Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-28 Info PacketCity of iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 1995 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Material Sent to Council Only Meeting schedule for February 20 and 21, 1995. Material a. b. C. d. e. f. g. from the City Manager: Memorandum regarding FY96 budget - additional revenues Memorandum regarding Camp Cardinal Memorandum regarding computer replacement account 70O .7o/-- Memorandum regarding Community Reinvestment Act .. 7~J Copy of letter to Board of Supervisors regarding road to soccer fields 7L'q Copy of letter to Mayor's Youth Director regarding funding Comments regarding machinery and equipment property tax exemption proposal before the House Ways and Means Committee, 2-16-95 Material from the City Attorney: a. Memorandum regarding Open Meetings Law 7o 7 b. Copy of letter to William G. Buss regarding Harlocke-Weeber c. Memorandum regarding amendment to language for "Request for Proposals" d. Memorandum regarding city review and approval for division of land prior to recording 7/0 e. Memorandum regarding personnel status of City Attorney's office . 71! Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development regarding Near Southside Fact Sheet. Memoranda from the Director of Parks and Recreation: a. Need for additional indoor recreation space 71~ b. Expansion of Oakland Cemetery -/1~ Copy of letter from UN Association expressing appreciation for support. Copy of letter to the P-C Editor from Pamela Read ~7/~-- Memoranda from the City Clerk: a. Council work session of February 6, 1995 '~/~ b. Council work session of February 7, 1995 ~!~ Minutes of the January 17, 1995, meeting of the Sensitive Areas Committee.~ Minutes of the December 15 meeting of the PATV Board of Directors. Agenda for the February 16, 1995, meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Agenda for 2/21/95 Informal meeting of the Board of Supevisors. Memo from Economic Development Coord. re comments on CEBA criteria, __ Information from City Manager regarding Water, Wastewater, Refuse (budget), 7~ Letters re~arding the Friday Night Concert Series downtown from: ~.~ Press-Citizen; and Liz Miller, IVIEETING SCHEDULE* COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20 - 6:30 P.M. - BUDGET DISCUSSION Enterprise Funds · Refuse collection · Water/sewer - Review of rate policy for capital financing - General issues · Landfill 2. General Discussion TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21 - 6:30 P.IVI.- SPECIAL FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Hearing on housing project in Whispering Meadows General Discussion - wrap-up mgf~2-20&21.agd City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 1 6, 1995 City Council City Manager FY96 Budget - Additional Revenues With the recent, what appears to be an onslaught, of requests for monies to the City Council, following our latest projections of the general fund revenues, I wanted to provide you with a little moro background information. This projection is not "cash in the bank" but a projection of revenues based upon certain assumptions. We would not know exactly what our general fund revenue would be until the close of the City's books on June 30, 1996; therefore, any commitment of these monies must be done with the full and complete understanding that they are projections. As you are aware, we do not know what the state may do with respect to machinery and equipment exemptions and any other changes in our revenues and, therefore, to commit substantial monies would not be in our long-term best interest. Also between now and June 30, 1996, we would deal with two State legislative sessions: the 1995 (current) and the January 1996 session. Who knows what they might do? I have tried to convey this to the several individuals who have called requesting additional funding; however, they are not fully aware of the budget projection process and the length of time involved, that is, we are projecting 18 months out. I think we have acted wisely in considering only one-time expenditures and/or re-establishing spending (fire reserve). 700 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 13, 1995 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Camp Cardinal We were recently advised by Coralville officials that they have approached the Iowa City Rotary club and, in particular, their Camp Cardinal committee concerning the possibility of acquisition of Camp Cardinal, The City of Coralville apparently has interest in the preservation of this sito and will likely turn to the City of Iowa City for some type of partnership, I suspect they will pursue a state REAP grant through the DNR and would probably want to consider the establishment of some sort of commission/committee to oversee the project development and/or other related issues. I will keep you advised but I wanted to let you know that this issue has again been resurrected and the City of Coralville is apparently anxious to pursue the purchase of Camp Cardinal, City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 13, 1995 City Council City Manager Computer Replacement Account During our budget review, the issue of the creation of a computer replacement account/fund was suggested. While at this time we do not have such a formal designation of a specific account other than the library computer equipment replacement account, we have pursued this issue a little further. We are thinking about creating an internal services fund which would provide for maintenance, repair and replacement of existing computer hardware, software and related equipment. This would create some form of an accounting mechanism to accumulate both replacement as well as maintenance funds. It can be segregated in a fashion to allow for identification by organizational assignment and, therefore, we believe it easily manageable. Given some of the general interest, I have asked our Department of Finance to put together a computer maintenance and replacement fund, the details of which will take some time but I wanted to let you know that this work was underway. · bj',compu{er City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 13, 1995 City Council City Manager Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) I have received copies of the annual C.R.A. reports from Hawkeye State Bank, First National Bank, and Iowa State Bank and Trust Company. If anyone is interested in reviewing thes~ documents, please call Lorraine or me. February 15, 1995 Charlie Duffy, Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors P,O, Box 1350 Iowa City, IA 52244-1350 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Dear Charlie: In that the Iowa City City Council has chosen not to proceed with the proposed Greenview Manufactured Housing Project, I felt it important to update you on the plans for the construction of a roadway from the Sycamore "L" to the soccer fields on the wastewater treatment plant site, We recognize the obligation for the construction of the road prior to use of the soccer fields and, in accordance with the language of our conditional zoning agreement, The agreement states as follows: The City agrees that it will establish an access road for the Park Site which will connect that site with Sycamore Street (extended) or Breese Road, The City agrees that the Park Site access road will be established concurrently with any initial development of the Park Site, and that said access road will, except in case of emergency, serve as the primary means of ingress to and egress from the Park Site for vehicles transporting park users to and from the Park Site, and for vehicles and equipment used to maintain the park, It is understood and agreed that this access road will be owned, constructed and maintained by the City, It is our plan to initiate conversations with the owners of the Langenberg tract and we will undertake the design of a chipseal roadway from the Sycamore "L" to the soccer fields, We will assume responsibility for the maintenance of the roadway, I wanted to reassure you that we are fully aware of the roadway obligation and while our earlier thinking was to design the road as par~ of the proposed manufactured housing park, with the defeat of that proposal, we will now be proceeding as I have so indicated. Sincerely yours, Stephen J. Atkins City Manager City Councils. Chuck Schmadeke Karin Franklin bc5-2 CITY OF I0 WA CITY February 16, 1995 Ben O'Meara Mayor's Youth Employment 410 Iowa Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Ben: In response to your recent letter in which you request relief from the 910,000 loan for the purchase of the Mayor's Youth Popcorn Wagon, I cannot support such a request. The monies were loaned to you from our current cash and we have established a payback schedule accordingly. Those funds are expected to be receipted into our general operating budget under the terms and conditions of our loan agreement. The additional monies that have been anticipated are based on revenue projections that will not be formally realized until the end of the fiscal year of FY1996 or June 30, 1996. We are also unaware of what new regulations or financial controls the State legislature may impose. Between now and June 30, 1996, there will be two State legislative sessions underway, With the property tax exemption legislation under review, the City cannot, in my judgment, make long-term financial adjustments. To agree to any relief from your obligations to the City would not, in my judgment, be financially well considered. Sincerely, Stephen J. Atkins City Manager cc: City Council 410 EAST WASHINOTO~ 3TREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA ~2240-1~1'~6 · (Dig) 3S6-5000e FAX (319) J5~-$009 February 16, 1995 Machinery and Equipment Property Tax Exemption Proposal Comments by Stephen J. Atkins City Manager, Iowa City As the Iowa State legislature continues its work on the many and varied legislative proposals it has before them, there is one which is of particular importance to me in my professional capacity as City Manager of the City of Iowa City, as well as of concern to the Iowa City City Council. That legislative proposal being the property tax exemption on the remaining 30% taxable value on machinery and equipment. The elimination of the machinery and equipment property tax is of significant financial importance to the City of Iowa City in that 3.75% of our taxable value or annual revenue of $700,000 is at stake with this legislation. If full reimbursement is not forthcoming, our local finances will be seriously jeopardized. The efforts to promote the M&E exemption proposal seems to indicate that the Iowa economy will grow and prosper by way of additional commercial and industrial development if the machinery and equipment property tax exemption were to occur. While possibly a~ important economic development tool, I have not seen information to substantiate that such an exemption will cause the economic growth it sets out to achieve. Attached to my comments are charts/graphs which should assist you in understanding my concerns with respect to this legislation. It appears this proposed property tax exemption is clearly at the expense of local govern- ments, yet has far greater long-term tax revenue benefit to the state than to local govern- ments. With the wide variety of taxes imposed by the state, such as income, sales, and other consumptive taxes, this broad taxing policy enables the state to enjoy a far greater benefit from the increases that are supposedly to occur in employment and consumer spending. My concern is where do Iowa's cities fit into this economic strategy and how are we to pursue and then support the prosperity the State predicts, when the resources are not made available to us for that purpose, in fact, resources are proposed to be reduced. 2 Further State control and reductions in revenues to local governments will seriously inhibit our ability to respond. If I recall correctly, not too long ago the state of Iowa economic statistics indicated that manufactured goods had for the first time exceeded agricultural products in total value. As I am sure you are aware, manufactured goods are more often thought of as products of the commerce of cities and not rural areas. It is Iowa's cities that provide the infrastructure, water, sewer, public safety to support the industrial and commercial activity that apparently the State feels will drive our economy in the future. Assuming the elimination of machinery and equipment taxation would cause the economic growth to occur as suggested, please keep in mind the state's urban areas will be expected to provide public services to support that economic growth. This is a difficult challenge for cities when revenue is declining and expectations increasing. There are many unfortunate State tax policies, I believe, that work to the detriment of cities. Tax caps, rollbacks based upon agricultural value, reduction in state aid, and as I understand this legislation even the bank franchise revenues to local government, amounting to 5100,000 annually for my community, are also jeopardized. With the addition of other opportunistic tax legislation such as property tax freezes and, if you will recall only a few years ago, legislative proposals made the rounds which indicated that cities were maintaining reserves far too large, a fact that the state now points to with pride. I can assure you our reserves are not such that we can plan for major tax reducing legislation. As I would hope you would see, we cannot assure our cities a reliable financial foundation with the constant tinkering, changing and other maneuvering that occurs with respect to the property tax laws and related regulation, let alone assure our support to the State for its economic initiatives. Unless there is a far clearer statement of purpose for Iowa's cities and/or an interest in a complete review of the overall property tax policy, annually eliminating some form of revenue to the cities and/or other tax or fiscal control policy simply works to the long-term detriment of the very institution, your cities, you want to support the economic development activity you wish to encourage. The State has an economic development agenda, yet would tie the very hands of the institutions that would fulfill your agenda. I recognize that my language may be rather dramatic, but it is of critical importance to my community that our taxing policy, as limited as it is, be preserved. 3 The state does not have the best of track records with respect to this type of exemption legislation and, therefore, the promise of full reimbursement, I ~m sure you can appreciate, I view somewhat callously. The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce has taken a position in support of machinery and equipment exemption with the proviso that all, and may I repeat all, lost revenue to local governments will be m~de up fully by the State. They fully recognize that my community, Iowa City, is growing and will hopefully continue to prosper and provide support for the state's economic development activities. However, we cannot prosper with a continued diminishment of the very revenues that we need to support economic growth. Whether it be through the loss of M&E, freezes, rollbacks, etc., the implications are the same. Iowa's urban communities do not have the financial wherewithal to be the partner in the economic growth that I believe both the State legislature and Iowa cities would like to see occur. The M & E exemption is another reduction, a loss, that cities in Iowa can ill afford to experience. Thank you. Stephen ~. Atkins, City Manager City of Iowa City mgr~comrnonts. M&E Attached are four pages of information, prepared by the League of Iowa Municipalities, which you may find helpful in your review of the proposed M & E tax exemption. Sheets A and B illustrate the governor's version of how his plan to completely eliminate machinery and equipment tax revenue will affect cities. Notice that he assumes that eliminating the remaining 30 percent tax on M & E will push commercial growth statewide 3.119 to 4.4, a 41 percent increase. Since 1986, commercial growth has reached 4.4 percent only twice, in 1991 and 1993. The governor's plan also supposes industrial growth statewide will grow from 1.558 to 2.55, a 63 percent increase. Industrial growth since 1986 has reached 2.55 only twice, 1988 and 1989. Even if the state repeated this kind of growth, and the reimbursement promise is fulfilled, cities and counties would still be short 927 million after 10 years. Sheets C and D illustrate a much more grim picture of what is likely to happen to cities should M & E be completely exempted. If yearly commercial growth increased by 20 percent to 3.75, and industrial growth increased by 31 percent to 2.05, the results are startling. After just 20 years, cities and counties would lose almost 9450 million, even with the proposed reimbursements. Ir~pact on Local Governments Table 1. Impact on State Aid Formula to School Districts ~'~nee~c~arCe~'~ State,gg~Va,ue Sta,e 60% 306,076.524 75% 535.633.9t7 60% 674.896.736 45% 70~.643.673 60% 620.C~3.214 20% 520.853.099 20% 6<33.619.693 20% 717.8C0.678 15% 565.26~.034 10% 360.6~7,624 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2 - Impact on Local Government Revenue and State Reimbursement 2014.15 0 157.428.511 257.650.586 .257.~:).5~6 0% 0 -2,439,634 3C6.071,574 146.203,429 t0 Impact on Local Governments Table 1. impact on State Aid Formula to School Districts Pm..,ected VaJuab~ Net Ola~e in State Cfiange Ndto Scho~ -34.0(]8,502 183,648 · 79.a43,452 426,835 -244.534.405 ~.320.4~6 -.~8. H0.~95 2.959. r98 5.449,391 8.200.933 10,988,705 10.955.0~0 12,996.621 15284.665 15,588,363 15,7~0,990 {5.894.345 16,048.614 ~'25, t 68.073 Table 2 - Impact on Local Government Revenue and State Reimbursement City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 1 7, 1995 To: From: Re: The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney M~ ~ Prosecution of Cedar Rapids School District embers for Violation of Open Meetings Law City Manager Steve Atkins suggested that I obtain additional information from the Linn County Attorney's Office concerning the above matter, Today I spoke with Asst. Linn County Attorney Gary Jarvis concerning prosecution of the open meetings violation. He will be sending me a copy of the stipulated settlement and decree, for my information. The Assistant County Attorney indicated that the school board members had been told, by a non-lawyer, that they were permitted to go into executive session on different occasions, without separate posting of the meeting and without separate roll calls to move into executive session, and that this was possible only because the original search for a new superintendent began with posting of the first meeting, and with properly going into executive session on a roll call vote, all as required by Chapter 21, Code of Iowa (1993). This fact pattern is very different from the conscientious and well-trained City Council, City Boards and Commission, and City staff, who work very diligently to comply with Iowa's "sunshine" laws. Thus, I do not view this prosecution in Linn County as something which should concern us, but merely suggest that we continue to remain diligent in our efforts to comply with Iowa's open meetings and public records laws. CO: City Manager Steve Atkins City Clerk Marian Karr Asst. City Manager Dale Helling Inw~openmtg,rnmo 707 February 14, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY William G. Buss 747 W. Benton St. Iowa City, IA 52246 Re: Concerns for legal opinion; Harlocke-Weeber rezonings Dear Bill: I am in receipt of your letter forwarded to the City Council for the City of Iowa City and concerning the above matter, dated February 8, 1995, of which you graciously forwarded me a copy. I am perfectly aware, perhaps greater than you, that the legal opinion was completed in time for the Council packet and was in less than polished form. Nonetheless, we work on short deadlines, and do the best we can within those parameters. In any event, the point which I wanted to make then, and will continue to do so, is this: there were no legitimate, rational and/or articulable reasons why the rezoning configurations had changed from the prior recommendations presented to the Council last summer 1994 - even though the recommended classifications had, indeed, changed. That is, the prior recommen- dation was for RS-8 rezoning of the entire Ruppert tract, RS-5 rezoning for the Jensen tract, and no commercial zoning for either tract. This is not to say that such legitimate, rational reasons may not have existed. However, the entire question became moot after the "deal" fell through. Moreover, I agree with you that one of the traditional legal standards for a "regulatory taking" is "deprivation of all reasonable economic use of one's property." However and as you well know, there are other tests recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court - all of which emphasize that "takings" questions are a very fact-based inquiry: '"[T]his Court has generally "been unable to develop any 'set formula' for determining when 'justice and fairness' require that economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government, rather than remain disproportionately concentrated on a few persons." Rather, it has examined the "taking" question by engaging in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries that have identified several factors - such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the government action - that have particular significance.' KaiserAetna v. 410 EAST WAS~IHGTOH $T~.E£T * IOWA CITY. IOWA ~2240.1126 · (]19))J6-5000 e FAX (319) 3554009 William G. Buss February 14, 1995 Page 2 United States, 444 U.S. 164, 175 [100 S.Ct. 383, 390, 62 L.Ed.2d 332] (1979) (citations omitted)." Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n. v. DeBenedictus, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 1247 (1987) [emphasis added]. More importantly, if the City is rezoning an entire area with very distinctive rezoning classifica- tions which enjoy many of the same characteristics (sloped terrein) and yet have differing land uses now surrounding them, there must be some rational basis for the distinction in zoning classifications. In sum, in the absence of some articulated legitimate, rational distinction between differing zoning reclassifications, the resulting rezonings may be deem'ed "arbitrary" actions and hence subject to legal challenge under a due process analysis (as opposed to the Fifth Amendment's "just compensation/takings" analysis). Since my philosophy is one of "preventive lawyering," I believe it was my legal duty to protect the City from taking any precipitous actions. When reviewing the record before me, it appeared that 'discretion was the better part of valor,' and I recommended referral of the entire Harlocke/Weeber rezonings back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I also, simultaneously, recommended that the Council go forward with a vote on the Comprehensive Plan, and at least let the property owners and neighbors know the Council's general intent o- but only if the Council felt comfortable with the proposed Plan changes. I trust this is responsive to your concerns, but please do not hesitate to contact me at 356-5030 if you have further questions. Cordially yours, L'mda e~ City Attorney CC: City Council City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager PCD Director Land Use Attorney City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 10, 1995 To: From: Re: The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney quest f~i Amendment to Standard Language for "Re ' (as opposed to bidding documents) As you can see from the first page of a "Request for Proposal" for the Near Southside Redevelopment area design plan, and as requested by the City Council, I have amended the standard language for a "Request for Proposal" to emphasize the difference between requests for proposals, as opposed to public bidding requirements under state or federal law. Hopefully, if persons actually review this language, they will be "put on notice" that there Is a difference between a bidding document, which results in a contract between the bidder and the City, as opposed to a "proposal" - which does not result in a contract between the proposer and the City. I trust this is responsive to your wishes, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. CC: ~ Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager PCD Department Finance Department, Purchasing Division Public Works Department Attachment 70,! DATE: Janua~ 27,1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: #95-85 Desiqn Plan for the Near Southside Redevelopment Area PLEASE TAKE NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, AND IS THUS A SOLICITATION FOR RESPONSES. CONVERSELY, THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL IS NO=,~T A BID AND IS NOT GOVERNED BY STATE OR FEDERAL BIDDING REQUIREMENTS. MOREOVER, ANY ACCEPTANCE OF A PROPOSAL SHALL NOT RESULT IN A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PROPOSER, BUT INSTEAD WILL SIMPLY ENABLE NEGOTIATIONS TO TAKE PLACE WHICH MAY EVENTUALLY RESULT IN A MORE DETAILED AND REFINED CONSULTANT AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PROPOSER AND THE CITY. NOTICE TO PROPOSERS: Sealed proposals will be received at the Department of Planning and Community Development until the time and date specified below for. Near Southside Design Plan, iowa City, Iowa Proposals must be made to the City as to how the Proposer intends to create a design pran more specifically desc,'ibed below. The City retains the dght to reject proposals as non-responsive, to ask for clarification, to enter into negotiation to discuss cost, scope of work procedures and final work product -- all before executing a formal consultant agreement. ADDRESS PROPOSALS TO: Attention of the Economic Development Coordinator, Department of Planning and Community Development, Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240, on or before the time and date specified below. ProposaN shall be sealed and cleady marked on the front with reference to the specified proposal number, FAX proposals will not be accepted. PROPOSALS DUE: 5:00 p,m,, February 24, 1995, Economic Development Coordinator, Department of Planning and Community Development, Civic Center, 4t0 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240. QUESTIONS: David Schoon, Economic DevelopnSent Coordinator The City of Iowa City Department of Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240. (319)356-5236 If the above person cannot be reached, contact: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, (319) 356-5252. February 15, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY TO: ALL REAL ESTATE AND TRANSACTIONAL ATTORNEYS AND ALL REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS: Re: City review and approval of the division of land prior to recording This is to inform you that the City Council has recently amended the City's subdivision regulations to require any division of land (except minor boundary line adjustments) to be administratively reviewed and approved by the City prior to recording in the Johnson County Recorder's Office. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent division of land (i.e. dividing a tract into two parcels) in violation of the subdivision regulations. For ease of development and enforcement, the City has chosen to exempt "minor boundary line adjustments" which result in conveyance of less than 1,000 square feet of land. A copy of the ordinance is included with this letter, for your information. Any division of land (except minor boundary line adjustments) should be submitted to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services located in the lower level of the Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa. The division of land should be provided as a graphical representation of a survey with the following information: Accurate description of each parcel. Total acreage of each parcel. Date of the survey. Arrow indicating the northern direction. If the parcels are part of a recorded subdivision, the name of that subdivision should be shown. Once the City has reviewed and approved a division of land, the survey will be stamped approved, dated and will be ready for recordation at the applicant's expense. However, no fee will be charged for City review. 7/0 -2- In closing, the sole purpose of the proposed administrative review of land divisions by Housing and Inspection Services and the City Attorney's Office is to make existing laws work better. Early detection and problem-solving of land division is a more efficient and effective use of public and private resources than litigation "after the fact." Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Dougl~ W. t roy, Director / Department of Housing & Inspection Services City Attorney CC: City Council City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager Enc, cadatsTlooal~attddiv RECEIVED CITY ~I-TORNE'~S OFFICE CITY OF I0 FF/I CITY STATE OF IOWA ) )SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Susan Walsh, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Ordinance No. 94-3650 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November ,19 94 , all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 7th day of alsh Deputy City Clerk December , 19 94 CIVIC CENTER . 410 ~ WASHINGTON ST, IOWA CITY IOWA ~2240.1126 PHONE (Jig) FAX()Ig) ORDINANCE NO, 94-3650 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, UNI- FIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 7, "LAND SUBDIVISIONS," BY AMENDING ARTI- CLE A OF THE CITY CODE TO REO. UIRE RE- VIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DIVISION OF LAND PRIOR TO RECORDING. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. Title 14, Unified Development Code, Chapter 7, "Land Subdivi- sions," Article A, "General Subdivision Provi- sions," of the City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 14-7A-3 shall be amended by add- ing the following definitions for "Division" and "Boundary Line Adjustment." Division means dividing a tract, lot or parcel of land into two portions by conveyance or for tax purposes. The conveyance of an easement, other than a public highway easement, or a boundary line adjustment shall not be considered a division for the purpose of this Chapter. BoundaM Line Adjustment means the recon- figuration of the boundary line between abutting tracts, lots or parcels and results in conveyance of less than 1,000 square feet of land. 2. Section 14-7A-4, Establishment of Control, is hereby amended by adding new subpara- graph (c). (c) Any division of a tract, lot or parcel shall be administratively reviewed and approved by the City Manager or designee for compliance with the zon- ing and subdivision codes. Prior to recording, a division shall be certified as approved by the CiW Manager or designee. 