvious terrain issues. He said that AT&T is trying to get the most bang for their
buck and not have to build more towers. Ramirez said that it can be very frustrating for radio
frequency engineers to hear that the location they need for maximum coverage is not in the
correct zoning code. He said he can appreciate the Board's questions, and he hopes they can
understand what it is AT&T is trying to accomplish.
Sheerin opened the meeting up to the public and asked if there was anyone present who
wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Seeing no one, she asked if there was anyone who
wished to oppose the proposal. There was not, and so Sheerin closed the public hearing.
Sheerin opened the matter for Board discussion.
Eckstein said that the discussion had been very instructive and that the Board had stepped into
something extremely complicated due in part to the quick evolution of technology. Eckstein said
she now understood more about the site selection, and that she now understood that while she
was not keen to have another tall tower in that neighborhood, the neighborhood itself would
benefit from better cell phone service if the tower was built.
Eckstein said she was still interested in the answer to the questions concerning the
MidAmerican tower sites, and did not feel that an adequate answer had been provided as to
whether that site could work.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 9 of 10
Sheerin said she felt the same way. She said she thought more cell phone coverage was good
for the community, but that it should be done without building more towers if possible. Sheerin
said she would be interested in deferring and hearing more about the towers Hora had brought
up.
Hora said he would also like to hear about technology and whether or not the FAA would allow
for an extension of the Olympic Court tower. Hora said he believed the technology was there to
put an extension on the mono-towers. If the technology does not permit, Hora said, or if the
radio signal engineers say the MidAmerican towers don't work that's one thing, but he would like
to defer to find out the answers to those questions.
Jennings said that his experience with technology is that it is transitional and is always
changing. Jennings said that clearly the demand for cell service has expanded. On the other
hand, Jennings said, so has the tolerance for visual clutter. Jennings asked if there would be
another request for a tower next year. Jennings said he would like to have the questions about
the other towers answered because it seems a reasonable thing to ask. He said if the answer is
no, it will not work, then he would like to know.
Ramirez said that the building permit for the City High location is in the works. He said that the
City High location will fill in the same gaps that the MidAmerican tower would in his opinion.
The U.S. Cellular tower is made of fiberglass at the top. He said it could be potentially
extended, but he would be very surprised if U.S. Cellular would not have taken all the height
they could get at that location. Ramirez said that the U.S. Cellular tower would have to be
studied for months before answers could be had about structural issues and height limitations.
Ramirez said he did not think an answer could be had quickly, that it would take a very long
time. Sheerin asked if he thought three or four months was a very long time, and Ramirez said
yes.
Walz suggested that the Board state specifically what they wished the applicant to present to
them at the next meeting if they chose to defer.
Sheerin asked Holecek if the board was exceeding their authority by deferring to have AT&T
look into alternate sites. Holecek said they are deferring to get more information about both the
Olympic Court and MidAmerican sites and that was well within their rights.
Eckstein said her suspicion was that the Olympic Court site was too short.
Sheerin said it sounded like there were a couple of threshold questions that could be answered.
Walz asked if there were any other pieces of information the Board wanted from the applicant
besides examining the Olympic Court and MidAmerican sites. Jennings asked what the
arrangements were that kept the equipment inside at the proposed site. Walz said she believed
that the cell company is leasing the space just as the store located there also leases space.
Jennings asked if it was possible to make the indoor equipment a condition and Holecek said
that it was.
Eckstein asked Staff to bring to the Board's attention other potential sites if they are overlooking
any.
Hora asked Ramirez how long it would take to pull the requested information together. Ramirez
said he would like to see what the threshold questions are because anything involving the FAA
will take three to four months. He said he would try to ask U.S. Cellular why they did not build
higher but he did not know that they would give him that information since they are a competitor
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
September 9, 2009
Page 10 of 10
of AT&T. Sheerin said that what the Board is trying to determine is whether either of those
locations are realistic possibilities, and that if he is able to cut-off those inquiries by answering a
threshold question then the Board can proceed. Walz and Holecek suggested that if Ramirez
was to determine that the U.S. Cellular tower would not work because it is at the maximum
height allowed by the FAA and would not give the needed coverage at its current height, then
the Board would not consider that site further.
Eckstein moved to defer the EXC09-00005 until the Board gets answers on the
MidAmerican site and the Olympic Court site and any other tower sites that Staff deems
worthy of reexamination.
Hora seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer passed 4-0 (Thornton absent).
The Board determined that Staff would be in touch with the applicant and the Board about the
possibility of scheduling a meeting prior to the October meeting for the applicant to present
answers to the questions in the motion to defer.
Sheerin closed the public hearing.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eckstein motioned to adjourn.
Hora seconded.
The motion carried 40 (Thornton excused), and the meeting was adjourned at 6:396 p.m.
C
=v
Q
m
N
.0
0
u
A~
W
~.+
~.+
a
L
Z
a
~ ~
Z ~
i
N
N
~
i
~
~
~ {
_
O ~ ~
O~
G V
~ v
~ v
X
x
i
O~ ~ i
N ~ E
Z ~ Z = Z Z Z
~
C E ~ ~ E
Z ,
= Z ~
~ Z Z Z
° x x : x o x
M
~ V
/ ; ~ ; ~ O
~
Z ~ Z Z Z Z
~
Z ~ Z ~ Z Z Z
- E E E f E
Z ~ Z ; Z Z Z
j
u
x x x x x
N ~i' N - O M N O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.X O O O O O O O
LJJ O O O O O O O
C ~ C
~
~ ~ O
y
, L
~ C
~ ~ ~ ~
.
~ Q O
Z = ~ ~ H
L ~
•
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~
m OC H ~ V W Z
~
L
H
~
U ~
~
W +~
~ N
C ~
~
~
~ ~
~ Q Q Z Z
II II II
W II
~ II
X
Z ~