3. Section 14-7A-§, Issuance of Building Per- mits Restricted, is hereby amended by adding new subparagraph (b). (b) No building permit and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any divi- sion unless such division has been approved as set forth in this Chapter. 4. Section 14-7A-8, Selling Before Approval; Penalties, is hereby amended by repealing subparagraph (b) and in its place adding Ordinance No. 94-3~.~0 Page 2 new subparagraph lb) and by adding new subparagraph (c). lb) It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to agree to or attempt to trans- fer or sell, or to transfer or sell any divi- sion which requires approval under this Chapter without first having obtained certification of compliance. Each such attempt, agreement, transfer or sale shall be deemed a separate violation. (c) In addition to the foregoing, the city may institute injunctive, mandamus or other appropriate action or proceedings to prevent any pending sale or transfer or to prevent any further sale or trans- fer in violation of this Chapter. (1978 Code §32-8; 1994 Code) SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV, EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 22nd day of November, 1994. ATTEST: ~.~.~j CITY Ct, ERK Ordinance No. 9z~-:165o Page -_l_ It was moved by Lehman and seconded by as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Novick AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X X Baker Horowitz Kubby Lehman Novtck Pigoft Throgmor~on that the Ordinance First Consideration 10/25/94 Vote for passage: AYES: Baker, Horowitz, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorto~ Nays; Lehman. ABSENT: Kubby. Second ConsideralJon 11/8/94 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Baker, Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigoct. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 11/'~n/q,', City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 14, 1995 To: From: Re: The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ~ Update on Personnel Status; City Attorney's Office ) As you recall, I now have a vacancy in my Office for an Assistant City Attorney I, which officially became vacant January 6, 1995. While I had hoped that there were still attorneys on my "final list" who were still available, I discovered that the other attorneys were either employed elsewhere and/or happy with their employment, and/or they had still not taken the bar. Unfortunately, for example, Tom Herbert, who I attempted to hire last June 1994, did not take the bar in January 1995 - for whatever reason, know not. Thus, Anne Burnside, Sylvia Mejia and I made tile decision that we had to commence recruiting and seek a new applicant pool - which we did starting January 20, 1995. We are advertising in the Des Moines Sunday Re.qister, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Sunday edition, and the daily and Sunday versions of the Press-Citizen. Deadline for applications is Friday at 5:00 p.m., February 17, 1995. Anne and I will go over all of the applications that weekend, make our interview list, and start setting up interviews within the last weeks in February and the first weeks in March 1995. Anne and I decided that we would not entertain hiring any attorney who had not already passed the Iowa bar examinationl I do not want to have to go through that agony, experienced last June 1994, ever again. I thought this might be helpful to you, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. CC: Anne Burnside, First Assistant City Attorney City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager, FYI City of iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 16, 1995 City Council Karin Franklin, Director, Near Southside Fact Sheet Attached is a fact sheet on the Near Southside Redevelopment Strategies. This sheet summarizes the Council's actions relative to development south of Burlington Street. Copies of the fact sheet have been distributed to the Chamber of Commerce and are available in the Department of Planning and Community Development. If you need additional copies or would like me to distribute these to others, please contact me. Attachment NEAR SOUTHSIDE REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Fact Sheet On December 13, 1994 the City Council of Iowa City adopted a number of measures to carry out the Near Southside Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. These measures are intended to stimulate commercial and residential development in two separate parts of the Near Southside, ensure the provision of adequate parking in the area, provide for a public/private sharing of the finandal burden for parking, and provide for public and private improvements consistent with a cohesive visual image of the Southside neighborhood. TAX ABATEMENT: 2 districts; abatement over 3-10 years from date of application, depending upon schedule of abatement chosen. COMMERCIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA: properties between Court and Burlington streets and along Gilbert Street, zoned CB-5. Qualifying properties: - a minimum of 3 stories of non-residential development -new construction that doesn't replace historic or architecturally significant properties - rehabilitation & additions to historic & architecturally significant structures - increase of at least 15% in assessed value RESIDENTIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA: most prope~es south of Court Street zoned PRM and CB-2. Qualifying properties: - residential development for low to moderate income households -new construction that doesn't replace historic or architecturally significant properties - rehabilitation & additions to historic & architecturally significant structures - increase of at least 15% in assessed value (Over) PARKING FACILITY IMPACT FEE: applies to entire 20 block area except for commercially zoned properties south of Prentiss Street. Revenue from the impact fee will be used by the City to provide parking in the Near Southside. Elements of fee: Commercial uses must pay, at a minimum, $2000/space equivalent to 75% of required spaces (Required spaces generally equal 1 space/1200 square feet of floor area), regardless of the number of spaces provided on-site. · Commerdal uses may provide up to 509° of required spaces on site. o Commercial uses may pay a fee equivalent to 100% of spaces required and provide no spaces on-site. Residential uses must pay, at a minimum, $4000/space equivalent to 50% of required spaces (required spaces are determined by the number of bedrooms per unit), regardless of the number of spaces provided on-site. · Residential uses must provide 50% of required spaces on site, but may provide 100% on site. · The price per space will be adjusted annually to reflect inflation. DESIGN PLAN: A consultant will be hired to complete a plan for the entire 20 block area; to be completed by 12/31/95. The consultant will work with a citizen advisory group. Features of the design plan: · Provide public spaces for people to congregate (may or may not include closure of public streets). Improvements to encourage pedestrians and bicyclists. · Provisions for public art. · Mixed use development south of Court Street. Zoning changes to create a "unifying sense of place." The design plan will include public and private property. REINVESTMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS IN NEAR SOUTHSIDE: The City Council intends to invest public dollars equal to a minimum of 75% of the tax revenue collected on the increased value of projects in the tax abatement program. This investment will be in public improvements to the Near Southside. If you wish to pursue a project in the Near Southside, please contact the following City staff for assistance: David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator - 356-5236 Karin Franklin, Director of Planning - 356-5232 Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director of Planning - 356-5252 ppdd/r\strategy.nss TO: FROM: DATE: RE: CITY OF IOWA CITY PARKS i~ND RECREATION DEPAR~4ENT M EMOl~N D~JI~ Steve Atkins, City Manager Terry Trueblood, Parks and Recreation Director February 16, 1995 Need for additional indoor recreation space _3 As you know, the Parks and Recreation Commission has, for a number of years, been concerned with the need for additional indoor recreation space to accommodate the citizens of Iowa City. In 1993, when the 7-year capital improvement prioritization process was undertaken, both the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission established this need as the highest priority for the larger Parks and Recreation projects. Additionally, the Task Force on Parks, Recreation and Open Space, in 1994, declared that the need to "enhance and expand both indoor and outdoor recreation facilities" should be a high priority. They noted that special attention should be given to the Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center and the Mercer Park Aquatic Center. At a recent meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission asked the Parks and Recreation Foundation to work with staff and take the lead in establishing a task force to look into the feasibility of expanding indoor recreation space in Iowa City. At this time we are in the very preliminary stages, but it would appear that the most urgent need is for additional gymnasium/multi-purpose space. It would also appear that we are learning toward accomplishing this by expanding the Mercer Park Aquatic Center. Again, these are very preliminary thoughts. TO: FROM: RE: Steve Atkins Terry Trueblood Indoor Recreation Space This task force, with staff assistance, will be working on a report to verify the need for additional facilities. They will also be working on some conceptual plans and preliminary cost estimates, prior to approaching the City Council. In order to accomplish this, we will need to hire a consultant, and will need financial assistance to pay for this service. After we have had a chance to obtain quotes, we will be in touch to discuss this with you in greater detail. If you have any questions either Mike Moran or me. or cc: Parks and Recreation Commission Mike Moran suggestions, please contact 2 CITY OF IOWA CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT M EMOl~,~;~N D L]I~ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Steve Atkins, City Manager Terry Trueblood, Parks & Recreation Director February 15, 1995 Expansion of Oakland Cemetery into Hickory Hill Park At their meeting of February 8, 1995, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the concept of expanding Oakland Cemetery into a portion of Hickory Hill Park. Specifically, we discussed the possibility of expanding the cemetery by two to three acres into a western portion of the park, adjacent to a predominantly southeastern portion of the cemetery. Six of the nine commissioners expressed strong concerns about this issue, particularly with the proposed area, and would not favor such an expansion. Upon further discussion, the commission did vote favorably (5-4) on a motion "...to investigate the possibility of expanding the cemetery into Hickory Hill Park in the area adjacent to St. Joseph's Cemetery..." This area is generally northeast of Oakland Cemetery and is not as hilly or heavily wooded. The major problem with this area is that a large ravine separates it from the main body of the cemetery. Therefore, direct access would not be possible... in effect, it would not be connected with the existing cemetery. We will continue to investigate the various possibilities, and hope to provide you with a report sometime this summer. If you need something sooner than this, please let me know. HOtlORARY ?F. ESIOE;~TS Norman E. 8o~ug, Ph D. W. R. ShulIlewodh Oofia~d M. Typet (:3 ~ ~) 356-g01 ~ (31 g) 337-7290 (3~91338.1230 DIRECTORS VC~'L tj H. United Nations Association of the United States of America 20 E. Market Street, Iowa City, iowa 52245-1728 Phone and FAX: (319) 337.7290 EcoNet: unalowa 7 February 1995 Dear City Council of Iowa CiB,, Iowa: Thank you for your generous support, in the amount of $100, of UN at 50: Preferred Futures for the Uaited Nations. Your support has helped make this Midwest premier program a reality. And we are very grateful. As you can see from the enclosed program brochure, your support has helped us produce a fine program of which we can all be very proud. I now look forward to seeing you at the symposium. Sincerely, Dorothy M. Pau~ Executive Director Citv Council of Iowa City, Iowa 41(5 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Pamela Read 4295 Sycamore St. SE Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 339-1338 February 8, 1995 To the Editor, Iowa City Press-Citizen; People resort to name-calling when they have nothing better to say. The Greenview project was defeated because it was a bad project, not because a "tremorous trio" of councilors bowed to pressure from so-called NIMBYs. No one argues the need for affordable housing. Greenview was not the answer. Proponents of Greenview persistently ignore some 450 mobile home pads that will begin building this spring less than a mile from the proposed Greenview site. Where is the need for city subsidies when private developers, including Greenview's Bob Wolf, are willing to build without them? What's pathetic is that the actual subsidy to 116 Greenview residents would have been about $45 a month. For this the city would have spent minimum $1.5 million for premature, out-of-sequence development of roads and water lines, ignoring its own Comprehensive Housing Plan in the process. I applaud Councilors Kubby, Throgmorton and Pigoft for looking past the sales pitch, and for standing up to sarcastic barbs and name-calling to vote down a proposal they found to be a waste of taxpayer money and not what it had been intended for -- flood relief and truly subsidized housing. They showed a high degree of intelligence in actually listening to ALL parties before making their separate decisions. Depicting them as the pet dog of "Jack NIMBY" is insulting to them and to the voters who put them on the council. Name calling like this reflects more on the people who do it than on those they would discredit. Yours truly, '" CC: City Council City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 17, 1995 Mayor and City Council City Clerk Council Work Session, February 6, 1995 - 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers Mayor Susan Horowitz presiding. Council present: Horowitz, Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Throgmorton, Pigott (6:40 p.m.). Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Yucuis, Meisel, Craig, Trueblood. Tapes: 95-22, All; 95-23A, All. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Reel 95-22, Side 1 The following persons presented information: Airport Commission: John Ockenfels Senior Center Commission: Frieda Shannon; Bette Meisel, Senior Center Director Library Board of Trustees: Steve Greenleaf; Susan Craig, Iowa City Public Library Director Animal Control Advisory Board: Diana Luridell Parks and Recreation Commission: Dee Vanderhoef SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS: Reel 95-22, Side 1 The following persons presented information: Johnson County Historical Society/Heritage Museum: Jazz Festival: Mark Ginsberg Arts Council: Shirley Wyrick Convention & Visitors Bureau: Wendy Ford Housing Commission: Jim Harris Laurie Robinson AID TO HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES:' Reel 95-22, Side 2 Linda Severson, JCCOG Human Services Coordinator, presented information about aid to human service agencies. GENERAL BUDGET DISCUSSION: Reel 95-23A, Side 1 City Manager Atkins stated: 1 ) the 27th pay period has been moved out of FY96 budget; 2) there is an additional $180,000 in revenues projected in the FY96 budget; and 3) the aid to agencies contingency fund has accumulated to $15,000. In response to Kubby, Atkins stated he will provide Council with a memo regarding Assisted Housing Authority. Kubby requested that staff schedule a meeting with the Management Labor Council to discuss cost containment issues. Council prepared the following list of topics for continuing budget discussions: Fire Reserve - $50,000 Free Medical Clinic - 91,000 Life Skills Museum CVI] Funding Arts Reach Senior Conter Neighborhood Centers Contingency Transfer Traffie Engincor In response to Novick, Atkins stated he will find out if the City prints the Senior Center Post. Atkins stated he will provide Council with a memo regarding water and wastewater projects which does not include financing information. Horowitz announced a Senior Center reception is scheduled for Program Specialist Braverman on Thursday, 1~30 p.m. City Clerk Karr as Council Members to inform her of their summer schedules. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 17, 1995 Mayor and City Council City Clerk Council Work Session, February 7, 1995 - 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers Mayor Susan Horowitz presiding. Council present: Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton. Absent: Baker. Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Yucuis, Winkelhake, O'Malley. Tapes: 95-23B, Side 2; 95-24, All; 95-25, Side 1. GENERAL DISCUSSION: Reel 95-23B, Side 2 Council approved City Manager Atkins' request to testify for the League of Municipalities before the State Legislature concerning M & E. POLICE STAFFING: Reel 95-24, Side 1 Police Chief WinEelhake presented information about police staffing. Council authorized City Manager to sign the contract supporting the policy position to hire five additional police officers. GENERAL BUDGET DISCUSSION: Reel 95-24, Side I City Manager Atkins and Finance Director Yucuis presented information. Council made the following budget decisions: Fire Reserve - 950,000 Free Medical Clinic - $5,000 Life Skills - Postponed decision until Assisted Housing Authority discussion. Museum -- 93,000 x 3 years CV~ ,~a~,~,.,~ - Arts R ..... - Directed City Manager to contact Senior Center - Neighborhood Centers - Contingency Fund - 9120,000 Traffic EngineoF - Council Salaries - Iowa Arts - 95,000 CVB Jazz Festival - 95,000 CVB Council Work Session January 7, 1995 Larry Eckholt, President of Iowa Arts Festival ~resented information about Iowa Arts Festival funding request. Atkins noted the next Council budget discussions are scheduled February 20 and 21 and will include discussion on enterprise funds, transit, refuse, and landfill. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. MINUTES IOWA CITY SENSITIVE AREAS COMMITTEE TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1995 - 1 1:45 A.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth D. Hudspeth, John Moreland, Jr., Jessica Neary, Sandy Rhodes, George Starr MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Frantz, Dick Hoppin, Tom Scott STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Melody Rockwell, Scott Kugler, Dennis Gannon, Sarah E. Holecek CALL TO ORDER: Miklo called the meeting to order at 11:50 A.M. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 1994 Rhodes asked that the first sentence in the fourth full paragraph on page 2 be corrected to read: "Rhodes said the concept of clustering development to protect environmentally sensitive areas might conflict with the promotion of neo-traditional neighborhoods." He felt this more accurately expressed what he meant. Rhodes moved to approve the December 16, 1994, minutes as corrected, Moreland seconded. The motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION OF THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Miklo presented the proposed purpose section, and asked if the Committee had any questions, additions or revisions. He said one purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to implement the environmental policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. He said a second purpose is to recognize property development rights, while ensuring a certain amount of scrutiny to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Miklo said a third purpose is to provide for ecologically sound transitions between environmentally sensitive areas and urban development. This component came from a Washington State ordinance, which had buffer requirements. For example, a 50 foot setback is required between a wetland and a buildable area to provide a transition between the actual development and tile sensitive areas. Miklo said the fourth purpose statement contains language about public safety. For example, one intention of the ordinance is to address potential hazards of development on steep slopes to prevent destruction to neighboring properties. He said the floodplain would be another area where this purpose would apply to prevent negative impacts on property belonging to others. Rhodes said the ordinance should afford protection not only to private property, but should also address hazards to the public, including keeping mud out of the street. Miklo agreed. Miklo indicated that purpose five attempts to address the issue raised by Jim Throgmorton, who encouraged the Committee to look at neo-traditional neighborhood planning concepts, such as creating neighborhoods that incorporate commercial usage so residents do not always have to drive to a shopping area, but can, for example, walk to a neighborhood grocery store. Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 2 Another neo-traditional neighborhood planning concept encourages the development of neighborhoods with a variety of housing types, including duplexes, multi-family, and single- family residences. Miklo said the last purpose statement addresses the need to provide mitigation to compensate for impacts of development on environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands. For example, a mitigation plan may be required to show how stormwater would be handled so it would not impact or disturb a designated wetland. Miklo said in other cases, the ordinance may require a more detailed planned development that encompasses the entire property and specifies areas that will remain undeveloped, and areas that will have higher densities of development, or just the standard density of development. Miklo pointed out that other staff memoranda concerning the Sensitive Areas Ordinance use terms, such as "Sensitive Area Development Plans" or "OPDHs." These various terms mean basically the same thing; the goal is to require a plan to assure that environmentally sensitive areas are not unduly harmed by development. Rhodes asked if a mitigation plan could include compensatory measures for wetlands. Miklo said in the purpose section, the statements are general. He noted that the rest of the ordinance will detail the requirements for mitigation plans, wetland protection, etc. Starr asked if it was possible to have environmentally sensitive areas within an area that is already developed. Miklo said yes, and pointed out environmentally sensitive features that are mapped in developed areas of the community. He said the intention is to protect the environmentally sensitive features of the property. Rockwell said in some of the ordinances staff had reviewed, the sensitive areas were referred to as "protected areas" or "no-build areas." An entire property might be designated as environmentally sensitive, but only the feature to be protected and its associated buffer area would be areas of limited or no development. Starr said he was concerned that an environmentally sensitive area could be right in the center of a developed area or urban area. Miklo said each section in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance would need to address Starr's concern. For example, the wetlands section will need to address developed areas where potential wetlands exist. Redevelopment of those areas may be limited or curtailed to protect the wetland area, or mitigation may be required. In response to a question from Starr, Miklo affirmed that the Committee could discuss this as each section of the ordinance was being developed. Rhodes asked if Starr was trying to distinguish between the overlay zone itself and the actual sensitive feature to be protected. Starr said he felt there was a conflict between an environmentally sensitive area and urban development. He said the possibility of such a conflict did not occur to him until he considered purpose five, which states the intention to foster compact urban development. Yet, the Committee's task is to develop an ordinance to protect environmentally sensitive areas. He asked how compact urban development could be fostered in environmentally sensitive areas. Miklo said some of the codes staff reviewed had different classes of environmentally sensitive areas. In areas with the highest class of sensitive features, no urban development is permitted. In other classes with lower environmental designations, limited development is permitted. He said this is one issue the Committee could work on as the ordinance is being developed. Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 3 Rockwell said if entire tracts of land containing sensitive features are considered environmentally sensitive areas, purpose five may be difficult to accomplish. She suggested that the Committee may want to develop a working set of definitions for terms used in the ordinance. One such definition might be for "protected areas" that are areas where development is not permitted. As the ordinance is developed, the Committee may establish distinguishing definitions as to what is a "protected area," what is an "environmentally sensitive area," and what it means when we say "mitigation." Miklo said the Committee may also want to look at it from the wider perspective that whole areas of the community are environmentally sensitive. It was agreed that purpose five needed further refinement. Moreland asked about purpose two. He said the word "reasonable" means something different to every person in the room. Moreland asked if it would be better to say "permit and define reasonable use." He did not know how specific the definition could get, but "reasonable use" to one person may mean allowing one dwelling unit, but it might mean 15 dwelling units to another person. He said if some kind of limits are set on development in these areas, the developer as an investor needs to know early in the process, For example, it makes a difference if 10 units or 100 units are allowed on a 10 acre tract. He did not mean that the language had to be totally specific, but he felt the language in purpose two was very broad. Moreland said the information provided to the Committee gave some examples where the density is so many units, but you can take some dwelling units out of one area and put them in another. He asked if that was what the Sensitive Areas ordinance would allow. Miklo said it was one of the approaches the Committee would be examining. This could occur either through clustering development or through a transferable development rights process. Miklo thought it might be appropriate to add the word, "define," to purpose two. He said the term, "reasonable," was intended to be fairly broad and was based on language used in precedential court cases. Moreland said if it isn't defined somewhat, all the pressure would come right back on the staff to make a decision on what they think is "reasonable." He thought the reason for the ordinance was to eliminate some of the pressure. Miklo said some decisions would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, because of the variation in properties and the sensitive features they contain. With planned developments, the purpose is to take each property and look at its capabilities. Holecek said purpose statements are meant to be broad. She said the Committee could define things very specifically as they go through succeeding sections of the ordinance. She said what the purpose statements are meant to do is give an overall view of the intent of the ordinance, as a whole. She said "reasonable use" would be defined as the Committee structured parameters around environmentally sensitive features. She said there need to be specific guidelines applied to each property on a case-by-case basis. Miklo asked the Committee for input as to whether the term, "reasonable use," should be defined. Hudspeth thought the term should be clarified. She said the word, "reasonable," has so many interpretations. Rhodes said that reasonable uses are often defined by the underlying zone or overlay zones. He said things are often very site-specific. But, he said whether you have one or fifteen dwelling units may not alter the impact on a wetland. What matters is the Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 4 footprint of the built-upon and paved areas. He said he was not sure the ordinance could get as specific as some might want. Moreland said they could not get too specific for lack of paper to write it all on. However, he said at least some parameters needed to be set. Miklo said issues like that would be talked about as each section of the ordinance is developed. He asked if the Committee members were comfortable with the purpose statements as a starting out point. There was general agreement that with a few revisions, the purpose statements were acceptable. DISCUSSION OF MAPPING AND DESCRIPTIVE ALTERNATIVES Miklo referred to the section defining how the Committee would actually map or define the sensitive areas. He said this would be one of the more difficult questions the Committee would have to deal with in setting up the framework for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Miklo referred to the January 12, 1995, memorandum from Rockwell that discussed four alternatives. As Rockwell outlined each of the options and their pros and cons for the Committee, she asked the Committee members to determine if there was one alternative they would like to focus on. She said the options that were set forth were not mutually exclusive. She asked the Committee to consider potential blends of the alternatives. Rockwell discussed the first option which relies heavily on the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map - Phase I. If the Committee chose Alternative//1, only the sensitive areas would be mapped as the overlay zone on the Zoning Map. She indicated that although this alternative would give notice to property owners and developers of sensitive areas, it would be costly to verify and survey exact delineations for each sensitive feature, such as steep slopes, wetlands and woodlands. Rockwell discussed the information provided in Alternative//2, which involved mapping entire tracts containing sensitive areas as the overlay zone on the Zoning Map. Miklo referred to a property on the Sensitive Areas Map. He pointed out that the property had steep slopes, wooded areas and also some potential wetlands and a stream, but there were also white portions of the mapped property that are probably farm land today. He said rather than mapping only the colored sections of the Sensitive Areas Map as the first alternative would do, the entire property would be shown as being within the overlay zone if the second method were used -- even if the vast majority of it were free of sensitive areas. Rockwell said one of the concerns with using the second method is the perception that the whole property would be impacted, when actually it simply triggers administrative attention that this property is likely to have a sensitive feature on it. However, the second alternative allows for a development plan that incorporates the entire property. Such a plan may cluster housing on the non-sensitive areas of the property. The boundaries of the overlay zone would be much easier to incorporate on the Zoning Map and surveying would not be required, because established property boundaries could be used. With the second method, developers and property owners would have notice on the Zoning Map that their tract of land had sensitive features on it, but it would not show how much of that tract was affected, or what the sensitive features were. Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 5 Starr asked about the designation of developed areas. Miklo said the areas where sensitive features are shown on the Sensitive Areas Map are for the most part non-developed areas. Rockwell said the Committee may also want to consider how large a property would have to be before the overlay zoning would be applied to it; should small properties that are already platted and developed be included within the overlay zone. She said one of the "cons" listed with Alternative #2 was the political one of gaining public acceptance of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance that includes most of the undeveloped portion of the City in an overlay zone. Miklo said another problem is that the mapping locks in where the Sensitive Areas Ordinance applies. If there were sensitive areas that were overlooked when the Sensitive Areas Map was put together and properties containing those unmapped sensitive features are not included in the overlay zone, those properties would not require a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. Rockwell said the third approach was not to map sensitive areas or properties on the Zoning Map, but to take a definitional approach of listing sensitive features and criteria that would trigger a requirement for planned development. She said this alternative would allow for a broader, more flexible coverage of sensitive areas. She referred to the sensitive features listed in the memorandum under Alternative #3 that included steep slopes, wetlands, woodlands, floodplains and drainageways. Rockwell discussed the fourth alternative. She said this alternative used a regional or watershed approach. This type of ordinance has been used on the west coast, where state legislation requires environmental planning. This alternative is more encompassing and complex than the first three alternatives. It goes beyond what the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission directed the Committee to do. Although this approach goes beyond the scope of the Committee, some of the features of this approach might be put in place later. Rockwell encouraged Committee members to express their concerns and positive feelings about one approach over another. She said what the Committee selected could be modified later, but it would be helpful to staff to set the general direction of the ordinance now. Development of the other sections of the ordinance will be based on the alternative the Committee selects. Neary asked about the fourth alternative where transferable development rights were mentioned. She asked if that was an option that could be incorporated into another alternative, for example, making transferable develop rights a part of the package. Holecek responded that it was possible, but was the type of procedure that would work better in larger cities. Miklo gave an example of where transferable development rights could be used, e.g. on a property that is 1OO% covered by steep slopes or woodlands. He said depending on the situation, it may be better for the property to remain undeveloped, but transfer development or density rights to a property that can better accommodate development. For instance, the ordinance might be structured so a developer could sell the right to build a certain number of dwelling units to a neighboring property owner or someone owning property in another part of town identified as a "receiving district." The property owner should be able to get some value for the land by having the ability to se~l the right to build a certain number of housing units to an owner of fairly unrestricted property in terms of environmentally sensitive features. Rhodes asked why a person who had the unrestricted development would want to buy unit Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 6 rights from someone else. Miklo said if, for example, the developer had the right to build 3'0 units and could buy five more, then 35 dwelling units could be built. Rhodes said that would exceed the density of the underlying zone. Neary said it ends up being a density transfer. Miklo said overall across the community, the same number of housing units would be built. Moreland asked how that would be tracked. Miklo said the City would need to set up a tracking and monitoring system. Moreland thought this would be a fairly abstract process. Miklo agreed it could get complicated. Neary said it could be in place as an option. Milko said one difficulty is people, who own environmentally sensitive property, may never have had any intention of developing it, but will want to "cash in" on the transferable development rights process. Neary asked if it was legally possible for someone in Iowa City to engage in transferable development rights now. Miklo said there is no provision to do that now. Gannon said you need to be careful not to overload infrastructure, such as sewers. Miklo said tilere could be an entire area of the community designated to receive transferred density. Starr asked what would be included in a plan for Phase II concerning environmentally sensitive areas. Miklo said Phase II would potentially involve hiring a scientist to field verify the sensitive area locations. Starr asked if this had been done. Miklo said no, the expense was beyond what the City could undertake at this time. Miklo said another way to field verify would be similar to the way the Grading & Erosion Control Ordinance is handled. He said if someone owns property and is planning to develop it, the ordinance requires a grading and erosion control plan if that property has slopes of a certain percent. It is up to the developer or property owner to field verify and certify the slopes during development of the erosion control plan. He said this is the same approach that would be used in implementing Alternative //3. Starr asked for further explanation of Alternative //3. He said it seemed to be a reasonable approach, but did not answer questions for an individual owner looking for land to develop. Moreland said that was a question he had. He said there had to be a way to develop a red flag for developers so they knew what to expect in buying and developing environmentally sensitive properties. He said a combination of some of the options might work. He expressed concern that before a buyer got into a lot of expense, the City would have something more specific for the developer to use to check out the property. He said Alternative //3 by itself would probably work when you got down to the nuts and bolts of a development project. But, when someone is just out looking for land to develop, especially someone from outside the community, they would have trouble dealing with something as vague as that. Moreland recognized the concern about establishing the overlay zone boundaries using Alternative //1. He thought some mapping option should be pursued where the City would not take all the liability for exact boundaries of environmental areas. If a developer had a map that showed the possibility of sensitive areas on a property, it could be up to the developer to determine more specifically what is involved. Moreland said for the staff to administer Alternative//3 would mean that the developer would have already recognized that there was a sensitive area to work with on that piece of land. He said there had to be a way to let people know there potentially could be a problem there. Miklo said perhaps, the Sensitive Areas Map could be adapted and distributed with the Zoning Map. Moreland said the more notice you can give people, the less likely the situation will develop where a person comes in Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 7 and feels like something can be done with the property, spend several thousand dollars on planning, and then get stopped. The process needs to let the developer know there is a potential for a problem. Morelan~J said then if the developer goes ahead knowing there could be some problems, it would take the "monkey off the City's back." Gannon said except for woodlands, the sensitive features listed for Alternative #3 were the same as for grading and erosion control planning. He asked if there had been problems with that ordinance. Moreland said he thought the site grading ordinance was better than nothing, but it could stand to be improved. He cited the example of Rochester Hills, and asked how the City proposed to monitor that type of situation with regard to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. He wondered if City staff was already too overburdened to be able to monitor this. Miklo said that would be a budgetary issue the Council would have to deal with. Rockwell said it would be helpful for the Committee to consider staffing issues as it develops the ordinance. Moreland thought the obvious people to administer the ordinance would be the engineering department staff, but they are already overbooked and overworked. He said for the Committee to take the time to develop a specific ordinance and have it on the books, but then not have the City really able to monitor it would waste a lot of people's time. Moreland thought the building department and engineering department do a good job of monitoring the ordinances the way they are now. He said the Site Grading Ordinance works fairly well. He thought there could be situations where something wasn't graded as it was shown on the plan, but it may be environmentally better to do it a little bit differently. He said there needs to be someone to monitor these things. For example, if the plan showed the drainage needed to be in one location, and it is verified in the field that it would be better to move it over a little bit to save 10 trees, it would be nice to be able to get some kind of quick method to settle it. Rockwell said the Sensitive Areas Development Plan would need to be based upon verified field information. Moreland said the plan should have some parameters that somebody on staff could review and use judgment based on some criteria to allow a change in the field may be better than what was approved on the plan. Miklo said some language to that effect could be incorporated into the ordinance. Moreland said that some sort of map to begin with would save a lot of people a lot of iime. Starr said that it would be a matter of not necessarily mapping the exact location of each sensitive area, but indicating the potential for environmentally sensitive areas on certain properties. Gannon said that would be a beneficial approach for the Site Grading Ordinance. Moreland said you may want to get a little more specific. He said although it did not show the property boundaries, the first alternative was more specific. He said if a developer wants to develop a property, and sees it is very close to a sensitive area, then the developer should spend more time looking into it. He said if the developer followed through and purchased the property, then Alternative #3 would be applicable. He concurred with Rockwell that a combination of alternatives may be needed. Rockwell said staff supported Alternative #3, but agreed that a reference map of sensitive areas would be a helpful tool. She suggested the possibility of developing a brochure that sets forth what the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires, such as the buffer areas for development near wetlands, steep slopes and wooded areas, and includes some map that indicates the potential location of sensitive areas in Iowa City. Rockwell said this would not Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 8 be mapped on the Zoning Map, but would be part of a guide for development in sensitive areas. Moreland said something like that would be good; something like that in the right people's [developers, contractors, realtors] hands can be very effective. He said this information would be the first thing to show people who are looking to buy land. That would solve some of the problems he's seen where people come in from another city, spend a lot of time tying something up with an option, go have MMS draw up something, and then they come back and say they didn't realize this was sensitive. Moreland said this also takes up a lot of staff time, because developers constantly call engineering and planning staff asking what they can do. He thought it was important to let people have a fairly good idea ahead of time where the sensitive areas are. Miklo said Alternative #3 might have language added to the Zoning Map to refer to the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map - Phase I. The map could be distributed with the Zoning Map. The sensitive areas wouldn't be shown on the Zoning Map, but developers would have notice of potential sensitive areas locations. Moreland said before money and effort are expended, developers need to kaow if there's a good chance they might not get it developed. He said it's the surprises you want to minimize. Starr said even though Alternative #3 does not map an overlay zone initially, the mapping will be implemented during the planned development process. The overlay zone would be mapped property by property. In response to a question from Starr, Rockwell agreed that the planned development overlay zone would map the whole property. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan would address how development would occur in relation to the sensitive areas on the tract. Starr said eventually, as development of properties with sensitive areas occurs, the Zoning Map would end up looking like Alternative #2. In response to Moreland, Rockwell said if someone came to ask what ordinances would effect development, one of them would be the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The sensitive features are listed in the ordinance. When developers look at a site, they can see if it has steep slopes, drainage areas or woodlands. She thought that might be just as effective as mapping blocks of property. Miklo said the intent is not to convince people not to buy property, but to take extra care in developing it. The price paid for the property should be based, in part, on the environmental constraints. Rhodes said the thing the Committee should work to avoid with any of the alternatives is having bits and pieces of properties that are developable divided off and fully developed. We then end up having a chunk of property left that's almost entirely sensitive areas. The developers throw up their hands, say they paid good money for it and should be able to develop it. Rhodes said that Alternative #1 was particularly bad in this respect, because it would lend itself to a piecemeal approach. If each little intricate boundary of a sensitive area is mapped, there is real pressure to divide off the easily developable pieces of tract and deal with those first. Then, you are left with the residue of environmentally sensitive areas with developers saying they paid good money for that and need to develop it. Moreland said one of things developers typically do with a large tract is to start out developing one use on one edge of the property. The developers are looking at market trends, and that's how they try to develop it. It would be nice if they knew what they were going to do with Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 9 i a whole 150 acre tract at the outset, but that often isn't the case. The scheme for developing a tract may change over time, and that changes the platting process. The Commission may feel good about clustering housing and not spreading it out. Moreland said he understands the need to plan so you don't end up with only the sensitive areas to deal with, but he thought it was hard to figure how to do that from the developers' standpoint. Miklo said one of the options staff was considering for smaller developments was a mitigation plan. This would not require a full planned development, but would be designed to protect the sensitive areas on the larger tract. Moreland asked if there was a way to define it by the amount of acres involved. Miklo responded yes, it could be done using either the number of acres or number of dwelling units. He said that is an issue the Committee will want to consider at future meetings. Rockwell asked if the Committee had arrived at a consensus on the alternative it preferred. Gannon asked if all the features mentioned in Alternative //3, including floodplains, were shown on the Sensitive Areas Map. Miklo said yes. Rhodes said he was concerned that hydric soils had been omitted from all of the alternatives that staff had presented. Neary asked why hydric soils wouldn't be included as part of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance if they had been considered important enough to include on the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map. Rhodes said at a minimum, hydric soils should be used as a flag for development constraints and the potential for wetlands. Rockwell said hydric soils could be included. Staff had been advised that hydric soils in and of themselves did not prevent development from occurring. Current construction practices allow developers to engineer for problems presented by hydric soils. Rhodes said he felt there was a long term problem for public infrastructure in waterlogged soils. He thought a flag should be raised for that, Secondly, he thought a flag should be raised for developers who had to bear the extra expense of putting fancy foundation drains in for homes with basements, or to market slab housing. Miklo asked if Rhodes' concerns included environmental concerns or were they primarily related to infrastructure. He asked if it was matter of saying if you develop in hydric soils you need to take some extra precautions versus if you develop in a wetland, you will be doing damage to an ecosystem. Rhodes thought it was a com.bination of environmental and infrastructure concerns. Environmentally, many of those green areas [hydric soils] may turn out to be jurisdictional wetlands when the Corps of Engineers looks at them. The water conditions of hydric soils is a flag to be raised, and that's why he would like to see hydric soils included on the list of environmentally sensitive features. Miklo said that wetlands are on the sensitive features list, and will be addressed through the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Neary asked if hydric soils were included, would the developer need to check to see if there was a wetland. She asked how that was handled now. Miklo said generally, when hydri¢ soils are present on a site, the developer is required to provide written verification from the Corps that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on the site. Rhodes pointed out that had only started happening in the last couple of years since he started yammering about hydric soils at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. He felt strongly that hydric soils had a legitimate place in the Sensitive Areas ordinance. Hydric soils flag environmental constraints that will be placed on development. These need to be examined before development can proceed in a rational fashion. Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 10 Miklo asked if there was Committee consensus to add hydric soils as an environmentally sensitive feature. Starr agreed with Rhodes that hydric soils had received greater consideration over the past two years by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He felt the Commission would support including hydric soils. Starr expressed some concern that adding hydric soils may make it look like the whole map is covered with sensitive areas. Neary said she thought hydric soils were ecologically important, because of their tendency to absorb stormwater. Rhodes concurred saying hydric soils absorb and store stormwater. He said hydric soils are one of the components needed for an area to be a jurisdictional wetland. Rockwell said that hydric soils could be treated similarly to other sensitive features in that development would not be precluded if that feature was present on a site, but development would need to follow certain guidelines to respect the environmentally sensitive feature. Rhodes said as we begin to discuss different classes of wetlands, hydric soils may be considered a lower class of wetland with the ordinance simply requiring that it be checked out. It's letting the developers know up front that this is something they need to consider. Miklo said there seemed to be a consensus to add hydric soils to the list. Miklo asked the Committee members if they felt comfortable proceeding with a combination of Alternative #1 and #3. Starr pointed out that Alternative #2 would come into play as well, because as the ordinance is implemented and properties developed, entire properties would be rezoned and mapped on the Zoning Map as planned development areas. Miklo agreed, and pointed out some examples on the map of planned development properties. When a building inspector receives a request for a building permit in a PDH zone, he or she knows additional requirements, limitations or waivers may apply to the property over and above the standard zoning and subdivision requirements. Miklo said Starr was correct that over time these areas would be mapped, and they would be mapped by property boundaries. Rockwell asked if the Committee was comfortable with proceeding with Alternative #3 knowing that the planned development overlay zone for sensitive areas would be added incrementally to the Zoning Map, or would the Committee members prefer to start with a mapped overlay zone. Starr said his preference would be to start with a mapped overlay zone, as described in Alternative #2, but he questioned the political reality of getting such a global overlay zone accomplished. Starr thought there needed to be a way to give developers proper notice of the sensitive areas requirements, but not scare them away. Moreland agreed that it wouldn't be helpful to developers to have 90% of the developable ground covered with an overlay zone. Each piece of ground would need to be investigated individually, and too much staff time would be consumed. He thought it was better to have the process a little more defined. Miklo said it sounded as though the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map could be used to raise a flag for developers, and Alternative #3 could be used to further investigate the extent of sensitive areas on a property and the degree to which the Sensitive Areas Ordinance applies to the property. The sensitive areas would not be mapped on the Zoning Map, but a Sensitive Areas Map could accompany the Zoning Map. Starr asked at what point in the process the overlay zone would be applied. Rockwell said it would be similar to the PDH process, which is generally a combined zoning and platting process. For example, with Village Green South, the developer came in with a preliminary planned development plan and a preliminary plat. Following final plan and plat approvals, when building and/or grading permits are applied for, the developer needs to show compliance Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 11 with the approved plan, Miklo said his reading was that the Committee preferred to use Alternative #3 with a Sensitive Areas Map being used to accompany the Zoning Map. The Committee members agreed. Starr affirming that the overlay zone will follow property boundaries. Rhodes said he had several specific comments to add. With regard to Alternative #3, Rhodes understood that rezonings and subdivisions would trigger a planned development. He asked if the ordinance would apply when someone came in for a building permit. Rockwell said yes, unless it was specifically exempted. Rhodes said he had questions about whether the grading ordinance applied to intermittent streams. Gannon said the "blue line" definition includes intermittent streams. Rhodes suggested that the Soil Conservation Service manual needed to be referenced in conjunction with steep slopes. Rhodes also expressed concern about the Corps of Engineers being the only source referenced in conjunction with jurisdictional wetlands. He said there are certified professional consultants that are able to make wetland determinations, such as was done with Sycamore Farms. Because the FEMA maps for floodplains are in the process of being updated, he recommended that the FEMA maps be referenced as the "current" set, not as the "1 985" maps. Miklo said Rhodes' comments were good points to be taken into consideration as the ordinance is developed. DISCUSSION OF EXEMPTIONS SECTION Rockwell explained that the proposed exemptions list was a preliminary listing developed by reviewing ordinances from various cities, the draft woodlands preservation ordinance and the precedents within the City Code to exempt single~family or duplex residences from certain requirements. She said the first exemption dealing with public safety appeared in some form in almost every sensitive areas ordinance the staff reviewed. She said the second exemption allowing the sale of property was fairly self explanatory. Rhodes confirmed that the exemption did not apply to the subdivision of property. It applied only to the sale of property. Rockwell said yes, as long as the property was not being subdivided or developed, a property could be sold without having to comply with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Rockwell said the next exemption dealt with normal maintenance or expansion of a single- family or duplex residence. This exemption as well as the next one exempting new construction of single-family or duplex needed to be modified so the total amount of expansion or construction area is set. It should make clear that a property owner can't come in again and again getting permits to expand in 1,000 square foot increments; a maximum total of 1,000 square feet is permitted under this exemption. Rhodes raised a concern about both of the residential exemptions. He said the exemptions both specifically prohibit encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands. He felt that steep slopes, drainageways and so on should not be exempted from purview. Rockwell said the intent was to allow a modest amount of development for single-family and duplex residences without requiring people to go through the planned development process. Moreland said the ordinance should not tie up everyone, staff and owners of small properties, for individual residential development. Rockwell said as the ordinance is developed, the Committee may decide that the exemption may apply to buffer areas, but not protected areas. Miklo said from a market perspective, it would be rare when an individual homeowner would go to the expense of tampering with these sensitive areas. Rhodes said he wasn't thinking of placing an OPDH requirement on a Sensitive Areas Committee January 17, 1995 Page 12 single-famil~ dwelling, but thought more of a fairly simple permitting procedure could be used to address sensitive areas. Concerning the exemption for new construction of single-family and duplex residences, Rockwell noted that grading, clearing or development activities are not to exceed 20,000 square feet in area. To put the 20,000 square foot amount into perspective, she pointed out that it amounted to ebout half an acre. The minimum lot size in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet, so 20,000 square feet would be a larger area than two minimum size RS-5 zone lots. Rockwell said the other two exemptions on drainage ditches/groundwater monitoring wells and woodland management activities were fairly straight forward and could be looked at in more detail at future Committee meetings. Starr asked if the ordinance would have applied in the case of the single lot annexation and rezoning of a property on the east side of town that had a mature stand of oak trees. Rockwell said no, it would not have applied. However, that case was more an aberration than the norm in that annexations and rezonings usually involve more than one residential lot. Moreland said the protection could have been provided through a conditional zoning. Rockwell agreed, but noted in the particular case being discussed, the property owner was very careful to protect the oak trees on the property. In response to a question on the woodland management activities, Rockwell said the intent was to exempt existinq tree farming operations. She said staff would try to clarify that before the next Sensitive Areas Committee meeting. SCHEDULING THE NEXT MEETING Miklo said at the next meeting, staff would like to present specific information on steep slopes and how to regulate development in areas with steep slopes. Staff may also present information on stream corridors, and perhaps, information on wetlands. He suggested that Alternative //3 would be modified in light of the Committee's discussion and that the exemptions section would be revisited. The Committee agreed to meet again in three weeks on February 7, 1995, at 11:45 a.m. in the City Manager's conference room. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1 .'25 p.m. Amended & Approved Minutes PATV Board of Directors Meeting Thursday, Dec. 15, at 7 p.m. in Meeting Room C of the Iowa City Public Library Present: Doug Aliaire, Greg Easley, Vicky Grube, Derek Maurer, Maureen McCormick, Scott Murray, Larry Quigley Staff: Ren~ Paine Library: Beth Fisher Absent: Derrick Honore, Steve Wudzler Minutes: Aliaire moved, and McCormick seconded, that the November Minutes be approved as submitted. Carried. Aliaire noted, however, that while the Minutes correctly reported his comments regarding re-election of board members elected at the Annual Meeting, he was mistaken on that point. Actually, the Board may appoint members elected at the Annual Meeting to new terms at the completion of their initial terms, and thus do not necessarily have to be re-elected by the general membership. Reports: BTC- McCormick reported that the BTC in its November meeting directed the staff of the Government Channel to submit a proposal for community programming. Also, representatives of the city and TCl have met twice in December to discuss refranchising. The BTC will report on those meetings at its regular meeting Dec. 19. LIBRARY- Fisher reported that representatives of the Iowa City Public Library, Johnson County Information Services, Iowa City Community School District, and University of Iowa met recently with Bill Blough and Blake Watts of TCI to discuss a proposal to install fiber optic cable for the local Information Network. Also, Fisher is now compiling information for a year-end analysis of programming on Channel 10. Finally, the sesquicentennial video committee met recently; the committee will sponsor a public meeting Jan. 11 for anyone interested in the project. CTG - No report. CHAIR - Aliaire listed his goals for the Board of Directors in the coming year. They include: 1) Organize a performance review of the PATV Director; 2) Develop improved recruitment of candidates for Board of Directors membership; 3) Fundraising; 4) Develop an outreach plan to boost community awareness of PATV: and 5) establish a new regular meeting place to replace the former location, which was hard to find, small. and often noisy. FINANCIAL COMMI'FrEE - McCormick presented the monthly budget for November. Also, she reported that the committee met to discuss fundraising ideas. They include: 1) Organize a benefit with live music at a location such a Old Brick, which could be cablecast live on PATV; and 2) Organize a raffle with the prize being an appearance on the "Naugbty Poo Pie" show. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE. No report. OUTREACH COMMITTEE - No report. MANAGEMENT - Paine repoded that the staff has sent a letter to the insurance company outlining PATV's procedures for live call-in shows; producers of such programs will designate a phone operator who will answer calls, take callers' names and telephone numbers, and call them back for their on-air calls. So far the procedure has worked well. Also, PATV sponsored the public premier of Donald and Robert Kinney's "Demons" Dec. 14 in Meeting Room A of the Public Library. Turnout was good, and "Demons" is now airing on PATV. Also, PATV will sponsor a talent show for grade school-aged children in Meeting Room A over the holiday break; the talent show is organized by two community producers. Also. PATV will again host a Science Center workshop on Dec. 29. Finally, Paine submitted a six-month advertising contract. valued at $552, with Icon. Under the contract PATV will receive a quarter-page ad once a month for six months. On a motion by Maurer and Grube, the contract was approved. Election of Officers: Tile following Board members were selected to serve as officers: CHAIR - Doug Aliaire VICE CHAIR - Steve Wurtzler SECRETARY- Derek Maurer TREASURER- Derrick Honore Also, new members chose terms of office as follows: ,. ..............._____._ ..................................'fAO TERM ENDING IN 1995 - Derek Maurer (elected); the incumbents for this term are Maureen McCormick and Steve Wurtzler (both appointed). TERM ENDING IN 1996- Larry Quigley (appointed); the incumbents for this term are Scott Murray (elected) and Doug Aliaire (appointed). TERM ENDING IN 1997 - Vicky Grube (elected), Greg Easley (appointed), and Derrick Honore (appointed). Finally, Aliaire noted he will assign members to the Boards stand'ng committees and report to the January meeling. Old Business: Aliaire reviewed the history of public access and community programming for new Board members. He mentioned the historic tension in public access between the ideal of providing equipment and training for people to produce their own shows and the ideal of providing production services to individuals and groups within the community. He noted that here PATV has struck a balance by focusing on providing equipment and training to commun ty producers while also providing personnel for a certain number of staff-assisted programs. The tension between the two ideals has come to bear recently in an ongoing discussion of community programming, a concept whereby access organizations would provide production services for community groups. One approach to this concept was the Community Television Group, envisioned as a consortium of local access organ zations that would pool their resources to provide community programming services. Talks among the various access ent t es and other interested parties spanned the course of three to four years, culminating in a loose proposal to create and jointly support the posilion of community programming coordinator who would process requests from community groups for production services and organize volunteers to provide those services. The idea was never acled upon, and the CTG has lapsed into inactivity. More recently the BTC, prompted perhaps by Coralville officials' expressed desire for community production services, asked the PATV Board to submit a proposal to provide community programming service oca ly. The Board, over several months, formulated a proposa that is set forth in its official Minutes for October 1994; that proposal has not been acted upon, and the BTC has now asked city staff to submit a proposal for community programming There th,e_ matter stands today. A general discussion of community programm ng and related issues followed Aliaire s presentation. New Business: There was no new business. The meeting adjourned at about 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Derek Maurer Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson $o¢ Bolk¢om Stophen P. La¢ina Don Sohr Sally Slutsman BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 16, 1995 FORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. Agenda Action re: claims Action re: informal minutes of January 31st recessed to February 2nd and the formal minutes of February 9th. Action re: payroll authorizations Business from the County Enginccr. a) Action re: authorize chair to sign right-ol~way contracts for Johnson County project FM-52(35)--55-52 with; 1. Leighton and Joanna Yoder for $1,279.00, 2. Kenneth and Virginia Hochstedler for $616.00, 3. Lynn and Ruth Graber for $1,371.00, and 4. Mildred E. Graber for $1,025.00. b) Action re: accept low bid from Taylor Construction of $190,847.85 for Johnson County project L-D45-3, and authorize Chair to sign contract for the project. c) Other 913 SOUTIf DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 3564000 FAX: (319) 3564086 To: IO~A CITY CLERK From: Board of Supervisors 2-15-95 8:24am p. 3 o¢ 4 Agenda 2-16-95 6. Business from the County Auditor. Page 2 a) Action re: permits b) Action re: reports c) Other 7. Business from the Assistant Zoning Administrator. a) Final consideration of application Z9453 of Sharon Clark and Jean Lipcamon. b) Final consideration of application Z9465 of Jelv/Eyman. c) Final consideration of application Z9466 of Stanley Stutzman. d) Final consideration of application Z9467 of Eldon Miller. e) Motion setting public heating. f) Discussion/action re: the following Platting appUcations: g) Application S9427 of Jack McLaughlin requesting preliminary and final plat approval of McLaughlin's First Subdivision, a subdivision located in the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 27; Township 81 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 2-1or, 13.60 acre, residential subdivision, located on the south side of Amana Road NW, approximately 1/2 mile east of the intersection of Panam Road NW and Derby Avenue NW in Monroe Twp.). 2. Application 89486 of Ronald E. Stutsman requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Hill's West, a subdivision located in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 21; Township 78 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (I'his is a 2-lot, 5.04 acre, residential subdivision, located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Observatory Avenue SW and Jenn Mill Road SW in Liberty Twp.). Other Agenda 2-16-95 Page 3 8. Business from the Board of Supervisors. a) Action re: Training/Maintenance Coordh~ator position for S.E.A.T.S. b) Action re: Lease Agreement for County Farm. c) Action re: Supervisor appointment to the Johnson County and Iowa City Airport Zoning Commission. d) Other 9. Business from the County Attorney. a) Discussion/action re: Juvenile Crime Prevention sub-contracts. b) Report re: other items. 10. Adjourn to informal meeting. a) Executive Session to discuss Oakes vs. Johnson County pending litigation strategy. b) Inquiries and reports from the public. Reports and inquLres from the members of the Board of Supervisors. d) Report from the County Attorney. e) Other 11. Adjournment ,.2' To; I0~ CITY CLERK From: Board or Supervisors 2-17-95 3:14pa p. 2 of Z Johmon Counly ' Charles D. Dull~', Chairperson Joe Bolk¢om Stephen P. Lacina Don Schr Sally Stutsman BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 21, 1995 INFORMAL MEETING Agenda I. Call to order 9:00 a.m. Review of the informal minutes of February 7th, recessed to February 9th, informal minutes of February 14th, recessed to February 16th and the formal minutes of February 16th. 3. Business from the Zoning Administrator. a) Discussion re: hapter 331.323 sub section 2D. b) Other 4. Business t?om the Board of Supervisors. a) Discassion re: funding of libraries for FY 97. b) Reports c) Other 5. Discussion from the public. 6. 5:30 p.m. -~- Public Hearing on FY estimate/discussion. 7. Recess. 95 proposed budget 913 SOUTH I)UBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 'gEL: (319) 356-6000 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 21, 1995 To: City Council From: David Schoon, Economic Development CoordinatorS5 Re: Colaments on Proposed Financial Assistance Questions and CEBA Criteria This memo is a reminder that Council members should have their comments to me by the end of February regarding the documents "Topics of Interest to City council Members Regarding Proposed CEBA Projects" and "CEBA Selection Criteria". Copies of both of these documents were included in your February 10, 1995, information packet. If you have any questions, please call me at 356-5236. f:\admin2\ceba\cc019 < . l-tO, OO0 000 , , t~OX Iowa City Press-Citizen 1725 N. 12~lge SI. o RO. Box 2480, Iowa Cib; IA 52244,319/337.3181 February 20, 1995 Victoria Gilpin Downtown Association of Iowa City c/o Preferred Stock Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Victoria: This letter confirms our involvement in the Friday Night Concert Series again in 1995 at the same level of past years. As you lmow, the Press-Citizen is a great fan of the efforts of the DTA to create a fmnily atmosphere in downtown Iowa City, and we are pleased we can join you for this concert series. Consistent with past years, we will support the Friday Night Concert Series with in-kind weekly advertising as well as printing support. This includes 18 ads weekly to support the specific concerts, as well as tlu'ee ads to announce the series. In addition, we will print at no charge to the DTA the promotional omc,~ure. At current rates, this support represents nearly a $5,200 commitment in support of the Friday Night Concert Series: · $4,868 in promotional space at the association rate of $9.66 per colmnn inch. · $300 in printing support Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. On behalf of the Press- Citizen, we applaud your efforts to better our community. With warmest regards, Bill Choyk~ Marketing Director City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 24, 1995 City Council City Manager Material in Information Packet Memorandum from the City Manager regarding water/wastewater report - 7~ infiltration gallery. Copy of letter from the City Manager to Representative Mary Mascher regarding the Iowa City landfill. Material from the Department of Public Works: a. Memorandum regarding Waterfront Drive/HyVee Storm Sewer 7~ b. Copy of notice of public hearing on the 1995 Rohret Road 7~' Reconstruction Project Memoranda from the Department of Planning and Community Development: a. Iowa City: Beyond 2000 Update b. Towncrest Relocation Program Update Memoranda from the City Clerk: a. Proposed Bill Regulating Tobacco Sales b. Council Work Session of February 13, 1995 ~-~ Memoranda from the City Attorney: a. Open Meetings Law b. Conflict of Interest Material from the Department of Finance: a. Memorandum regarding comparison of tax levy rates b. Copy of G.O. Bond Presale Analysis -7~ 7 Minutes of the January 18 and February 14, 1995, meetings of the ~.~ Neighborhood Open Space Action Plan Committee. Copy of letter from Old Capitol Criterium. Copy of letter from ACT regarding an update on ACT's expansion plans. Articles from F,I.R.S.T.: a. What buyers really want in a new home ~/ b. Bicycle program rolls out in Portland Agenda,for the February 23, 1995, meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Copy of Investment ~e~ort Six months ended 12/31/94. Agenda & information for the 2/27/95 meeting of the City Conference Bd. 7¢$ Agenda for the 2/28/95 informal meeting of the Board of Supervisors, 7 Copy of Housing Rehabilitation get together, 7¢7 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 24, 1995 City Council City Manager Water/Wastewater Report - Infiltration Gallery Attached is a summary of the infiltration gallery concept. Please include this letter with your February 10, 1995, memo - Review of Issues - Water and Wastewater Projects." Hoo sward IR. Green Company ULTING ENGINEERS February 17, 1995 Mr. Chuck Schmadeke Public Works Director 410 E. Washington Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Infiltration Gallery Raw Water Supply Water Supply and Treatment Facilities Project Dear Chuck: In response to your inquiry concerning the feasibility of infiltration galleries in lieu of collector wells as the alluvial water source in Iowa City, I have spoken to several people and collected information regarding infiltration galleries. The following comments and recommendations are based on this preliminary investigation. I finally got in touch with Lou Licht and discussed his experience with infiltration galleries in Slovenia. Apparently Lou observed and visited only one infiltration gallery installation in Slovenia. The geology of this site was, according to Lou, much different than that of the proposed Iowa City site. Sand and gravel deposits were coarse and the formation or depth was relatively shallow. Collector pipes were trenched to a depth of about 25 feet and the water was collected at a central pumping station. A rule of thumb in comparing infiltration gallery construction and collector well construction is that an infiltration gallery may be of comparable costs for pipe depths of up to 25 feet. All of our collector well installations are deeper than this; ranging from 29 to 50 feet. I have spoken with several contractors relative to installing a collector pipe adjacent to the river. The cost of constructing a deep pipel(he next to the river to a depth greater than 30 feet is prohibitive. Dewatering costs are a major element of the cost. The contractor would either have to construct wells or sheet pile the entire length of the infiltration gallery. A double stacked sandbox would be required for installing the pipe. It would be necessary to place gravel pack around the pipe and probably use a filter fabric over the gravel pack. 4685 Merle Hay Road o Suite 106 · PC. Box 31039 · Des Moines, Iowa 50310-1317 ,, Phone 5151278-2913 · FAX 5151278-1846 Infiltration Gallery Raw Water Supply February 17, 1995 Page 2 A caisson to collect pumped water would be required with an infiltration gallery. The cost of constructing this caisson would be higher than the type of caisson construction used for a collector well. A caisson for collector wells would require lower dewatering costs than with open excavation. An infiltration gallery requires massive oper~ excavation to install the collector pipes, whereas a collector well does not. Open cut excavation exposes sand and gravel to oxygen which can result in the formation iron bacteda slime growth. This slime growth can plug the filter fabric or wellscreen pipe which would be a major maintenance problem as well as reducing the infiltration gallery's capacity and useful life. Infiltration galleries are not common in Iowa or the Midwest. Dennis Air, Chief of Water Supply, IDNR, stated he was not aware of any infiltration gallery installations in Iowa other than Des Moines. I contacted engineers who have been involved in the design of a few infiltration galleries. They confirmed that its probably not cost effective to construct infiltration galleries to depths greater than 25 feet. The main application of infiltration galleries is in the western United States where they are constructed under river beds with coarse stone bottoms. This is not a feasible option for the Iowa River due to plugging from silt. I also spoJ<e with Randy Beavers of the Des Moines' Water W~)rks. They have an infiltration gallery along the Raccoon River, which was constructed between 1915 and 1930. It consists of three miles of open-jointed concrete pipe in four to eight foot sections ranging from 24 to 48-inch diameter. The pipe is buried at an approximate depth of 25 feet. They can pump fro.m between 9 and 30 MGD, which is a range of 0.4 gpm per lineal foot to 1.3 gpm per lineal foot. The probable yield from the collector wells in Iowa City at normal river stage is almost 3 gpm per lineal foot, a much higher yield than an infiltration gallery. To summarize, construction of infiltration galleries is not cost effective. More importantly this is not a proven technology for our application in the Midwest and the yield, which is a critical factor in our project, will not be as good from an infiltration gallery as from the proposed collector wells. Howard R. Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Infiltration Gallery Raw Water Supply February 17, 1995 Page 3 Please call me if you have any comments or questions and I will be glad to discuss this further with you. Sincerely, HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY Dan Lovett, P.E. Vice President RDUsrc cc: Ed Moreno Ralph Russell o:~proj\env~ic\51301 O.pO8~schmadek. ltr Howard R. Grccn Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS February 23, 1995 CITY OF I0 I/VA CITY The Honorable Mary Mascher State Capitol Des Moines, IA 50319 Dear Mary: I wanted to take this opportunity to inform you of a potential issue for Iowa City and the Iowa City landfill. N&N Sanitation Inc. of Coralville has applied to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for a permit to operate a 45,000 ton per year refuse transfer facility in Johnson County. They have recently received approval (attached DNR correspondence). It is our understanding that all waste going to this facility will be transported out of state. The proposed facility requires a comprehensive solid waste management- plan which was submitted to IDNR by N&N Sanitation. With approval of this comprehensive plan, IDNR has created competition between N&N and the Region 10 comprehensive solid waste management area plan. Our comprehensive waste management plan is administered by the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG). This plan, which is required by the state legislature, outlines strategies to reach the 50% waste reduction mandate set by the state legislature. According to IDNR, N&N Sanitation will not be required to reduce the waste they accept at the transfer -facility because they are not a final disposal site. We believe their final disposal site is a private landfill in Illinois. However, Iowa City and the rest of the participants in the Region 10 comprehensive solid waste planning area will still be responsible to reduce the portion of the waste stream that N&N Sanitation will now be taking out of state. This makes no sense. If we are to reach the 50% waste reduction mandate set by the state legislature, we need to control the waste stream in our landfill service area. With the decrease in our waste stream from the N&N facility, the Iowa City landfill will find it more difficult to fund reduction programs through landfill fees to meet the state's reduction mandate. It will be difficult for us to budget for the landfill if we are forced to compete for the waste stream. N&N Sanitation is not required to pay the State surcharge tax that the Iowa City landfill must pay on every ton of waste we accept. N&N Sanitation is not required to collect a surcharge for the landfill closure/post-closure fund that the Iowa City landfill is responsible for. N&N Sanitation is not required to pay for reduction programs to reduce its waste stream by 50%. It is apparent that public entities will not be able to compete with private sector competition. The Honorable Mary Mascher February 23, 1995 Page 2 In fact, the competition created has a decided advantage to N&N Sanitation in that they enjoy the benefits of the easiest and least expensive part of the disposal -- collection - and do not bear the burden or responsibilities of disposal. We must also maintain our public facilities since the private sector does not have the ultimate responsibility for the public's health and sanitation. We must be prepared for the likelihood that the private sector may cease operation at some point in the future. We would appreciate your help in trying to make some sense of our responsibilities and how we can deal with this situation. IDNR maintains they had no alternative but to approve the N&N request, yet the effect on the Iowa City landfill, its finance§ and, ultimately, our community will be profound. I have addressed this letter to your attention in your capacity as a member of the House Environmental Protection Committee. Sincerely, Stephen J. Atkins City Manager CC: City Council Floyde Pelkey Chuck Schmadeke Brad Neumann Jeff Davidson State Legislative Delegation Eric. jccogsw~ma$chet, lt r DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES February 15, 1995 Mr. Nick Yutzy, Owner N & N Sanitation 311 East 1 lth Street Coraiville, IA 52241 Dear Mr. Yutzy: The Department's Waste Management Assistance Division (WM. AD) has reviewed the revised January, 1995 Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan, Part I, submitted to the Division on January 30, 1995, for N & N Sanitation's proposed solid waste transfer station in Coralville. The information contained in this document satisfies the comprehensive planning requirements for this facility, ~d the plan is hereby approved. Notice of approval will be forwarded to the Department's Environmental Protection Division. As described in the comprehensive plan, the approved service area for the proposed facility is defined as individual households, and commercial and industrial generators located within the cities of Coralville, Hills, Iowa City, North Liberty, Oxford, Solon, Tiffin and University Heights in Johnson County, Kalona in Washington County; and within the unincorporated areas of Johnson County. Excluding materials which may be recovered for recycling, all solid waste delivered to the proposed transfer station will be transported for final disposal to either the City of Iowa City Sanitary Landfill or to the Bluestem Solid Waste Agency Sanitary Landfill #2 (formerly the Linn County Sanitary Landfill), consistent with the cooperative agreement between these facilities' responsible agencies, or to the Quad-Cities Sanitary Landfill located in Milan, Illinois. Prior to the proposed transfer station accepting solid waste from outside the approved service area or transporting solid waste for final disposal to a facility other than those described in the plan, or if local governments within or outside of the approved planning area elect to contract with N & N Sanitation for use of the transfer sthtiort, an amendment to the plan must be submitted and approved by the Department. Should any of these situations arise, please contact this office for further information. Please note that the timelines for submitting subsequent revisions to this plan coincide with the facility's sanitary disposal project permit renewal schedule. Presently, information on the amount of solid waste delivered to and transported from the transfer station for final disposal will be needed by other solid waste planning agencies for inclusion in their subsequent plan submittals to the Departmeat. To ensure this information will be available to these agencies, WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING / DES MOINES, IOWA 50310 / 515-281.5145/TDD 515-242-5957/F,,~O( 515-281.~ Page 2 February 15, 1995 N & N Sanitafi~n is required to submit to the Department a report of the wine stream managed at the transfer station during the previous state fiscal year by July 31st of each year, 0al~ase note that the state fiscal year begins .luly Ist of a previous calendar y~ar to .lun¢ 30th of a current year.) The report must specify the amount of solid waste generated from within the jurisdictional boundaries ef each local government described in the transfer station's approved service ar~a which is delivered to the ~¢ility for txansport to a final disposal site. The annual tonnage delivered to each landfill described in the plan must also be specified. Copies of this report must be sent to the agencies responsible for 'developing the comprehensive plans the local governments a/e participating in. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter or comprehensive planning in general, please contact Brian Tormey at 515/281-8382. Sincerely, Gaye Wiekierak Bureau Chief Waste Management Assistance Division ce: Lavoy Haage, Environmental Protection Division, DNR John Bfimeyer, P.E., Shive-Hattery Engineers And Architects, Inc. Susan Frye, Bartley Law Oflicos Mike Berkshire, East Central Iowa Council of Governments Brad Neumann, Johnson County Council of Governments City of Iowa City' MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 1995 TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager FROM: Rick Fosse, City Engineer RE: Waterfront Drive / Hy-Vee Storm Sewer Review of the proposed Hy-Vee storm water improvements along Waterfront Drive has required us to study existing storm water problems in the area and has revealed that a solution is not as easy as once anticipated. However, the Hy-Vee development presents an opportunity to resolve the problem at least cost to the City. Hy-Vee will be required to provide on-site storage or convey their storm water directly to the Iowa River. Although the initial cost of piping directly to the river is higher, it is the preferred option for Hy-Vee. This presents an opportunity for the City to contribute to the oversizing of this sewer to relieve existing problems along Waterfront Drive. These problems stem from 26.4 acres (excluding Hy-Vee) of commercially developed area draining to a low point on Waterfront Drive. At the present time no good 'route exists to convey the water from this point to the river, resulting in chronic complaints from area property owners. Based on preliminary design calculations, the cost of oversizing would be between $125,000 and $140,000. The cost to resolve the problem independent of Hy-Vee is approximately $283,000. In addition to a 50% savings on construction cost, a combined project would reduce the number of storm sewer systems in the area from 3 to 2 resulting in reduced maintenance. Public Works recommends entering into an agreement to fund oversizing of the storm sewer. cc: Chuck Schmadeke Denny Gannon Bob Miklo 1995 ROHRET ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT On Tuesday, February 28, 1995, the City Council will be holding a Public Hearing on the Plans, Specifications, Form of Contract, and Estimate of Cost for Phase 2 construction of Rohret Road. The Public Hearing will be held during their regularly scheduled meeting which begins at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street. The Public Hearing is your opportunity to provide the City Council with your comments regarding the plans and specifications. They are on file for your review in the City Clerk's Office also located in the Civic Center. Phase 2 involves the reconstruction of Rohret Road from the east entrance of Weber School (where last year's work ended) to Mormon'Trek Boulevard. PHASE 2-A construction (see map on other side) will begin in mid April and will last until late July or early August. Access to Hunters Run Subdivision will be from Duck Creek Drive. The section of pavement from the east entrance of the school to the new subdivision road called Goldenrod Drive will not be closed until school is out of session for the summer. This will allow access to the school from both east and west directions while school is in session. PHASE 2-B construction will begin when Phase 2-A is complete and will last until mid November. During this portion of the project, Highway 1 and Maler Avenue will be used as a detour route to access the completed portion of Rohret Road, including the school. A few details of the project are as follows: * 34-foot wide curb and gutter street with 5-foot bike lanes designated on each side. Realignment of Rohret Road with Cae Drive at the Mormon Trek intersection. A 37-foot wide street on Rohret Road near the intersection will be constructed to allow for one-lane of traffic to enter Rohi'et Road for westbound travel, one-lane for "left turn only" traffic for northbound travel on Mormon Trek Boulevard, and one-lane for straight through or right turn traffic for southbound travel on Mormon Trek Boulevard. We anticipate that this intersection will meet warrants for traffic signalization in the near future. * 8-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the street and a 4-foot sidewalk on the south side. Storm sewers will replace open ditches for drainage. Approximately 350 trees will be planted in the grass strip between the sidewalks and the street throughout the whole project, including Phase I constructed in 1994. We will continue to stay in contact throughout the project via flyers, press releases, and letters. If you have any questions regarding the format of the Public Hearing or the City Council process, please call Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator at 356-5237. If you have any questions about the upcoming construction, including pedestrian and vehicular access, please call me at 356-5145. Sincerely, Rob Winstead, Project Engineer RUN { mvx~u { CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 E. WASHINGTON IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 To the resident at BULK RATE U.S. I~O.~TAGE PAID Prone No. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 17, 1995 Stephen Atkins, City Manager The IOWA CITY: BEYOND 2000 vision statement has been reviewed by a number of Iowa City boards and commissions and will be ready for the Planning and Zoning Commission's March 16 meeting. Since the vision statement is the basis for a new comprehensive plan, the Commission will hold public hearings, the first of which will be set on March 2 for the 16th. Planning & Zoning will receive the document sent to the boards and commissions with a few minor changes, and all the comments of the groups that have reviewed it to date. As a whole, the boards and commissions were very positive about the ideas presented; most of the groups are more anxious to be part of the implementation phase. I also met with the Neighborhood Association Council and presented the vision statement to them. Although a number of neighborhood association people were involved in the task forces, I wanted to give the associations as groups the opportunity to get involved in this project. The associations will be able to provide their views to the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the City Oouncil. I hope to have the vision document to the Council by the beginning of May. bc5-1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager and City Council FROM: Steven Nasby, Associate Planner. RE: Towncrest Relocation Program Update DATE: February 24, 1995 This update of the Towncrest Relocation Program provides a general summary of our activities to date, and provides detailed information relating to the special needs households. There have been 55 households identified as eligible for relocation assistance (one more renter household turned up). Of these, 33 households have moved out of Towncrest, six units are abandoned and 16 households remain to be relocated. There are now five special needs households among the 16 yet to be relocated (this number is up one because the purchase agreement for one of households fell through). The remaining 11 households (vAthour special needs) are either working with LIFE Skills or looking for housing on their own. Four of these have another housing unit located, and three of them will be moving within the next 10-14 days. Relocation funds that have been expended total approximately $149,000, not including L1FE Skills' expenses or City administration. The three households that are planning to move this week will add another $16,000 - $17,000 to that figure. On December 19 you received a memo regarding the Towncrest Relocation Program that described the status of eight special needs households in Towncrest. The following is an update on those eight special needs households. Client #I: (renters) (RELOCATED TO ANOTHER PARK IN IOWA CITY) Client #2: (owner) A single man who is developmentally disabled. He receives only a small income from his employment at Goodwill and Social Security. Client #2 has a sister in town who is helping him look for a replacement unit. He found one that he could afford with $ur assistance, however, the manufactured housing park would not accept him because of his credit history showing unpaid child support. Client #2 and his sister were offered LIFE Skills assistance, however, they have not responded to our offer. lie would prefer to live at Hilltop MHP because it is close to his employment and he does not drive. Client #3: (owner) 0r~ELOCATED TO WAUKEGAN, lZ AS A RENTER) Client it4: (owner) RELOCATED AND PURCHASED A REPLACEMENT UNIT AT A LOCAL PARK) Client #5 (owner) This is a single male with a criminal record. His home is in excellent condition and may be moved into almost any other local manufactured housing park. A sister of this client is helping him look for a place to relocate. Client #5 has expressed no interest in moving out of Towncrest anytime soon. His sister believes he will have a difficult time moving to another park because of his criminal record. Client #5 has substantial equity in his unit and as a result may choose to pursue another t~pe ofhoualng arrangement. Client ~6 (owners) This is a family with three children. Finding a suitable unit they can afford is very difficult. (ADDED flACK ON' TO LIST BI~CAUSE THEIR PURCItASE AGREEMENT I~'ELL TIiiROUGH) Client #7 (owner) and Clit;nt #8 (owner): Both individuals are elderly and low income. Client #7 is physically disabled and ~:lient #8 acts as his caregiver. As of January 31, 1995, client #7 has had 55 contacts (visits and phone calls) with LIl:E Skills totaling 34.25 hours (up 7 hours from the last report). LIFE Skills ~H continue to maintain contact with these clients. City of iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 24, 1995 Mayor and City Council Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~ Proposed Bill Regulating Tobacco Sales Attached is a bill currently in the Senate Human Resources Committee. The bill authorizes city and county governments to increase permit fees for purposes of enforcement of tobacco laws to persons under legal age. You may wish to talk to area legislators on Saturday concerning the proposed bill. Note that Neuhauser and Dvorsky are two members of the Committee. cc: City Attorney City Manager Police Chief SENATE FILE (PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON FFtJMAN RESOURCES BILL BY CRAIRPERSON SZYMONIAK) Passed Senate, Date Passed ~ouse, Date Vote: Ayes Nays Vote: Ayes ~ Nays Approved A BILL FOR 5 6 1 An Act relating to public health by regulating tobacco sales and 2 use and providing a penalty. 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF TEE STATE OF IOWA: 4 7 8 9 10 11 ,.,~ 12 '~!13 14 15 16 17 .18 · ~.-~ 0 ~2 ~3 TLSB 2190SC 76 Pf/jj/8 S.F. ~{.F. 1 Section 1. Section 453A.13, subsection 3, Code 1995, is 2 amended to read as follows: 3 3. FEES -- EXPIRATION. All permits provided for in this 4 division shall expire on June 30 of each year. A permit shall . 5 not be granted or issued until the applicant has paid for the 6 period ending June 30 next, to the department or the city or 7 county granting the permit, the fees provided for in this 8 division. The annual state permit fee for a distributor, 9 cigarette vendor, and wholesaler is one hundred dollars when 0 the permit is granted during the months of July, August, or 1 September. ~owever, whenever a state permit holder operates 2 more than one place of business, a duplicate state permit 3 shall be issued for each additional place of business on 4 pa~ent of five dollars for each duplicate state permit, but 5 refunds as provided in this division do not apply to any 5 duplicate permit issued. 7 The minimum fee schedule for retail permits is as follows ~ when the per~it is granted during the months of July, August, ) or September: a. In places outside any city, fifty dollars. b. In cities of less than fifteen thousand population, ' seventy-five dollars. : c. In cities of fifteen thousand or more population, one hundred dollars. If any permit is granted during the months of October, November, or December, the fee shall be three-fourths of the ab~e-max~m~m-~ehed~e annual fee; if granted during the months of January, February, or March, one-half of the maximum sehed~e ~nnual fee, and if granted during the months of April, May, or June, one-fourth of the max~mum-s~hedu~e annual fee° The city or county may establish fees above the minimum fee schedule. All retail permit fees above the minimum fee schedule shall be retained by the city or county imposing the extra fee and shall be used b~ the state, city, or county for -1- S.F. H.F. 1 2 Sec. 2. 3 follows: 4 453A.56 the exclusive purpose of enforcing section 453A.2. Section 453A.56, Code 1995, is amended to read as UNIFORM APPLICATION° · 5 1__~. Enforcement of this chapter shall be implemented in an 6 equitable manner throughout the state° For the purpose of 7 equitable and uniform implementation, application, and 8 enforcement of state and local laws and regulations, the 9 provisions of this chapter shall supersede any local law or 10 regulation which is inconsistent with or conflicts with the 11 provisions of this chapter. 12 2. Notwithstanding subsection 1, a city or county may 13 establish fees for retail cigarette permits which are in 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 excess of the minimum section 453A.13. fee schedule established pursuant to EXPLANATION This bill authorizes city and county governments to increase retail permit fees above the existing fee schedule for the purposes of enforcing laws regarding tobacco sales to persons under legal age. Section 1 modifies the current retail fee schedule to allow the city and county governments to increase fees to fund enforcement of under-aged tobacco purchase laws. Section 2 amends the uniform application provision of the cigarette and tobacco taxes chapter to enable local government discretion in increasing retail permit fees. -2- LSB 2190SC 76 '~f/jj/8 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 21, 1995 Mayor and City Council City Clerk Council Work Session, February 13, 1995 - 6:35 p.m. in Council Chambers Mayor Susan Horowitz presiding. Council present: Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton (6:40 p.m.)o Absent: Baker. Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Woito, Karr, Franklin, Miklo, Schoon, Davidson, Schmadeke, Moreno, Schoenfelder, O'Neil, McCahon, Fosse, Boothroy, Milkman. Tapes: 95-25, Side 2; 95-26, All; 95-27, All. REVIEW ZONING MATTERS: Reel 95-25, Side 2 PCD Planner Miklo presented the following Planning and Zoning items for discussion: Settinq a public hearinq for February 28, 1995, on an ordinance conditionally amendinq the use requlations of apl~roximately 13.09 acres located at 655 Meadow Street from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, and RS--5, Low Density Sinqle-Family Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Sinqle-Family Residential. (East HilI/REZ94- 0020) Settinq a public hearinq for February 28, 1995, on an ordinance amendinq the Conditional Zonincl Aqreement for 1069 Hiqhway 1 (Westr)ort Plaza) to allow an additional freestandinq ~ylon siqn. (REZ95-O002) Miklo reported the applicant requested that Council set public hearing for March 7 rather than February 28 as noted on the Council's Agenda. Public hearinq on an ordinance amendinq the Zoninq Chapter by chanqinq the use requlations of 61.96 acres of land located south of Whisperinq Prairie Drive from RS-8, Medium Density Sinqle-Family Residential, to RFBH, Factory. Built Housin~ Residential. (Sycamore Farms/Lake Calvin/REZ94-0014) Ordinance amendinq the Zoninq Chapter by chanclinq the use regulations of 61.96 acres of land located south of Whisperinq Prairie Drive from RS-8, Medium Density Sinqle-Familv Residential, to RFBH, Factory Built Housinq Residential. (Sycamore Farms/Lake Calvin/REZ94-0014) (First consideration) Miklo stated the applicant had signed the original conditional zoning agreement. Council Work Session February 13, 1995 2 Ordinance amendinq the Zoninq Ordinance by chanqinq the use reaulations of a 0.32 acre parcel located at 719 S. Capitol Street from C1-1, Intensive Commercial, to P, Public. (REZ94-0017) (Second consideration) Ordinance amendinq Zoninq Chapter Article N., Off-Street Parkinq Requirements, Section 14-6N-1 B1 specifyinq construction materials for required hard-surface parkinq areas. (Pass and adopt) Ordinance amendinq Zoninq Chapter Section 14-6E-6C1 to clarify the density requirement for dwellina units in the CB-2, Central Business zone. (Pass and adopt) Resolution approvinq the preliminary plat of D&L Subdivision, a 6.41 acre, four lot commercial subdivision located on the south side of Hiehway 1 West, west of Sunset Street. COUNCIL AGENDA/TIME: Reel 95-25, Side 2 Novick requested that the City revise the system for distributing (mailed to every mailing address) the Parks and Recreation pamphlet and consider establishing a City/school cooperation on use of gymnasium space. Throgmorton invited PCD Di~'ector Franklin to a presentation by Charlie Hoch from the University of Illinois, "What Planners Do," on Friday, 1:00-2:00 p.m. (Agenda Item #3.f.(3) - Correspondence from Brian Witzke regarding Oakland cemetery/Hickory Hill Park). Throgmorton inquired about the letter received from Brian Witzke. City Manager Atkins stated Parks and Recreation Director Trueblood has been contacted and the Commission has requested more information. In response to Throgmorton, City Manager Atkins stated the February 10 memo Review of Issues - Water and Wastewater Proiects will be distributed to the press, public library, and persons identified in the memo. Pigott noted Council received memorandum from Fire Chief Pumfrey regarding weather alert siren testing. In r~sponse to Kubby, City Manager Atkins stated a summary mer~o is being prepared regarding Nila Haug's concerns on Codes and regulations. 7. Kubby requested an update regarding Hawkeye State Bank parking. Kubby inquired about the engineering costs associated with going around the golf course for the sewer route, and City bearing the full cost. City Attorney Woito stated Public Works Director Schmadeke and she met with Atty. Bill Meardon regarding settlement issues. City Manager Atkins noted that Council meetings are scheduled for February 20 and 21, 6:30 p.m., with a special formal meeting scheduled on February 21. Council Work Session February 13, 1995 3 10. Novick noted Council received information regarding Portland, Oregon water fees. 11. In response to Novick, City Attorney Woito said the pigeon coup/neighborhood dispute has not been resolved. COUNCIL TIME CONTINUED. APPOINTMENTS: Reel 95-25, Side 2 Animal Control Advisory - Readvertise Mayor's Youth EmplOyment Board -- Terrence Neuzil and David Jacoby NEAR SOUTHSIDE DESIGN PLAN: Reel 95-25, Side 2 PCD Assistant Director/Transportation Planner Davidson presented information about Near Southside Design Plan advisory committee. Horowitz requested that the Iowa City/Johnson County Arts Council I~e added to the Advisory' Committee. Throgmorton requestea that a student representative be appointed to the Advisory Committee and suggested contacting John Lohman, University of Iowa Student Senate President. Staff Action: Davidson and Schoon will proceed to form the advisory committee with 12 representatives. (Davidson) WHISPERING MEADOWS PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (Consent Calendar item 3d(2)): Reel 95-25, Side 2 HIS Director Boothroy and Architect/Energy Coordinator Schoenfelder presented information. Boothroy requested that Council set public hearing for February 21 to consider bids and specifications for the Whispering Meadows Public Housing Development. CEBA/Industrial Park Criteria: Reel 95-25, Side 2 The following persons presented information: City Manager Atkins, Economic Development Coordinator Schoon, PCD Director Franklin, and City Engineer Fosse. Council established the goal to ensure that the community has an adequate amount of land zoned general industrial. Council discussed establishing targeted industries and marketing the community towards those targeted industries. Council also discussed that the investment of public funds in an industrial park would require businesses locating in the park to meet certain criteria. However, if the City were able to recoup the true public cost of providing industrial park land, then the company would not need to meet the public financial assistance criteria. Council Work Session February 13, 1995 4 Throgmorton requested that staff prepare a concept paper considering the following criteria: Supporting businesses that would help local businesses and residences use non- renewable natural resources more efficiently; Support businesses that would produce goods and services that are needed by local businesses or used as imports by local businesses; and Support businesses that would treat waste as an input to some other business. City Manager Atkins asked Council to make comments on his February 9 memo regarding (CEBA criteria) and return to him within two weeks. Atkins stated he will send the Economic Development Policy to Council. Horowitz asked Council to tentatively schedule a Council meeting March 20, 1995, 6:30 p.m. Staff Action: City Manager will forward to the County the City's interest in working with the County in preserving the subject area for industrial park land. For Council consideration at a March 20, 1995, meeting, the City Manager will send the proposed Economic Development Policy to the Council, and the Economic Development Coordinator will prepare a short concept paper regarding Councilor Throgmorton's three basic concepts of sustainable economic development. (Schoon) CDBG FLOOD MONEY: Reel 95-26, Side 1 Community Development Coordinator Milkman, PCD Director Franklin, and City Engineer Fosse presented information. Council discussed using CDBG flood monies: To fund public works projects (Oakland/Grant; South Gilbert/Stevens Drive; High Street/Fairview); 975,000 down payment assistance; and purchase of undeveloped flood plain property. Staff Action: Staff will proceed with design of public works projects and determine HUD requirements for bidding, Owners of Iowa River and Ralston Creek floodplain property will be contacted regarding voluntary sale at appraised value, Baker indicated no interest in downpayment assistance, so this option is not being pursued, (Milkman) AIRPORT HANGAR BID: Reel 95-26, Side 2 Airport Manager O'Neil presented information regarding Airport hangar bid. Council directed O'Neil to discuss hangar rent amount i.e. rent reflecting costs with Airport Commission. COUNCIL AGENDA/TIME CONTINUED: Reel 95-27, Side 1 13. (Agenda Item //12 - evaluation of impact of sularian aquifer development). The following persons presented information: Public Works Director Schmadeke, Water Council Work Session February 13, 1995 Division Superintendent Moreno, City Attorney Woito, and USGS representative Buchmiller, In response to Kubby, Council agreed to delete "necessary and" from the resolution. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1995 PROJECTS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW; Reel 95-27, Side 1 City Engineer Fosse outlined the 1995 Engineering Division projects. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p,m. c~erk~cc2. ~ 3.{hi City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 24, 1995 The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney WzlI S~~'''~'"'~ -' information on Open Meetings Law; a treet ;Journal and Cedar Rapids Community School District Case Copy of Decree and Stipulation of Settlement; Violation of Open Meetings Law by Cedar Rapids Community School District Board of Directors FYI, attached please find copies of the "stipulation of settlement" signed by the Defendants in a criminal case, whereby Linn County Attorney prosecuted the members of the Cedar Rapids Community School District for violation of open meetings law, Chapter 21, Code of Iowa (1993). The stipulation of settlement is self explanatory, calls for individual fines of $200 for each defendant, but waives attorney fees -- which could have been collected by Linn County. Also attached is a "decree" which simply is the Court's formal approval of the settlement, directing that the settlement be carried out under court order, see attached. As indicated to you in a prior rnemo, the City Council, together with City staff, boards and commissions, are well versed in not only complying with the Iowa open meetings law, but also in asking questions, if in doubt. So I present this information to you FYI, and as good "preventive lawyering." Wall Street Journal article concerning possible violations of State open meetings law, via E- Mail. Councilmember Bruno Pigott brought the attached article to my attention last week. In light of the article, I thought it would be helpful to review iowa law governing electronic and telephonic discussions. As you know, the open meetings law is triggered when there is a deliberative gathering of a quorum of the Council -- which in this case would be four members: "'Meeting' means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy- making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter." §21.2(2), Code of iowa (1993). -2- · In other words, Iowa law does not pre.vent two (2) councilmembers from contemporaneous discussions, in contrast to Florida which apparently does (see attached article). Moreover, research completed by Legal Assistant Mary McChristy reveals that "one-on-one" conversations between councilmembers, whether electronic or personal, do not violate the open meetings law, see Gavin v. City of Cascade, 500 N.W.2d 729 (Iowa 1993), attached. Rather, Iowa's open meetings law provides that only where a majority or quorum of council members participate in a conversation, which conversation occurs contemporaneously or "at any one time," and which conversations occur as part of a deliberative process upon policy- making duties, do such conversations qualify as a "meeting" under Iowa's open meetings law, see Gavin at 723. For example, a four-way tele-conference call, wherein councilmembers discuss topics presented for council vote, would not be appropriate under Iowa's "sunshine" laws. In sum, so long as no more than three council members meet "at any one time," whether electronically or personally, there is no violation of Iowa law. I thought this might be helpful to you, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. LNW/mm Attachment cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk City Attorney Office Staff Inw/journaLrnmo IN THE IOWA D,$, RI,., COURT, IN AND FOR LINN COUNTY DENVER D. DILLARD, LINN COUNTY ATTORNEY, Plaintiff, VS. RONALD E. OLSON, SUSAN W. MCDERMOTT, MARY ANN KUCERA, DOUGLAS J. HENDERSON, BURTON J. LOUPEE, WAYNE F. HOWES, and DENNIS J. KRAL, CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT DIRECTORS, NO. EQ 18755 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPUlaTED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PART/ES TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACT/Of; AS FOLLOWS: 1. This stipulation is entered into in complete settlement of the above captioned action. The stlpulauon snail be presented to the Court for its approval and adoption and shall be effective upon such approval, adoption and incorporation into an Or. der of the Court. 2. The parties stipulate and agree that each named defendant violated the Iowa Open Meetings Law, specifically §§21.4(1), 21.4(2), 21.5(!) and 21.5(2), Iowa Code, as set forth in paragraphs 6a through e of the Petition in the above capticned acticn while participating in a meeting of the Cedar Rapids Community School District Board of Directors of March 26, 1994, which meeting was conducted in closed session. 3, The parties stipulate and agree that pursuant to §21.6(3)(a), Iowa Code, each defendant shall be assessed, damages in the amount of $200,00 for the aforementioned violation of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, Chapter 21, Iowa Code, 4. The parties stipulate and agree that pursuant to §21.6(3)(b), Iowa Code, the costs of this action shall be assessed against the defendants and Plaintiff shall not request that attorney fees be awarded pursuant to said section. 5. The parties stipulate and agree that pursuant to §21.6(3)(e) the Court shall issue an injunction, enforceable by civil contempt, ordering that each defendant refrain from any future violations of Chapter 21, Iowa Code, for a period of one year from the date this stipulation is approved and adopted by the Court, 6, The parties stipulate and agree that each defendant shall no later than two ,,,v,,,,,s from approval and adoption by the Court, of this stipulation and agreement participate in a formal instructional program covering the requirements of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, Chapter 21, Iowa Code, as s~id law relates to the functioning of the Cedar Rapids Community School District Board of Directors, which instructional program shall include both oral instruction and written materials and be cor, duc;ad by ;a§a:, ......' ' "' ....'*" pid ~v.,,oo, ,a~,~oa ......~ the "=~*- Ra s Commu.".~t7 School District. $TIPULA TED AND AGRE£O by the parties on the dates below entered. FOR: DENVER D, DILLARD LINN COUNTY ATTORNEY PLAINTIFF GARY P./JARVIS u moa2a3 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Linn County Court. House Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DATE: .z/'~ ~/~ 3 FOR: RONALD E. OLSON, SUSAN W. MCDERMOTT, MARY ANN KUCERA, DOUGLAS J. HENDERSON, BURTON J. LOUPEE, WAYNE F, HOWES, and DENNIS J. I(RAL, CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS MARK MCCORMICK BELIN HARRIS LAMSON MCCORMICK 2000 Financial Center De~ Moines, IA 50309 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS IN DENVEI~ D. DILLARD, LINN COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR LINI~ C5~]'1~ VS, Plaintiff, RONALD E. OLSON, SUSAN W. MCDERMOTT, MARY ANN KUCERA, DOUGLAS J. HENDERSON, BURTON J, LOUPEE, WAYNE F. HOWES, and DENNIS J. KRAL, CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT DIRECTORS, Defendants. NO. EQ 18755 D£GRE£ m=.~. comes before the Court upe. n presentation -' '~* ;,/'~,a oe~,emen, o, the patios. The C~u~ havin~ reviewed the file, ~. of counsel and being fully advised in t~e prem{ses finos: 1. T~at the CouA has jurisdiction of the pa~ies and the subject ma~er herein. 2. That the parties herein have entered into a written Stipulation of Settlement, which stipulation is requested by the parties to be approved and adopted by the Court in its Decree, 3. That said Stipulation of Settlement, att_~ched hereto, is hereby approved, adopted and incorporated into this Decree as if fully set out in herein, 4, That said Stipulation of Settlement provides that each named defendant violated the Iowa Open Meetings Law, specifically § ~21.4(1), 21.4(2), 2 21.5(1) and 21.5(2), Iowa Code, as set forth in paragraphs 6a through e of the Petition while participating in a meeting of the Cedar Rapids Community School District Board of Directors of March 26, 199~,, which meeting was conducted in closed session, and the Court so finds. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants, Ronald E. Olson, Susan W. McDermott, Mary Ann Kucera, Douglas J. Henderson, Burton J. Loupee, Wayne F. Howes and Dennis J. Kral be and they are hereby enjoined and restrained for a period of one year from the date of this Decree from any violation of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, Chapter 21, Iowa Code, during and related to their service on the Board of Directors of the Cedar Rapids Community School District. Violation of such injunction shall be punishable through contempt proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that each named defendant shall pay damages in the amount of t~200.00 for the aforementioned violation of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, Chapter 21, iowa Code, and that pursuant to §21.6(3)(a), Iowa Coda, the Clerk of Ccurt shall pay over such IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that costs of this action shall be assessed pro rata to the defendants. /JUDGE, 6TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF IOWA APPROVED AS TO FORM: GARY P; JARVIS ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF MARK MCCORMICK ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Mark McCormick, 2000 Financial Center, Des Moines, IA 50309 Gary P. Jarvis, Assistant County Attorney preannounced ne operating systems, just as Microsoft has. "Let's get real here-Lhls Is a very common practice," says Gordon gu- to sprout from two Sings: dli[erinff de~ tflnitlons of U~e word va~, ~d sh~ ~e~ ~U~ty. ~lle ~nom~ng Judge S~rkin's under.cling of ~e P~ ~t don't ~t ~ ~a~e. ~ftware b~n~. P~e ~ to Page 8~ Co~ 5 E-Mail Among Officials May Be Against the Law Pop AbySm & Bluaa ~ By Loum~ L~a dosed doom," s~ys Ouraid ~, ~tor Ntematke ~ ~/ae~ o/~ w~ s~ ~ of ~e ~ds Jo~ ~ ~ub~ N.Y. ~v~ent o~ pr~ dec~c T~e w~ meet In pdva~ m~ ~ a way ~ encee mmm~Uon Nts~t~e ~ to ~y w~t ~ey'co going ~ ~t p~er flow. But It may ~olate ~ome exchide w~ ~ey w~t ~ exclude," Coun~ I~ sta~' open-mesUuga laws. But others say ~-mall poses a greater 3.0 Rock & Roll ! in GarLand, Texas, a vlol~enoccurred Uu'eat to upon-roes!lags laws than rein- last year ~vhen a city council member sentphone calls or one-on.one conversations. 2.9 Jaz ~ an e-mall message to colleagues' home Many local government oglelate say they computers over a proi:osal involving ae-mail colleagues mere frequently than Pop chinch o! which be was a director, The citythey call them pre~ely because they can a~toreey forced [tim to retract the roes-~nd highly detai{ed incasages at any time sag~.. of day. Parilado~{y appealing, they say, is Lavrmaker~ in Pa/o Alto, Calif., re-the ability to send a message to multiple Older Buyers .,.,asinra ,ram e .ty es. .ti tthe ucho!abu.®. · ] alt~aey alter they dlscu.~d a land-useSuch conveaiouce has its pettis. ~cld mum un e-mal~ ':&mall was new [to schmaer, a ~ty co~ member In Paio ye OMus c usl und we~w~ not coa,~dous" abuut Alto, writes abeur'aimust anythe," over a~g t~.a.meoting ~[olatioas, says e-mall, ineludlag "flgudag out where col- ~ ~ council member L4Z Eniss. leagues stand on something," But sb.e says Goverumeut wab:hdogs s~kv the prab- she takes sliectai core not to send copies of ted to buy new arllsts." leto is gothg to incrunic as e.maU guis messagestomorell{anthteeeoileaguesat Rxocutives at RZA~, whose members mompopular. AggravaUng the issue ts the once, because le do so would constitute a anuhcture an estimated 90% o! all re- {ar~ [hat public officials ieequesUy don't meeting d a majority of the nine councfl- ,rdlngs produced iu the U.S,, also sug- save their e-moll, unlike memos and let- members,. ~stod that the demographics of music, letsun paper, ~ough in many states It is .~tomers at'e changing. "The consumers considered part o! the pubUc recent. "The more technologically advanced e actually older than many people have A federal Judge earlier this week ~uled you are, the more opportunities for the eviously assumed," said .lay Burman, that the No!luna! SecuUty Council must open,meetings law to be violated," [AA chairman, "A substantial number of save and make publicly avallubie e-mail Schneider says, *ople aged 25 to 3,i are buying music In the messages that don't connote security mat- Spotting vleiadous can he tricky, Send- ~res and from the trucenil clubs, The tars, The NSC had argued it wasn't an thgane*mallmessugeunapo{lcymatterto nceptton that every buyer is very young age. qcy subject to the Freedurn o~inlorma- a private ciUzen Is penntsslble, but it's a simply wrong." lion Act, which enquires the government to viola!ion 1~ the cltize~ forwards the roes- Mr. Burman uotcd that during the disc~ inlormaUon Ul~n requ~,L unless sage to other council members. R could cond ha{~ o! U~e year, older cuStomera th~leformutionlsopecillcally exempL aisobeavle{alloniluneofficiale-matisall ".re aRranted to record stores by minuses "iUest ageecrus have not thought his colleagues individually, and each re- at included the soundtrack to "Forrest Uu'ough c-mail in Ught o! public acoe~," plies, says Robert U. Myers, !ormer city .unp" 8~nd a g~eatest hits nlbum kern says Will!urn Chainberlin, direcior o[ the attorney of Santa Monica, CaliL .entry singer Garth Brooks, Many also tire,.hoer C~nler for Freedom of toterroe- Another pi~al{: erasing e-mail. While ,ngbt the soundLrack to the "The Lion lion of the Universily oi lqorida. "With many s~tes have determined that e.mai{ ng" - 1994's No, 1 album - during the e.mail, it's much easier for officials to ispartofthepubllcrecordandthusshould cond half for giR-giving. uutbinklngiy toss out ideas and debate be saved and archived, public bedlee pab}Jc business in private." haven't figured out how to comply. Pale Perhaps the most encouraging sign for Opon-mestlng laws, nlso called "sun-Alto ts considering creating a public mail- cord companies was that dollar sales ew even though CD prices remained shine taws," vary i'eom state to state, butbox where copies o[ all e-mail messages guneraily require e]ected officials- would be sent for public sctuUny, says .sically Hat. While dollar soles rose 2~'~,wbeLher members oicity counciisorschuolAriel Calunue, city attorney, erail unit shipments - which included bcaids - to discuss and Vote on policyIn Pierida, "retaining eraall st!{1 con- )s, cassettes, music videos, singles andmailers in public meeting~, In many Dunds m~uy ol Florida's public hod!es," ~yl record - Jumped 17.5% in 1.1 hiMinn. it appea.m lhat consumer demand stales, the number el' officials eemmunl-says Pat Gleason, general counsel for the coUug in private must consUture a quorumstate attoreny general's ogice, Many corn. '~hed the re, venue surge, Io~order to vie!ere ~unshine laws, but in ' purer systems ".lust aren't designed is Compact disk saJes soared, with unit other places, such as Merida, even twokeep e-mail efficiently," she says, lee jumping 33.6% to 662.1 millleo - theofficials conferring privately on a policyIt's little wonder Ihat some lawmakers gge~ thetease since [he !urinal was mailer consUtures a violaHon. are slaying away from e*mhil altogether, treducod t2 years ago. Sales ot compactDe{endem of e-mall say the teehue ugyWhile staff merebern in Hiilsberungh ~,k players grew 23% to 26.5 rail{ten units,isn't difl'eeent from older forms ulcommu-County, Fla., at'lines use e, mai{, erected ~4A billion in factory sates, according tonicer!on. ARer a]{,o!flclals con simply pickofficials don'{. use the tochnalugy, says e gleeiron!co [ndesL,-y As~nolatiun. Theup the phone or meet !or lunch i[ they'reJane ragan, assistant couniy attorney, tale greup estimates {hat CO players aredetermined to discass mailers pdvalelLThe reason: to avoid cvco [he appearance Please Turn ta Page BO, Column I "Deliberation already happens behind o{ Impropriety. GAVIN v. CITY OF CASCADE The trial court overroled plaintiffs' mo- tion, which in effect denied plaintiffs' claim that liability should attach te the defendant as a matter of law on the bad faith claim. We affirm on this issue. In addition, the Affirmed. trial court sustained the defendant's motion for summary judgment on damage to the property. We also affirm on this issue. This matter is remanded to the trial court insofar as the issue of bad faith is concerned. Neither party is precluded from utilizing those m~tions or other plead- ings that may be proper to bring that issue before the court. We, of course, do not retain jurisdiction. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Clay GAVIN, Appellant, The CITY OF CASCADE, Iowa; A. Fran- cis Manternach; Kenneth McDermott; Pat Lyons and Gloria Reiter, Appellees. No. 91-1925. Court of Appeals of Iowa. March 30, 1993. City council member brought suit against city, mayor, and other council mem- bers, claiming violations of open meetings law in connection with two transactions. The District Court, Dubuque County, L.D. Camtensen, J., dismissed council member's motion for summary judgment. Counsel member appealed. The Court of Appeals, Hayden, J., held that: (1) genuine issue of material fact, as to whether "meeting" took place When mayor contacted two coun- cil merebern by telephone seeking their ap- proval of additional expenses for sewer ex- cavation, precluded summary judgment re- garding first transaction, and (2) no "meet- ing" occurred in connection with that or other transaction, which involved mayor's Iowa 729 visit with two council members to view rock which city superintendent sought to purchase. 1, Action ¢=25(2) Actions to enforce open meetings law are ordinary actions at law. I.C.A. § 21.1 et seq. 2. Appeel and Error ¢=1010.1(8.1) District court's findings in action to enforce open meetings law are binding if they are supported by substantial evidence. I.C.A. § 21.1 et seq. 3. Appeal and Error ¢=863 In reviewing ruling on motion for sum- mary judgment, court's task on appeal is to determine only whether geauine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied, 4. Judgment ¢=185(2) In ruling on motion for summary judg- ment, district court must examine entire record before it in light most favorable to opposing party, including pleadings, admis- sions, depositions, answers to interrogate- ries and affidavits, if any, to determine for itself whether any genuine iSsue of materi- al fact is generated thereby. 5. Judgment ¢=181(15.1) Genuine issue of material fact, as to whether "meeting" took place when mayor contacted two city council members by tele- phone seeking their approval of additional expenses for sewer excavations, prac[uded summary judgment on city council mem- ber's suit alleging violation of open meet- ings law in connection therewith. I.C.A. § 21.2, subd. 2. 6. Administrative Law and Procedure ¢=124 Enforcement section of open meetings law changes burden of going forward with evidence, rather than shifting burden of proof from plaintiffs to defendants, and plaintiff must show substantive proof of secret meeting, rather than mere specula- 730 Iowa 500 NORTH WESTERN tion. in order to shift the burden of going forward. I.C.A. § 21.6, subd. 2. 7. Administrative Law and Procedure ~::~124 Enforcement section of open meetings law does not apply unless a "meeting" as defined by separate section has taken place. I.C.A. §§ 21.2, subd. 2, 21.6, subd. 2. 8. Administrative Law and Procedure q:~124 Open meetings law applies only to gathering of majority of members of gov- ernmental body; activities of governmental body's individual members to secure infor- mation to be reported and acted upon at open meeting ordinarily do not violate open meetings law. I.C.A. § 21.1 et seq. 9. Municipal Corporations No "meeting" took place within mean- ing of open meetings law when mayor con- tacted two city council members by tele- phone seeking their approval of additional expenses for sewer excavations. I.C.A. § 21.2, subd. 2. See publikation Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. 10. Administrative Law and Procedure ~g:~124 Issue of intent is relevant to determi- nation of whether "meeting" has occurred within meaning of open meetings law. I.C.A. §§ 21.1 et seq., 21.2, subd. 2. 11. Municipal Corporations For purposes of city council member's suit against city, mayor, and other council members alleging violations of open meet- ings law, no "meeting" took pince when mayor and two council merebern viewed rock which city superintendent sought to purchase for use as street base, as even assuming that gathering of mayor, a non- voting member of city council, and t~vo of the five other council members constituted a "majority" of council, there was no evi- dence that any deliberation or action took place at the gathering; mayor and council member testified that they did not discass proposed purchase of rock at that time, but later individually expressed their opinions REPORTER, 2d SERIES to' the superinr. endcnt. I.C.A. §§ 21.1 et seq., 21.2, subd. 2. CM. May, III of Reynolds & Kenline Law Office, Dubuque, for appellant. Marc Casey of Moss, Helms & Casey, Dyersville, and William C. Fuerste of Fuerste, Carew, Coyle, Juergens & Sudmei- er, P.C., Dubuque, for appellees. Considered by OXBERGER, C.J., and HAYDEN and RABHAB, JJ. HAYDEN, Judge. The City of Cascade, Iowa, has a mayor- council form of government. The mayor is a non-voting member of the city council. At all times material, the mayor of Cascade was A. Francis Manternach. q~e city council members were Clay Gavin, Kenneth McDermott, Patrick Lyons, Gloria Reiter and Richard Noonan. Gavin brought the present suit claiming Manternaeh, McDermott, Lyons and Reiter violated the open meetings law of Iowa Code chapter 21. The first ~raasactinn in question occurred on August 14, 1989. The city had entered into a contract with Dan Conrad to extend sewer service to a subdivision. Conrad hired Charles Koppes to do the excavating. While excavating, Koppes unexpectedly hit very hard rock. Koppes contacted Manter- nach and told him there would be additional costs to dig through the rock. Mantemach and council member McDer- mott met at the site. McDermott ex- pressed his opinion it was appropriate to continue excavating and the city would in- cur the additional expenses if other council members also thought it appropriate. Manternach then contacted Lyons at his place of business and he contacted Reiter by telephone. Based on these conversa- tions, Mantemach told Koppes to proceed with removal of the rock and to bill the city. The city council discussed the payment of the bill at a meeting on Decer~ber 11, 1989. The council voted to approve the bill at a GAVIN v. CITY OF CASCADE regular meeting hebl on December 26, 1989. The second trausactiou occurred in Sep- tember 1989. The city superintendent, 3oe Merfeld, had authority to make purchases which did not exceed $250. In September 1989, Meffeld had an opportunity to pur- cbase for $240 some rock to use as street base. Metreid contacted Manteruach for his opinion. Manternach, McDermott and Lyons went together to view the rock. blanternach also telephoned Reitor for her opinion. Manternach subsequently told Merfeld to go ahead with the transaction. Metreid later presented the bill to the city council. It was approved at a regular meeting held on October 24, 1989. On April 5, 1990, Gavin filed this petition as an individual alleging defendants had violated the open meetings law by the transactions of August 14, 1989, and Sep- tember 1989. He filed a motion for sum- mary judgment which the district court de- nied. The district court held a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the two transactions constituted a "meeting" under chapter 21. A trial on the merits was held. On Sep- tember 26, 1991, the district court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court concluded no meeting was held as defined by section 21.2(2) on either Au- gust 14, 1989, or September 1989. There- fore, the provisions of chapter 21 were not violated by the mayor and the council mem- bers. The district court dismissed Gavin's petition. Gavin filed a rule 179(b) motion. On November 18~ 1991, the district court en- larged its findings and conclusions to find the City of Cascade had not violated chap- ter 21 of the Iowa Code. Gavin has filed this appeal. [I,21 I. Actions to enforce chapter 21 are ordinary actions at law. See Telegraph Herald, inc. v. City of Dubuque, 297 N.W.2d 529, 538 (Iowa 1980). The district eourt's findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence. ld. II. Gavin contends the district court should not have dismissed his motion for iowa 731 summary judgment. He s~ates he had shown, by depositions and affidavits, three of the five council members had given their permission to Manternach to tell Koppes to proceed with the excavating and this con- duet constituted a "meeting" under section 21.2(2). He points out the city council members did not follow any of the formal requirements for a meeting found in chap- ter 21. [3,4] In reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. Adam v. Mt~ Pleasant Bank & Trust Co., 355 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa 1984). The district court must examine, in the light most fa- vorable to the party opposing the motion, the entire record before it, including the pleadings, admissions, depositions, answers to intsrrogatories and affidavits, if any, to determine for itself whether any genuine issue of material fact is generated thereby. td. [5] We affirm the district court's deci- sion to dismiss Gavin's motion for sum- mary judgment. We agree with the dis- ~ict e.ourt's determination there was a gen- uine ,ssue of material fact .concerning whether a meeting had taken place on Au- gust 14, 1989. III. Gavin also contends the district court erred in finding no meeting occurred on August 14, 1989. He claims the d/strict court's conclusion is not supported by sub- stantial evidence and he is entitled to a judgment in his favor as a matter of law. Gavin claims the court failed to implement section 21.6(2). Section 21.6(2) provides: Once a party seeking judicial enforce- ment of this chapter demonstrates to the court that the body in question is subject to the requirements of this chapter and has held a closed session, the burden of going forward shall be on the body and its members to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this chapter. [6] This section changes the burden of going forward with the evidence rather than shifting the burden of proof from 732 Iowa 500 NORTH WESTERN plaintiffs to defendants. KCOB/KLVN, Inc. v. Jasper County Bd. of Supert, isors, 473 N.W.2d 1'/I, 177 (Iowa 1991). A plain- tiff must show substantive proof of a se- cret meeting rather than mere speculation in order to shift the burden of going for- ward. Id. [7] We determine section 21.6(2) does not apply unless a meeting, as defined by section 21.2(2), has ~aken place. Section 21.2(2) provides: "Meeting" means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or infor. mal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is delib- eration or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy-making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no dis- cussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of the chapter. [8] The statute only applies to a gather- ing of a majority of the members of a governmental body. Wedergren v. Board of Directors, 307 N.W.2d 12, 18 (Iowa 1981). Activities of a governmentel body's individual members to secure information to be reported and acted upon at an open meeting ordinarily do not violate the stat- ute. Telegraph Herald, Inc. v. City of Dubuqve, 297 N.W.2d 529, 534 (Iowa 1980), [9] The present situation is somewhat similar to the situation in Wedergren v. Board of Directors. In Wedergre~, three members of a five-member board contacted each other at various times· Wedergren, 307 N.W.2d at 18. However, only two met at any one time. ld. The supreme court concluded the gathering of two members of the five-member board did not constitute a "meeting" under the statute. ld. Under the facts of the present case, Man- teraach contacted city council members McDermott, Lyons and Reiter individually, No two city councii members met together at any one time. We conclude Gavin has failed to show a meeting, as defined by section 21.2(2), took place on August 14, REPORTER, 2d SERIES 1989. We affirm the district court on this issue. IV. Finally, Gavin contends the district court erred in finding no meeting occurred in September 1989. Defendants admit on this occasion Mant~rnach, McDermott and Lyons went together to view the rock, which the city superintendent, Merfeld, was considering purchasing. Gavin again · claims he is entitled to a judgment in his favor as a matter of law. We first question whether a gathering of Manternach, McDermott and Lyons consti- tuted a majority of the city council. While Manternach was technically a member of the city council, he was a non-voting mem- ber. [10, 11] However, even if we assume a majority of the city council did gather, it is necessary to determine if deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy.making duties took place at this gathering and whether there was an intent to avoid the purposes of chapter 21. See Herrings v. Dallas County Bd. of Adjustment, 375 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa App. 1985). Thus, the issue of intent is relevant to determine whether a "meeting" has occurred. KCOB/KLVN, 473 N.W.2d at 175. We find no evidence any deliberation or action took place when the men met at the rock. Both Manternach and Lyons testi- fied they did not discuss the proposed pur- chase of the rock at the time, but later individually expressed their opinions to Merfeld. We also find no evidence of any intent to avoid the purposes of chapter 21 in the facts before us. We conclude Gavin has failed to show he is entitled to a judg- ment in his favor as a matter of law. Having considered all of the issues pre- sented in this appeal, we affirm the deci- sion of the district court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Clay Gavin. AFFIRMED. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM - Date: February 27, 1995 To: From: Council Member Karen Kubby, Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ~----'~'~ ~ Legal Opinion Request: Does marriage between Karen Kubby and Joe Bolkcom, a Johnson County Board of Supervisors member, create an illegal conflict of interest? Issue Several questions have been raised, both formally and informally, regarding whether Karen Kubby's marriage to Johnson County Board of Supervisors member Joe Bolkcom creates an illegal conflict of interest or requires avoiding even the potential for conflict of interest. The short answer to these questions is "no." Since a number of other "conflict of interest" questions have surfaced, of late, I have expanded the opinion to more general issues. Summary of Conclusions There is no Iowa case law directly on point as to whether Karen Kubby's marriage to Joe Bolkcom creates a conflict of interest. Realizing full well that questions of conflict of interest are very fact-based and thus not easily given to generalized answers, I can nonetheless state quite unequivocally that the existence of a I~usband-wife relationship does not constitute an unlawful conflict of interest under Iowa la~/. Moreover, I find Karen Kubby is not required to abstain from either voting or participating in discussion on general County matters, such as zonings, subdivisions or contracts with the County. This is because the rule requiring City officials to "avoid even the potential for a conflict of interest" deals with very different facts from those presented here, and have nothing whatsoever to do with marital status. General Principles of Conflict of Interest under Iowa Law As explained to the Council on prior occasions, the law concerning "conflict of interest" is a fact-based inquiry: "With respect to the fiduciary duties of public officials, no definite rule can be given indicating the line of demarcation between that which is proper and that which is unlawful; for this reason, questions concerning whether there is a conflict of interest violafive of law are not susceptible of generalized answers. Essentially, each case will be law only unto itself." 63A AM. JUR. 2d "Public Officers and Employees," §319, p. 897. Speaking generally, every public officer is bound to perform the duties of the office "...honestly, faithfully, and to the best of his ability, in such a manner as to be above suspicion of irregularities, and to act primarily for the benefit of the ?35' 2 public....He is further bound to act impartially in matters pertaining to the administration of his duties." Id., pp. 896-97. Many of the quotes refer to the male gender, but clearly the law is designed to apply to all public employees and officials - regardless of gender. Hundreds of years ago courts of equity, which were rival courts established by the Chancellor of England and known as Courts of Chancery, were adopted to protect property placed in the hands of another. This body of law is known as the "law of trusts." Under this law, a person is said to be entrusted with the care, custody and control of the assets and business of another, thereby creating a "trust relationship." This means placing one's property in the hands of another creates a "fiduciary relationship," which literally means "faith." Under general rules of equity, a fiduciary "...has a duty to care for the assets entrusted to him as if they were his own." Bayne, Corporate Control as a Strict Trustee, 53 GEO. L. J. 533 (1965). Thus, a fiduciary must make sure all benefits from administration of the trust are guarded for the benefit of the beneficiary. This is a form of "stewardship" which has its origins in moral, ethical and legal principles. This means that personal ownership is, by its very nature, inconsistent with stewardship obligations assigned to a fiduciary: "'It is among the rudiments of the law that the same person cannot act for himself and at the same time, with respect to the same matter, as the agent for another whose interests are conflicting....The two positions impose different obligations, and their union would at once raise a conflict....'" Bayne, supra, quoting Mr. Justice Field. Over the years it was this concern for "conflicting obligations" that developed into a body of law on "conflict of interest rules," in order to protect not only the trust, but also the beneficiaries and the trustees themselves. Since the equity courts also viewed the role of a public official as a "fiduciary role," Iowa has applied these common law "conflict of interest rules" not only to city officials, but also to city employees, see, e.g., Bar v. Davidson, 133 Iowa 688, 691, 111 N.W. 25 (1907). In Bay v. Davidson, the mayor and council members in Grand River, Iowa had routinely purchased lumber and other materials from one of the town council members. A taxpayer challenged the transaction as an illegal conflict of interest, and the Iowa Supreme Court agreed: "'It is a well-established and salutary rule in equity that he who is intrusted with the business of others cannot be allowed to make such business an object of pecuniary profit to himself. This rule does not depend on reason technical in character and is not local in its application. It is based upon principles of reason, of morality and of public policy. It has its foundation in the very constitution of our nature, for it has authoritatively been declared that a man cannot serve two masters,...'" Bay v. Davidson, at 691 [emphasis added]. 3 In a more recent case involving the City of Iowa City, the Iowa Supreme Court restated the rule as follows: "We doubt if any rule of law has more longevity than that which condemns conflict between the public and private interests of government officials and employees nor any which has been more consistently and rigidly applied." Wilson v. Iowa City, 165 N. W. 2d 813, 822 (Iowa 1969). In the Wilson case, Iowa City residents challenged urban renewal contracts, purchases, sales and other projects as illegal under the Iowa urban renewal law, claiming 1 ) that various council members owned or leased property within the urban renewal area, and one council member was employed by a major property owner (the University); 2) that based on these relation- ships, "conflicts of interest" problems disqualified these members from voting; and 3) finally, that the council members' failure to abstain from voting rendered all city actions null and void under Iowa law. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the citizens of Iowa City, and found that the council members who either owned or leased property within the urban renewal area created a "conflict of interest" with respect to the city council members' duty to the city as public servants. Thus, these council members' failure to abstain from the votes on the various urban renewal transactions basically "undid" all the urban renewal efforts in "one fell swoop." In coming to this conclusion, the Iowa Supreme Court had only to look to the plain meaning of Iowa's urban renewal law, which explicitly states that any council person who owned or controlled an interest, either direct or indirect, in property within the urban renewal project area was disqualified from voting on urban renewal matters, §403.16, Code of Iowa (1962); Wilson, at 822. Yet all the council members had voted on at least one urban renewal issue. With a fact-pattern this straight forward, the Wilson Court had little difficulty in finding that the council members who owned or leased property within the urban renewal area and still voted on the matters did, in fact, have an illegal "conflict of interest." This meant not only were the votes of these council members disqualified, but that any resulting city actions were rendered null and void, meaning the actions are treated as if they never occurred. As for the University employee, the Court acknowledged that was a closer call. Acknowledg- ing that councilmember Hickerson's employment situation was quite different from land ownership, the Wilson. Court still viewed his relationship with his landowner/employer as sufficiently troublesome to require disqualifying Hickarson from voting - which he failed to do. The Court explained that when Hickerson was first elected to the City Council, he was director of the alumni office. Soon after his election, however, he became director of community relations for the University. Since the University was a major property owner within the City's urban renewal area, Mr. Hickerson's loyalty to his employer, which was an economic necessity to earning a living, conflicted with his loyalty to the City, which obligated him to further the interests of urban renewal. Recognizing the ethical problem was less obvious, the Wilson Court still found that Hickerson's vote was disqualified as an illegal "conflict of interest: "'The question is whether there is a potential for conflict, not whether the public servant succumbs to the temptation or is even aware of it. *** The potential of psychological influences cannot be ignored. *** iT]he mere existence of a [potential] conflict, and not its actual effect, requires the official action to be invalidated.'" 4 Wilso_Qn, at 823. The Wilson Court was quick to point out the reasons for disqualifying Hickerson's votes: "We are not critical of any of these circumstances [governing Hickerson's official city actions} except as they affect the possibility of conflict of interest between public duty and loyalty to a private employer." Wilson, at 823 [emphasis added}. The results of this lawsuit were dramatic. All resolutions designating the urban renewal area were no longer of legal effect. All specific urban renewal projects for redevelopment were declared null and void. All sales, purchases and other conveyances of urban renewal property were declared null and void. Any modification of stock in a corporation holding an interest in urban renewal property was declared null and void. In a word, Iowa City had to start over in 1969, in its urban renewal efforts. Common Law Adopted by Legislature As noted above, the high standards of conduct which the public requires of its servants were originally set out in common law, and later adopted into state law (statute) by the Iowa Legislature. The general "conflict of interest" rule reads, in part: "A city officer or employee shall not have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or job of work or material where the profits thereof or services to be furnished or performed for the officer's or employee's city. A contract entered into in violation of this section is void...." §362.5, Code of Iowa (1993). There are a number of exceptions to this general statutory rule, none of which are applicable to this Opinion. For example, some transactions are exempt if a city employee or city official contracts with its own city for the purchase of goods or services, so long as the cumulative total purchase of those goods or services does not exceed 91,500 in any one fiscal year, see §362.5(10), Code. The reasoning behind the statutory rules is not only to protect the public, but also to protect city officials and employees from being placed in impossible situations. Please note much of this Opinion deals with rules governing "conflict of interest" as the issues relate to contracts between a city official and a city generally - not because the rules specifically apply to Karen Kubby's marriage to Joe Bolkcom, but rather because these general guidelines are instructive for your day-to-day operations, and also apply to the City as a whole. IVlarital status does not, in and of itself, violate conflict of interest rules; Attorney General Opinions In reviewing the general "conflict of interest" statute found in §362.5, Code, discussed above, you will note there is no ban on "family relationships," "relationships," or "marital relationships." Rather, state Code simply provides that ".,.a city officer or employee shall not have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract....," §362.5, Code. 5 We must therefore look to other sources of law to answer our question, namely, "does marriage constitute an "indirect" interest proscribed by the statute?" There is no case law even remotely "on point" concerning the marital relationship between a City Council member and a Board of Supervisors member. However, there are three Attorney General Opinions which have addressed the question of marital relationships between a city official and a person contracting with the City. All three Attorney General Opinions state, quite clearly, that such marital relationship does not create an illegal conflict of interest. Again, this line of reasoning is the only law available to review the question; and even though the facts are not "on point," the principles are still instructive, and the facts are the closest I could find. For example, the Attorney General was asked in 1966 whether a city council member, who was married to a car dealership/owner, created an illegal "conflict of interest" sufficient to keep the city from buying cars from the husband/car dealership. After reviewing several secondary sources (treatises) and case law from other jurisdictions, the Attorney General's answer was "no." "'In the cases in which the question has been presented, it has ordinarily been held that relationship is not a disqualifying interest within a statute making it unlawful for an officer to be interested in a public contract. Thus, an officer is not regarded as disqualified from entering into and passing on contracts merely because he bears to the other contracting party the relationship of father, father-in-law, brother, husband, or the like. There are, however, decisions to the contrary, particularly where the relationship is that of husband and wife. In some jurisdictions, statutes expressly provide that no person related within a specified degree to a member of a public board shall be directly or indirectly interested in a contract of such board.'" 1966 Attorney General Opinion, 3~23~66, p. 3874 [emphasis added]. One may ask whether a contract between the City and the County is a "contract" similar to the city council member/husband/car dealership question in this 1966 Attorney General Opinion. My conclusion is "no," and I reach this conclusion by looking closely at the types of "contracts" being discussed in the 1966 A.G. Opinion - in contrast to the types of contracts likely to be at issue with Karen and Joe as public officials. For example, a contract which Joe Bolkcom enters into, as a Johnson County Board of Supervisors member, is a contract entered into by, and on behalf of, the County as a whole - not as a personal contract or private business contract. But even assuming there were such a personal contract, under the Attorney General's reasoning, the marital status of Karen Kubby and Joe Bolkcom does not create an illegal conflict under Iowa law. Moreover, there are no statutes which specifically prohibit persons "related within a specified degree [of family] to a member of a public board," as found in other jurisdictions, see 1966 A.G. Op., p. 3874. Thus, family relationships in Iowa do not disqualify a city from dealing with the employee's or the official's spouse: "The question whether the relationship is a disqualifying interest within the statutes making it unlawful for an officer to be interested in a public contract has been directly presented in comparatively few cases. In almost every instance, the relationship has been held to have no disqualifying effect." !.d..., p. 3875 [emphasis added]. 6 The Attorney General then goes on to review rules to the contrary, but finally concludes that the marital relationship does not disqualify cities from contracting with the spouses of city officials or employees, reasoning that the debts, rights, contracts and liabilities of husbands and wives, under Iowa marriage law, are deemed separate and independent, "Chapter 597, 1962 Code of Iowa indicates last that the contracts, debts, rights and liabilities of each husband and wife are to be considered as separate and independent. Therefore, since the wife-alderman has no ownership in the company of legal interest in the contracts, other than the fact that the contract is between the municipality and her husband, I am of the opinion that such a relationship does not constitute an indirect interest in violation of Chapter 326, Acts of the 61st General Assembly." 1966 A.G. Op., pp. 3875-76. Present-day versions of Iowa marriage laws have changed very little since 1966. These laws still provide that a married woman may own real and personal property in her own right and may sell and convey real property; that neither husband nor wife is liable for the debts or liabilities of the other; and that neither husband nor wife is liable for the other's tortious injuries to a third person except where the partner would be jointly liable even if the marriage did not exist, see §§597.1, .17 and .19, Code of Iowa (1993). The only time a spouse becomes responsible for the other's debts and contracts is when one spouse has abandoned the other, §597.10, Code. Two similar Attorney General Opinions reached the same conclusions in answering nearly identical questions, i.e. does a marital relationship render a contract illegal between an official's city and their spouse? See Attorney General Opinions January 20, 1972, and May 16, 1973, attached. In a fourth Opinion dated April 20, 1976, the spouse actually owned more than five percent of the company contracting with the city, so the contract was invalid as provided in one specific section of the "conflicts of interest" statute, see §362.5(9), Code [conflict of interest if city officer or employee owns more than five percent of a corporation contracting with the city]. While I realize these Attorney General Opinions deal with "contracts" between a city official and the city spouse - which are facts not presented here - I find the reasoning persuasive. In summary, I find Karen's marriage fo Joe Bolkcom does not create a conflict of interest under Iowa law. Avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest under Wilson; does this rule apply to marriage? One might ask whether the Wilson rule, which requires avoiding even a "potential for conflict of interest," demands that Karen avoid dealing with any county matters whatsoever, including decisions on extraterritorial subdivisions, county rezonings, contracts with the county including 28E agreements, and the fringe area agreement. I have reviewed these questions closely in light of the Wilson decision, and have concluded the law does not require Karen to abstain from either participation in, nor voting on, such general county matters. The facts in the Wilson case regarding council member Hickerson were very distinct and are completely inapposite to the facts presented here. This means that since the factors of Karen's marriage are not at all like those of Hlckerson's employment, the Wilson "potential conflict" rule is not controlling. Additionally, the Wilson Court went to great lengths to 7 explain why it applied the "potential conflict of interest" rule to council member Hickerson, realizing that this rule was a much "closer call" than the council members who clearly owned property interests within the urban renewal area. The Wilsoq Court explained: "These rules, whether common law or statutory, are based on moral principles and public policy. They demand complete loyalty to the public and seek to avoid subjecting a public servant to the difficult, and often insoluble, task of deciding between public duty and private advantage. It is not necessary that this advantage be a financial one. Neither is it required that there be a showing the official sought or gained such a result. It is the potential for conflict of interest which the law desires to avoid. Wilsoq, at 822. In trying to draw a line where employment with the University would become an "illegal conflict of interest," the Wilson Court explained: "We do not say every University employee would be deprived of a voice in urban renewal proceedings by reason of such employment. Here, however, we have an employee in a position of influence as director of community relations, the very department with which the city would deal in case of matters of mutual interest to the University and the city. In addition we have unusual and direct interest on the part of the University in the outcome of urban renewal proceedings." Wilsoq, at 823 [emphasis added]. The Wilson Court then concluded: "We are not critical of any of these circumstances, except as they affect the possibility of conflict of interest between public duty and loyalty to a private employer...It would perhaps be more accurate to describe this, as some writers have done, as a conflict of duties rather than conflict of interest. When one is committed to give loyalty and dedication of effort to both his public office and his private employer, when the interests of those two may conflict, one is faced with pressures and choices to which no public servant should be unnecessarily exposed (cites omitted)." Wilson., at 823. In light of the "duties" of the various council members in the Wilson case, I find the "duties" of Karen Kubby and Joe Bolkcom, as husband and wife, have little, if anything, to do with the duties of Karen Kubby as Council member. As the Wilson Court pointed out very clearly, council member Hickerson had a position of influence based on his employment duties, and at the same time was obligated as a public servant to oversee urban renewal. Since these two duties necessarily overlapped, an illegal "conflict of interest" resulted. In contrast to the conflicting duties found in the Wilson case, I do not see any "conflicting duties" as between spousal duties of Karen and her elected official duties as City Council member. In a word, I find the "potential conflict of interest" rule set out in Wilson does not apply to Karen Kubby by virtue of her marriage to Joe Bolkcom, especially since the debts and 8 obligations of husband and wife are separate and distinct under Iowa law, and most especially since wives are no longer property to be owned by their husbands, see §597.1, Code. Likely Scenarios: As explained earlier, "conflict of interest" questions are very fact-based inquiries. Nonetheless, I will review a few likely scenarios, as requested by Karen Kubby: 1. Johnson County Council of Government {JCCOG) The membership of JCCOG is made up of the following: Government Persons Votes Coralville 2 2 Johnson County Board of Supervisors 2 2 North Liberty 1 ~ University Heights 1 ~ Iowa City 5 5 University of Iowa 1 1 TOTAL 1 2 11 I find no conflict of interest for Karen's service on the JCCOG Board, for the following reasons: 1. Karen's vote cannot be a "deciding vote," based on the voting scheme. Even assuming Karen could persuade two Board of Supervisors members to vote with her (a large assumption), and even assuming this persuasion were based solely on her marital status (again, an unlikely assumption), Karen would not have sufficient votes to "carry the day." 3. Joint meetings between the City Council and Johnson County Board of Supervisors. I see no "conflict of interest" between Karen Kubby's presence and discussion at the joint City and County meetings. Clearly, Karen and Joe have independent voices and independent votes. Even assuming Karen could persuade Joe to vote with her (or vice versa, again, an unlikely assumption), these two votes cannot "carry the day" because two votes out of twelve is not a majority. 4. Official negotiating teams or committees, or ad hoc committees. As discussed with Council members earlier, I find no "conflict of interest" with Karen's serving as a member of the ad hoc SEATS negotiating team. However, I acknowledge the Council's ability, via a majority tally of four out of seven, to change the composi- tion of this committee. 5. Other City/County business. 9 Because of the greater legal and factual analysis required, I have already dealt with this in a separate section above. Relationships of City Officials with Outside Boards and Agencies As stated in a legal opinion completed by former Assistant City Attorney Patricia Cone-Fisher, the City Attorney's Office found that a conflict of interest did, indeed, disqualify a Housing Commission member from voting on issues which dealt with his agency's application to the Commission. This rule holds true whether or not the Commission member stands to gain personally or monetarily from the City action. That is, even a person acting as a board of directors member for a non-profit, charitable corporation stands in a "fiduciary relationship" with the corporation - regardless of whether the person serves with or without pay. Since "conflict of interest" rules dictate that "one cannot serve two masters over the same matter," the Commission member is required to abstain from voting on any matters relating to his outside board or agency. This rule does not extend to abstaining from competing matters not related to the outside agency unless the board member's vote on competing matters would be decisive, §362,6, Code. Even if the Commission member insists on voting, the vote must be disqualified as unlawful. Moreover, this "conflict of interest" information must be stated in the minutes of the Commission, as required by §362.6, Code of Iowa (1993). The Code also requires disclosure of the conflict of interest, and whether the member actually abstains from votin9. Finally, §362.6, Code provides that only where the disqualified vote is "decisive" would the vote be rendered invalid and void. In explaining these rules to persons who serve without compensation for many private agencies in Iowa City, as well as serve without any compensation for our many boards and commissions, I realize this result may seem somewhat harsh. However, the law is clear: "It is the general and well established rule that it is improper and illegal for a member of a municipal council or other similar body to vote upon any question properly before such body in which he is personally interested, and where his personal rights will be affected by the vote (cites omitted)." Security National Bank v. Baqlev, 202 Iowa 701,709, 49 ALR 705 (1926). In an attempt to "flesh this opinion out" and apply the rules to real life, one example presented itself some months ago which may be instructive. You may recall Councilmember Susan Horowitz abstained from voting on whether the Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way would be widened. Susan and her husband, Joel Horowitz, were affiliated with a neighborhood group which publicly declared that if the City widened Kirkwood Avenue, such City action would lower their property values. This assertion of "diminished property values" is a "personal interest" or "property interest" under the "conflict of interest" rules, over and above the interest of Susan as an "ordinary citizen" not sitting on the Council. Thus, I suggested Sue abstain from voting on the widening decision - which she did. Thus, "personal rights" or "personal interests" mean some monetary, fiduciary or property interest which is over and above an "interest" enjoyed or claimed as an ordinary citizen. 10 Conclusion I am well aware I have not answered all of Karen's questions, nor all of the Council's questions which may arise, from time to time, However and as previously explained, the law of "conflict of interest" is a very fact-based inquiry, Nonetheless, based on my review of Iowa law and the facts presented, it is my considered opinion that the marriage of Karen Kubby to Joe Bolkcom does not create an illegal conflict of interest, Nor is Karen required to abstain from voting on, and participating in, discussions concerning general county matters such as rezonings and City/County agreements, As for the rest of the somewhat lengthy discussion above, it is my hope this opinion will give all of you, at a minimum, some broad guidelines to follow - but as always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions, Moreover, unless I hear from you to the contrary, I plan to circulate this opinion to City staff, as well as Boards and Commissions since we have had a number of questions presented, of late, One final thought: While I do not find this suggestion necessary or warranted, you might ask Johnson County Attorney J, Patrick White to request a formal legal opinion from the State Attorney General's Office regarding this "marital status" question, I suggest this only because, as City Attorney, I am not authorized under Iowa law to request such an opinion, but County Attorneys and Iowa Legislators can do so, CC: City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Opinion File Attachments Inw~confiint.mmo City of iowa City MEMORAND M Date: February 24, 1995 To: )uncil Member Karen Kubby, Mayor Susan M, Council and Members of the ' From: ;wman Woito, City Attorney Re: Le a Johnson interest? Request: Does marriage be ~nty Board of Superviso 'een Karen Kubby and Joe Bolkcom, member, create an illegal conflict of Issue Several questions have been raised Kubby's marriage to Johnson Count~ illegal conflict of interest or requires avo short answer to these questions is "no. questions have surfaced, of late, I have and informally, regarding whether Karen Supervisors member Joe Bolkcom creates an even the potential for conflict of interest. The Since a number of other "conflict of interest" the opinion to more general issues. Summary of Conclusions There is no Iowa case law direc Bolkcom creates a conflict of are very fact-based and thus nc quite unequivocally that the e: unlawful conflict of interest ~ point as hether Karen Kubby's marriage to Joe Realizin that questions of conflict of interest ,,asily given ,.ed answers, I can nonetheless state of a husband-w relationship does not constitute an a law. Moreover, I find Karen Kul is not required to abstain discussion on general C~ matters, such as zonings, County. This is becau the rule requiring City officials to conflict of interest" d with very different facts from nothing whatsoever do with marital status. voting or participating in wsions or contracts with the even the potential for a ~resented here, and have General Principles Conflict of Interest under Iowa Law As explained to 1 fact-based in( Council on prior occasions, the law concerning ~flict of interest" is a give wh ~ect to the fiduciary duties of public officials, no defini ,g the line of demarcation between that which is h is unlawful; for this reason, questions concerning whether interest violafive of law are not susceptible of generalized each case will be law only unto itself." AM. JUR. 2d "Public Officers and Employees," §319, p. 897. can be is a Spea,/~ing generally, every public officer is bound to perform the duties of the offic~,t~ "...honestly, faithfully, and to the besi of his ability, in such a manner as to be ~ above suspicion of irregularities, and to act primarily for the benefit of the 2 pubtic..~.He is further boun.d, to act impartially in matters p,'ertaining to the admihistl~ion of his duties. Id_~., pp. 896-97. / Many of the quot~ refer to the male gender, but clearly the designed to apply to all public employees ahi~fficials - regardless of gender. Hundreds of years ago _~ourts of equity, which were rival cour shed by the Chancellor of England and known as Courts of Chancery, were adopte¢ property placed in the hands of another. of law is known as the "law ( Under this law, a person is said to be entrusted Ih the care, custody and cot of the assets and business of another, thereby crea~ing "trust relationship." This placing one's property in the hands of another creates a iduciary relationship," literally means "faith." Under general rules of equity, iduciary"...has a as if they were his own." Ba Corporate (1 965). Thus, a fiduciary must ~ake sure all guarded for the benefit of the ~ficiary. TI origins in moral, ethical and legal ~ciples. very nature, inconsistent with stev to care for the assets entrusted to him as a Strict Trustee, 53 GEO. L. J. 533 ~efits from administration of the trust are is a form of "stewardship" which has its means that personal ownership is, by its ations assigned to a fiduciary: "'It is among the rudiments of himself and at the same time, wit another whose interests are co obligations, and their union Bayne, supra, quoting Mr. J~ that the same person cannot act for espect to the same matter, as the agent for ing....The two positions impose different once raise a conflict....'" Over the years it was this law on "conflict of interest rule beneficiaries and the trustees in order obligations" that developed into a body of not only the trust, but also the Since the equity courts also v ,wed the role of a official as a "fiduciary role," Iowa has applied these common law" ules" only to city officials, but also to city employees, see, e.g., Bay Davidson, 133 Iowa 688 I1, 111 N.W. 25 (1907). In Bay v. Davidson, the ~or and council members in rand River, Iowa had routinely purchased lumber and ,tither materials from one of the to~ members. A taxpayer challenged the transa?ion as an illegal conflict of interest, ld the Iowa Supreme Court agreed: "'It is a wellT~stablished and salutary rule in equity that the busine~'s of others cannot be allowed to make su~ pecuniary/profit to himself. This rule does not depend on re characte)~ and is not local in its application. It is based reason,,'of morality and of public policy. It has its consti~Jtion of our nature, for it has authoritatively been cannot serve two masters,,..'" Bay v. Davidson, at 691 [emphasis added]. is intrusted with ~ess an object of ion technical in principles of in the very that a man 3 In a more recent case involving the City of Iowa City, the Iowa Supreme Court restated the rule as follows: ~. e doubt ~f any r~le of law has more Iongewty than that ,which condemns conflict between th~ public and private interests of government officials and employees nor any ~hich has been more consistently and rigidly applied." Wilson v. Iowa City, ~,65 N. W. 2d 813, 822 (Iowa 1969). In the Wilson case, Iowa City r"--\ !sidents challenged urban renewal contrac,t~, purchases., sales and other projects as illegal r th,. Iowa urban renewal law, cla~m~ng 1.) that various councd members owned or leased within the urban renewal area, an.d~one council member was employed by a major pro owner (the University); 2) that joased on these.relation- ships, "conflicts of interest" that the council members' failure t~ under Iowa law. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed the citizens of low; members who either owned or property "conflict of interest" with respect to city council servants. Thus, these council memb~ renewal transactions basically "undid" al :he urba disqualified these members f(~m voting; and 3) finally, abstain from voting render/~,all city actions null and void and found that the council urban renewal area created a duty to the city as public on the various urban 31 efforts in "one fell swoop." In coming to this conclusion, the Iowa Su of Iowa's urban renewal law, which controlled an interest, either direct or area was disqualified from voting on urbar Wilson, at 822. Yet all the council With a fact-pattern this straight forwa the council members who owned or voted on the matters did, in fact, were the votes of these councilm rendered null and void, meanin, the pro an illegal sq actions ar~ only to look to the plain meaning any council person who owned or in property within the urban renewal project §403.16, Code of Iowa (1962); voted on at least one urban renewal issue. __ Court had little difficulty in finding that within the urban renewal area and still of interest." This meant not only but that any resulting city actions were as if they never occurred. As for the University in9 that councilmember ownership, the Wilson sufficiently troublesom do. The Court explai~ the Court acknowled :hat was a closer call. Acknowledg- employment ~n was quite different from land still viewed his relationshi his landowner/employer as require disqualifying voting - which he failed to that when Hickerson was first ;d to the City Council, he was community relatio within the economic nece him to furthe obvious, th~ director of the alur office. Soon after his election, for the University. Since the wal area, Mr. Hickerson's ' to earning a living, conflicted with his Io interests of urban renewal. Recognizing Court still found that Hickerson's vote "conflict of/interest: .~ver, he became director of a major property owner is employer, which was an which obligated problem was less Ilsqualified as an illegal "' e question is whether there is a potential .for conflict, whether the /hub""~T//~ic servant succumbs to the temptation or fs even aware o~ it, *"" The potential of psychological influences cannot be ignored. '"* IT]he me.re existence of a [potential] conflict, and not its actual effect, requires the official action to be invalidated.'" 4 Wilson, at 82,3. The Wilson Court we'.' qulck to point out the reasons for disqualifying ,~kerson's votes: "We are not ,el of any of these circumstances [governi~'g Hickerson's official city except as they affe.ct the possibility of cc)hflict of interest between public ~nd loyalty to a private employer." Wilson, at 823 [em mis added]. / The results of this lawsuit ramatic. All resolutions desig)~ating the urban renewal area were no longer of legal effect. 41 specific urban renewal p/rdjects for redevelopment were declared null and void. All sales, )L~(chases and other conveyances of urban renewal property were declared null and void. Any r~odification of stock i~,~,a corporation holding an interest in urban renewal property was declar'~ null and void. Ir~ a word, Iowa City had to start over in 1969, in its urban renewal efforts. Common Law Adopted by Legislature As noted above, the high standards of ~ originally set out in common law, and Legislature. The general "conflict of interest' public requires of its servants were into state law (statute) by the Iowa reads, in part: "A city officer or employee shall nc contract or job of work or materie furnished or performed for the of :er's or into in violation of this section void...." m interest, direct or indirect, in any ~e profits thereof or services to be y. A cont[act entered §362,5, Code of Iowa (199: There are a number of exception: to this Opinion. For example, contracts with its own city for total purchase of those good.~ §362.5(10), Code. The rea.' but also to protect city offi this general statutor le transactions are exem purchase of goods or services does not exceed behind the statutory rules and employees from being rule, none of which are applicable if a city employee or city official ices, so long as the cumulative 500 in any one fiscal year, see only to protect the public, :t in impossible situations. Please note much of this relate to contracts be specifically apply to K. guidelines are whole. )inion deals with rules governing "confl of interest" as the issues a city official and a city generally not because the rules Kubby's marriage to Joe Bolkcom, because these general for your day-to-day operations, and also ]ly to the City as a Marital status d( Opinions not, in and of itself, violate conflict of interest rules General In reviewing above, you relationshi general "conflict of interest" statute found in §362.5, note there is no ban on "family relationships," "relationsh Rather, state Code simply provides that e, discussed or "marital " city officer or employee shall not have an interest, direct or indirect, in contract....," §362.5, Code. We must therefore look to other sources of law to answer our question, namely, "does marriage constitute an "indirect" interest proscribed by the statute?" There is no case law even remotely "on point" concerning the marital relationship between a City Council member and a Board of Supervisors~'trmmber. However, there are three Attorney General Opinions which have addressed the ~uestion of rdarital relationships between a city official and a person contracting with the City. All three Attorney General Opir~ions state, quite clearly, that such marital relationship does~not create an illegal conflict of/interest. Again, this line of reasoning is the only law availaiSle to review the question; and/even though the facts are not "on point," the principles are stilt. instructive, and the facts ar~ the closest I could find. For examhie the Attorne, Senera~l .was asked ~n 1966 wh ~er a clt ~. , y ~ ' ~ ' y council member, who was married to a car dealership/owh~er, created an illegaJ/"conflict of interest" sufficient to keep the city from buying cars frommthe husband/car ~d'ealership. After reviewing several secondary sources (treatises) and cas~law from other/jurisdictions, the Attorney General's answer was "no." "'In the cases in which the questio~ has held that relationship is not a disqu'~ unlawful for an officer to be not regarded as disqualified from because he bears to the other con1 father-in-law, brother, husband, or the contrary, particularly where In some jurisdictions, statutes e: a specified degree to a interested in a contract of SL ~resented, it has ordinarily been interest within a statute making it ~ublic contract. Thus, an officer is g into and passing on contracts merely Iing party the relationship of father, e. There are, however, decisions to is that of husband and wife. no person related within a public . ard shall be directly or indirectly board.'" 1966 Attorney General 3~23~66, p. 4 [emphasis added]. One may ask whether a the city council member/bus Opinion. My conclusion is of "contracts" being disc~ contracts likely to be between the City and County is a "contract" similar to fcar dealership q~ in this 1966 Attorney General and I reach this conclusior looking closely at the types in the 1966 A.G. Opinion in contrast to the types of Karen and Joe as public als. For example, a contract which Joe Bolkcom en into, as a Johnson County Board .\Supervisors member, is a contract entered into and on behalf of, the County as a whole -~not as a personal contract or private business c, But even assuming there were such a\[3ersonal contract, under the Attorney s reasoning, the marital status of Karen Kubby'\and Joe Bolkcom does not create an illeg under Iowa law, ~ Moreover, there statutes which specifically prohibit persons "related within a specified degree [of faro to a member of a public board," as found in other juris~,ictions, see 1966 A.G. Op,, p, Thus, family relationships in Iowa do not disqualify a\~ity from dealing with the the official's spouse: \ question whether the relationship is a disqualifying interest within the making it unlawful for an officer to be interested in a public contract s been directly presented in comparatively few cases. In almost every the relationship has been held to have no disqualifying effect," - Id._~., p. 3875 [emphasis added]. 6 The Attorney General then goes on to review rules to the contrary, but finally concludes that the ma¢ital relationship does not disqualify cities from contracting with the spouses of city officiJ~ls or employees, reasoning that the debts, rights, contracts and liabilities of husbands nt, and v~'.v.~,i, under Iowa marriage law, are deemed separate and inde "O~apter 597, 1962 Code of Iowa indicates last that the con righ, t.t a. nd liabilities of each husband and wife are to be consider and ir~ependent. Therefore, since the wife-alderman has no .co~pan'y,?f legal interest in the contracts, other than the f is betweenthe municipality and her husband, I am of the relationship~oes not constitute an in,direct interest in violl Acts of the 6~.~,xGeneral Assembly. 1966 A.G. Op., p~t,~875-76. ;ts, debts, as separate p in the t that such a Chapter 326, Present-day versions of Iowa'h~arriage laws have change little since 1966. These laws still provide that a married worfia~n may own real and perry in her own right and may sell and convey real propert¥~ that neither lu., [ nor wife is liable for the debts or liabilities of the other; and that heir, her husband n~l wife is liable for the other's tortious injuries to a third person except wher~,~he partner cdd be jointly liable even if the marriage did not exist, see §§597.1, .17 and .~,9, Iowa (1993). The only time a spouse becomes responsible for the other's deb~. and ;pouse has abandoned the other, §597.10, Code. ".. Two similar Attorney General Opinions re ~h'~] the same conclusions in answering nearly identical questions, i.e. does a marital ship render a contract illegal between an official's city and their spouse? See ~nions January 20, 1972, and May 16, 1973, attached. In a fourth Opi~ dated A 20, 1976, the spouse actually owned more than five percent of the compa , contracting ith the city, so the contract was invalid as provided in one specific section ~ the "conflicts ofl~terest" statute, see §362.5(9), Code [conflict of interest if city officer employee owns mO~:e than five percent of a corporation contracting with the city]. ~ While I realize Opinions deal with "~Qntracts" between a city official and the city spouse - whi¢ presented here - [,~ind the reasoning persuasive. In summary, I find Karen' marriage to Joe Bolkcom does no~,~eate a conflict of interest under Iowa law. Avoiding the appear of a conflict of interest under Wilson;~does this rule apply to marriage? ~ One might ask w the Wilson rule, which requires avoiding even a\',~otential for conflict of interest," der ~nds that Kar-'~-~n avoid dealing with any county matters whatsoever, including decisions on :raterntor~al subd~ws~ons, county fezorangs, contracts ~ith the county including 21~ reements, and the fringe area agreement. I have reviewed these questions closely in ht of the Wilson decision, and have concluded the law does not rexquire Karen to abstain m either participation in, nor voting on, such general county matter$~ ~,,, The in the Wilson case regarding council member Hickerson were very distinbt and are com inapposite to the facts presented here. This means that since the factors of K~ ~'s marriage are not at all like those of Hickerson's employment, the Wilson "potential rule is not controlling. Additionally, the Wilson Court went to great lengths to explain why it realizing that this property interests 7 the "potential conflict of interest" rule to council member Hickerson, "closer call" than the council member ~o clearly owned the urban renewal area. 8 The Wilson Court explained: "These rules, whether common law or statutory, are based on .moral principles and publiq policy. They demand complete loyalty to the pt and seek to a old subjecting a pubhc servant to the d~fficult, and often task of deciding between public duty and private advantage. It is not necessary that this advantage be a financial ( it required that there be a ~,howing the official sought or gaine~ a result. It is the potentialfor conflict of interest which the law desir to avoid. Wilso~n, at 822. ~ In trying to draw a..line wh~e employment with the y would become an "illegal conflict of interest, the Wils6~q Court explained: "We do not say every U~,iversity employ urban renewal proceedin reason, have an employee in a the very department with mutual interest to the Univ. direct interest on the part of tl proceedings." would be deprived of a voice in Here, however, we community relations, would deal in case of matters of In addition we have unusual and iversity in the outcome of urban renewal Wilson, at 823 leto The Wi so~n Court then concluded ~ 'We are not critical of a~y of these circuh~stances, except as they affect the possibility of conflict o~inl ere st between IJ~blic duty and loyalty to a private employer...It would p~fhaps be more accurat~to describe this, as some writers have done, as a c( lf/llct of duties rather than 5~nflict of interest. When one is committed to give 6yalty and dedication of effb(t to both his public office and his private empire r, when the interests of those t~vo may conflict, one is faced with pressures a choices to which no public servant should be unnecessarily exposed (cites ~ Wilson, at 82 ~ In light of the "dut of Karen Kubby duties of Karen council at the same two duties conflictin spousal of the various council members in the Wilson case, I find the "duties" Bolkcom, as husband and wife, have little, if anything, to do with the as Council member. As the Wilson Court pointed out very clearly, Hickerson had a position of influence based on his employment duties, and was obligated as a public servant to oversee urban renewal. Since these ~ overlapped, an illegal "conflict of interest" resulted. In contrast to the in the Wilson case, I do not see any "conflicting duties" as between of Karen and her elected official duties as City Council member. In a w I find the "potential conflict of interest" rule set out in Wilson'doea not apply to by virtue of her marriage to Joe 8olkcom, especially since the debts and obli. of husband and wife are separate and distinct under Iowa law, and most especially si~ wives are no longer property to be owned by their husbands, see §597.1, Code. 9 Likely Scer~arios: As explained, earlier "conflict of interest" questions are very inquiries. Nonetheless, I ~vill review a few likely scenarios, as requested by.KarKubby: 1, Johnson COu, nty Council of Government {JCCOG) \ The membership of J'C~,COG is made up of the following: G0,v, ernment Coralville oaXa~ Johnson County B d of Supervisors North Liberty University Heights Iowa City University of Iowa TOTAL I find no conflict of interest for Karen's reasons: Votes 2 2 1 ½ 5 5 1 1 12 11 Karen's vote cannot be a "decid Even assuming Karen could her (a large assumption), anc marital status (again, an ur to "carry the day." Joint meetings betwee on the JCCOG Board, for the following vote,~',,based on the voting scheme. two Bo~(d of Supervisors members to vote with Jming thii,s persuasion were based solely on her assumption), Ka~r, en would not have sufficient votes City Council and Johnso~n~ County Board of Supervisors. I see no "conflict ofbetween Karen Kubby's pr~ence and discussion at the joint City and 'meetings. Clearly, Karen and Joe ha'v,e independent voices and independent vote=Even assuming Karen could persuade Jo~,~to vote with her (or vice versa, again, assumption), these two votes cannot "~,y the day" because two votes out, twelve is not a majority. '\ Official negc teams or committees, or ad hoc committees. As discus,, with Council members earlier, I find no "conflict of interest" ~Nith Karen's serving a of the ad hoc SEATS negotiating team. However, I acknowledge the Cou ability, via a majority tally of four out of seven, to change the c~posi- tion of ~mittee. Ot~ City/County business. ,,, ~use of the greater legal and factual analysis required, I have already dealt with this a separate section above. 10 Relationships of City Officials with Outside Boards and Agencies ( As stated in a legal opini~on completed by former Assistant Cit' the City Attorney's OffiCe found that a conflict of interest did Commission member fror~ voting on issues which dealt with Commission. This rule personally or monetarily directors member for a with the corporation "conflict qf interest" the Commission member is outside board or agency. This related .to the outside a,~ be decisive, §362.6, Code. ds true whether or not the m the City action. That is, charitable corporation ess of whether the persol :e that "one Jired to abstain ~doesnot extendt ~s the board me ' Patricia Cone-Fisher, disqualify a Housing agency's application to the member stands to gain a ~erson acting as a board of a "fiduciary relationship" with or without pay. Since masters over the same matter," on any matters relating to his g from competing matters not vote on competing matters w6uld Even if the Commission member insis Moreover, this "conflict of interest" Commission, as required by §362.6, Cod of the conflict of interest, and whether §362.6, Code provides that only rendered invalid and void. the vote must be disqualified as unlawful. must be stated in the minutes of the :Iowa (1993). The Code also requires disclosure member actually abstains from voting. Finally, isqualified vote is "decisive" would the vote be In explaining these rules to who agencies in Iowa City, as well as commissions, I realize this result seem som~ without compensation for many private ~y compensation for our many boards and that harsh. However, the law is clear: "It is the general and member of a municipa properly before such personal rights will established rule or other simil )dy in which he is affected by the vote it is improper and illegal for a ~ to vote upon any question 'interested, and where his omitted)." Security National nk v. Baqlev, 202 Iowa 701, 19, 49 ALR 705 (1926). In an attempt to "flesh itself some months Horowitz abstain widened. Susan an which publicly dec lower their prope interest" or interest of Sus~ abstain from "personal above an "Jr s opinion out" and apply the rules t, which may be instructive. You ma, voting on whether the Kirkwood her husband, Joel Horowitz, were if the City widened Kirkwood values. This assertion of "diminished interest" under the "conflict of interest" as an "ordinary citizen" not sitting on the Council. on the widening decision - which she did. Thus mean some monetary, fiduciary or property inter, ;rest" enjoyed or claimed as an ordinary citizen. Conclusio ;al life, one example presented Councilmember Susan ~ue right-of-way would be a neighborhood group such City action would values" is a "personal over and above the hus, I suggested Sue "personal rights" or which is over and I am aware I have not answered all of Karen's questions, nor all of the Council's q~ may arise, from time to time. However and as previously explained, the law of "conflict of interest" is a very fact-based inquiry. Nonetheless, based on my review of Iowa law and the facts presented, it is my considered opinion that the marriage of Karen 11 Kubby to Joe Bolkcom does not create an illegal conflict of interest. Nor is Karen required to abstain from voting participating in, discussions .concerning general county matters such as rezonings and ;ity/County agreements. As for the rest ~what lengthy discuss on it is my hope this opinion will give all of you, at a minimum some broad guidelines to fc ow but as always, please do not hesitate to contact me if ~u have questions. unless I hear from you to the contrary, I plan to circulate ~s opinion to City as well as Boards and Commissions since we have had a questions presented ~f late. One final thought: While I Johnson County Attorney J. Attorney General's Office because, as City Attorney, I am but County Attorneys and Iowa ind this suggesti, White to this uthorize( necessary or warranted, you might ask a formal legal opinion from the State status" question. I suggest this only Iowa law to request such an opinion, SO, City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Opinion File Attachments Inw~confiin~.mmo An Ofiicia! Optnion F:om .'.he Office oi LAWItENCE ? SCALISE Attorney Geneva: o~ Iowa CITIES AND TOWNS: Condiet of [ntsrest--wife.atdermen and bus. band-manager and principal s~o~kholde~ o~ automobile dealership. Sec- ~io~ 2, Chapter 326, Acts of ~he 61s~ G. A. A wde-alderman, who o~s ~o par~ o~ has ~o legal ~met'est ~n a~ automobile deale~sMp of which her husband is the ma~er a~d a p~f~c~pal stockhoMe~ a~d which dealership se~ls a~d ~epah's automobiles o~ competitive bids ~o ~he city, has no relationship constituting an indirect interest barred by Section 2, Chapter 326, Acts o? the 61st O.A. ' Mr. Harvey G. Allbee, Jr...~b~scatme Cosnt~ Atto~'ney: Reference is herein made to yours of the 24th inst., in which you submit~d the fo[Iowi ng: "One of the aldermen of the City Council of ~he City of Muscatine, Iowa is a sch~l teacher who is married to the manager and one of the principal stockholders of an automobile dealership and garage in Musca. ~ine. ohe (the alderman) is not a stockholder and has her own individual income as a school ~eaeher. Therefore, her only connection with said automobile dealership and garage is the fact that the manager and one of the principal steckholders is her husband. "The City has in the past purchased on competitive bids motor vehicles from this dealership (prior to this alderman b~omin~ an alderman) and said garage has rendered services for repairs. "Question: Is the interest of said alderman in contrects with rhJs dealership and garage of a nature to be prohibit~ under the ~rms of Section 368A,22 as amended by Chapter 326 of the acts of the 61st Gen- eral Assembly and therefore, the City would be prohibited from accept- ing bids submitted by said dee ership for the purchase of new motor veh eles and services.'* It would appear from the foregoing that the only bar ro the husband of · member of the City Council selling moor vehicles to the mty or making repairs to its automobiles is the fact that he is the husband of the councilwoman. Neither Section 368.22, 1962 Code of Iowa as amended by the Acts of the 60th General Assembly, or Chapter 326, Acta of the 6Ist General Assembly which is the substitute tot the foregoing num- bered section, made specific provision that any relationship between a city officer and a contractor is a disqualifying interest making it unlaw- ful for the making of contracts betw~n such covncil member and the contractor. Chapter 326, Acts of the 6lst General Assembly provides: indirect, in any contract or job ot ,york or material or the profits rher~f or services to be furnished or perEormed for his municipality." Wi~h respect to ~he question of a disqualifying relationship, 43 Ameri- can Jurisprudence, Section 302 era{tied Public Officers, states the cute as follows: ' In the cases in which the question has been presented, t has ordi- nar[y been held that relationship is not a disqualifying interest ~vlthin a sta.tute making it unlavrtul for an officer to be interest~t in a public contract, Thus an officer is not regarded as disqualified from entering into and passing on contracts merely because he bears to the other eau- tract{rig party the relationship of father. father-in.law, brother, husband or the like. There are, however, decisions to the contrary. partlcu arly where the relationship is that of husband and wife. In some jurisdJc. tions. statutes expressly provide that no person related within a specified de~ree to a member of a public board shall be directly or indirectly in- terested in a contract of such board." CITIES AND TOWNS .Sir. H~r,.vff tL 411be~. J .',lac.:h '2 I I! most every instance. relationship has been held to have no dinqualifying additionally on page 795 as {~ollows: either held or implied the relationsh p between a public officer and a tractor with the public iaa d squa lying, interest, particularly if ths relationship s that of a husband and wife.' With respect to Chapter 326, this statute requires that no municipal officer shall have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or profits thereof executed with the municipality. Thus, two questions arise. 1. Does the wife have a direct interest in the contracts involved? 2. If not a direct interest. is her interest as wife such an indirect in- terest as to be violet ve of Chapter 326~ With respect to the first question, it seems clear that the wife-alder- man is not a party to the contract and therefore not directly intercereal. With respect to the second question, it must be determined whether the relationship of husband and wife is such an indirect interest so as to be violatire of Chapter 326. in the case of ~Thompsou v. District l~onrd o/School District No, I or Mom'la.d Township, 252 Mich. 629, 233 ~ .W. N ' 439 (t930). the Michigan Supreme Court was faced with the queer,ion at hand. There, under a '~imilar statute, the question was whether a teachef's contract could be entered into with the wife of an officer of the school district. At 252 Mich. 6:{2, the court stud: "We do not overlook the fact that the purpose of the provisine of the school law under consideration is expressed in broad terms. The words 'directly or ind rectly' were obviously used in this statute to make it broad enough taprevent an officer who might be so d,sposed from clr. cureventing and aefeating this provision of the law. The most eommnn violations are those incident to contracts with corporations in which the school officer is a shareholder or with partnerships m which he is a mem- ber. In such instances there is dearly an 'indirect' interest. Cases of this character are reported in Consolidated Coal Co. v. Board of Trustees. 164 Mich. 235, 129 N.W. 193, and Fer{e v. City of Lansing, 189 Mich. 501, 155 N'.W. 591, (L.R.A. 1917C. 1096}. These decisions are not ap- plicable to the case at bar. We are of the opinion that the instant con- tract should nor, be held te be n violation of the quoted prouisions of the school law, nor do we knorr of any good reason why it should be held be contrary to pub{it policy. This contract is not of such nature that it cannot be fulfilled without reaching beyond the parties and working. or tending to work. an injury to the community at, large. hence it {,q not contrary to public policy" Iowa has not passed upon this quest}on. however, i find the ,',i~ch~gan Additionally, in discussing indirect interest in l0 Drake Law Review it was stated as follows at page 64: ".., Although an indirect interest would be sufficient under these statutes there is a point at which an interes,. can be too remote and incidentel to be within the contemplation of such statutes. Even thoug.h, these statutes do not limit the forbidden interest to a financial one. the reported cases arising under these statutes have been concerned a personal financial interest . . ." Chapter 597, 1962 Code of tows indicates last that the contracts. deh~.,~. rights and liabilities of each husband and wife are to he considered as CITIES AND TOWNI separate and independent. Therefore. since the wife-alderman has no ownership in the compeny or legal interest in the contract, other than the fact that the contract is between the municipality and her husband, [ am of the opinion that such a relationship does not constitute '~n in. direct interest in violation of Chapter 326, Acts of the 61st Gener~{..L/ Assembly. CITIES AND TOWNS An OfficiQl Opinion From the Office of RICHARD ¢. TURNER Attorney Generol df Iowa January 20, 1972 CITII~ AND TOWNs: Conflict of Interest -- §368A.22(2), Code of Iowa, 19'/1. A husband-councilman, who has no egal ntorest in a non-profit corporation of which his wife is a director and part-time employee, has no conflict of interest when that non-profit corporation makes a corn. petitire bid on city urban renewal property. (Blumberg to Goen, Dubuque County Attorney, 1/20/72) #72-1-13 Mr. John J. Gecn, Dubuq~s County Attorv. ty: I am in receipt of your letter of January 13, 1972, in which you request an opinion from this office as to a possible conflict of interest. You state in your letter that the wife of a Dubuque City Councilman is a director and part-time employee of a non-profit corporation which has submitted a bid to the c~ty to purchase urban renewal property. Your question is whether this husband-wife relationship constitutes a conflict of interest as to the husband-councilman voting on this bid. Chapter 368A.22 (2), 1971 Code of Iowa, states: mumc~pnl offmet or employee shall have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or job of work or material or the profits thereof or services to be furnished or performed for his municipality." In a 1966 opinion, 660 A.G. 38 (a copy of which is enclosed), which dealt with the same section, the question submitted concerned a wife- alderman whose husband was the principal stockholder and manager of a car dealership which sold and repaired vehicles on competitive bids to the city. We concluded at that time that the wife-alderman had no interest, either direct or indirect, in her husband's business, on the basis that a familial relationship did not constitute a direct or indirect interest. We find that the same reasoning should apply to the present situation. The husband.councilman does not have such an interest as to become a conflict merely by the fact that his wife is a allrector and employee of an organization thnt has made a bid to the city for urban renewal property. An Officffal Opinion From the Office of RICHARD C. TURNER Attorney General of [ow~ May 16, 1973 CITIES AND TOWNS: Conflict of Interest -- §368A,22, Code of Iowa, 1973. A mere husband and wife relationship does not constitute a con- flict of interest where the husband is city clerk and the wife wishes to bid on city property, which bids are competitive, public and open. (Blumberg to Harvey, State Representative, 5/15/73) #73-5-11 Honorable LaVervt R. HatyeS, State Rspresentatise: We are in receipt of your opinion request of May 9, 1973, regarding a conflict of interest problem. You specifically asked: "Is it a conflict of interest as defined by I0wa Code Section 368A.22 for the wife of a City Clerk to submit a bid for the purchase of a resi- dential lot owned by the City where the City has determined it has no need for the lot and has put it up for sale pursuant to competitive bid?" Section 368A.22(2) provides that n~ municipal officer or employee shall have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract, job, work or services for the municipality. There are ten exceptions to this general rule includ- ing contracts made by municipalities of less than three thousand popu- lation upon competlti,~e bidding tha~ L~ publicly invited and op~n; and, contracts with a firm or corporation where the city employee's interest is solely by reason of employment or stock interest less than five per- cent, if made upon compstitive bidding that is p~bli¢ly invited and open. In two previous opinions we have discussed the hushand-wife relationship with respect to section 365A.22. In an opinion found in 1966 O.A.G. 38, we held that a wife-alderman, who owned no part or had no legal interest in an automobile dealership of which her husband was manager and principal stockholder, which dealership did work for the city upon com- petitive bids, had no relationship constituting a direct or indirect interest barred by section 368A.22. In a more recent opinion, January 20, 1972, we held that a husband-councilman who had no legal interest in a non-profit corporation of which his wife was a director and employee, had no conflict of interest when that non-profit corporation made a competitive bid on city urban renewal property. Copies of both opinions are enclosed. The reasoning of the prior opinions is applicable here. If the only interest involved is the husband-wife relationship, the rulings of the prior opinions control. However, if the interest is more than that of husband and wife, a different result may ensue. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a mere husband-wife relationship would not constitute a conflict of interest in your fact situation where the bidding is competi- tive, public and open. CITIE~ AND TOWNS OITY '"" $030 November 2, 1987 Ms. Marianne Milkman Dept. of Planning and Program Development City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Rental Rehabilitation Loan Application - 914 Iowa Avenue - Frank Wagner and Marc Moen Dear Ms. Milkman: You have asked for our opinion with respect to application of State and local conflict-of-interest laws or regulations to the following situation: You have informed me that Frank Wagner and Marc Moen have jointly pur- chased a duplex property at 914 Iowa Avenue in Iowa City. That property was constructed some time prior to 1940. The purchasers have applied to the City for a rental rehabilitation loan on the property. Mr. Wagner's wife, Barbara, serves as a member of the Ctty's Historic Preservation Commission, and Mr. Moen's wife, Monica, is employed in the City's Department of Planning and Program Development. However, her work does not involve the rental rehabilitation program. Neither of the wives has a direct ownership interest in the building. You have also informed me that, as part of the application process, rental rehabilitation loan applications involving structures built before 1940 are referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for review of the proposed exterior work. The Commission then advises the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) whether or not it finds the proposed exterior rehabilitation work is in keeping with the historic nature of the property and/or district in which it is located. The Commission's function is merely advisory. SHPO then determines whether or not the proposed work is or is not appropriate. It is my understanding that Mrs. Wagner abstained from Commission deliberations regarding the property at 914 Iowa Avenue, after publicly disclosing her husband's ownership interest in the proper- ty. Iowa Code (1987) Section 362.5 is the general conflict-of-interest-~ provision applicable to city officers and employees. That section Marianne Milkman November 2, 1987 Page 2 provides, among other things, that no city officer or employee shall have an interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or agreement with his or her city. The purpose of such provisions is to protect the public from officials who would profit personally from their place of advantage in government. Leffinqwell v~ Lake City, 257 Iowa 1022, 135 N.W.2d 536 (1965). Because the Historic Preservation Commission is empowered to act on applications for certificates of appropriateness with respect to exterior modifications of properties located in historic districts, the Commission now exercises a portion of the power of the city, so members are officers within the meaning of Code chapter 362, specifically Section 362.2(8). Mrs. Moen, as an employee, and Mrs. Wagner, as a City officer, would not be allowed to enter into rental rehabilitation agreements with the City, since that would be a direct interest in a contract. However, neither Mrs. Moen nor Mrs. Wagn6r is an owner of the property, nor will either sign the loan agreement, they have no direct interest in a city contract. Therefore, the question is whether either of them has an indirect interest in the rental rehabilitation loan agreement or contract with the City. That is, does the marital relationship create an indirect interest in the contracts of one's spouse? There are no Iowa cases on this issue. However, the general rule appears to be that the husband-wife relationship does not create a disqualifying interest for purposes of conflict-of-interest statutes. 63A Am. Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, Sec. 341. That general rule has been the position of the Iowa Attorney General in opinions issued with respect to the Code section in question. Op. A.G. 3-23-66; Op. A.G. 4-20-76. Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion that the proposed transaction does not violate Iowa Code (1987) Section 362.5. One other Code provision appears to apply to this transaction, namely Code Sec. 403A.22. That section provides, in part, that - "No public official or employee of a municipality or board or commission thereof. shall voluntarily acquire any personal interest, as hereinafter defined, in any municipal housing project, or in any property included or planned to be included in any munici- pal housing project of such municipality, or in any contract or proposed contract in connection with such municipal housing project. That section also provides that, where the acquisition is not voluntary, the interest is to be immediately disclosed and the official or employee shall not participate in any action affecting the property. The term Marianne Milkman November 2, 1987 Page 3 "action" does not include advisory resolutions. Code Sec.403A.22(6). The first question under that section is whether the rental ~ehabilitation project is a "municipal housing project". We read the definition of "municipal housing project" (Sec. 403A.2{9)) broadly to include any project or undertaking whereby decent, safe and sanitary housing may be made available to low-, lower-, or very low-income families in the community. City regulations provide that property benefitting from rental rehabilitation loans be made available to persons participating in City Public Housing programs, so this undertaking would appear to be a munici- pal housing project. The next question then is whether the husband-wife relationship creates a personal interest in the property. On this question, the Attorney General has opined {Op. A.G. 78-11-16) that, under Iowa law, one spouse has an interest, albeit indirect, in property owned by the other spou)e, but that if the interest is disclosed, and the official does not participate in any action affecting the property, the potential conflict is' neutralized and does not offend under Code Section 403A.22. Since it is our understanding that Mrs. Wagner did, in fact, disclose the interest in the property in question, and that she did not participate in the Commission deliberations concerning the property, her interest is not disqualifying under Code Sec. 403A.22. In summary, it is our opinion that the proposed transaction does not violate any State or local regulation dealing with conflicts-of-interest. Sincerely, Richard J. BOyle First Assistant City Attorney bc5 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 24, 1995 To: From: Re: Steve Atkins, City Manager Donald Yucuis, Finance Director ~ Comparison of Tax Levy Rates for F~cal Year 95 and Fiscal Year 96 Proposed Attached you will find a schedule showing the comparison of Fiscal Year (FY) 95 total tax levy rates compared to FY96. The FY96 tax levy rates are preliminary as none of the jurisdictions have finalized their budgets and certified them to the County. The City of Iowa City tax rate of 12.998 has been incorporated throughout the FY96 budget process. The FY96 rate of 12.998 is 4.4¢ higher than the FY95 rate of 12.954, which is a 0.34% increase. I've also shown the State of Iowa residential rollback factor for FY95 (68.0404%) and FY96 (67.5074%) which is applied to residential property only. The schedule shows the impac. t of taxes on residential properties with market values of $100,000 and $150,000. Total applicable taxes are shown for each value of residential property after applying the residential rollback factor for each fiscal year. Even though the total tax levy rate goes up, the total tax dollars for residential property should remain approximately.the same in FY96, assuming that the school district levy remains relatively constant. I've also shown a comparison for commercial properties with market values equivalent to the residential comparison. The rollback factor does not apply to commercial or industrial property. In FY95 a commercial property with a market value of $100,000 is taxed approximately 91,030 more than a residential property with the same market value, due to the residential rollback. Please call me at 356-5052 if you have any questions. Attachment bl~levyrat e IOWA CITY COMPARISON OF FY95 ADOPTED TO FY96 PROPOSED LEVY RATES FY96 FY96 City --i2.9539~ 12.99800 * School 12.33820 12.33820 County 6.10712 6,17258 Other 0.85925 0.90181 Total Levy 32.25856 32.41059 *School rate proposed for FY86 not available yet, FY98 rate Is used in FY96 column. Residential Rollback factor 68.0404% 67.5074% city School County Other TotalTaxes $100,000 Residence FY95 FY96 881.39 877.46 839.50 832.92 415.53 ~16.69 58.46 60.88 $ 2,194.88 $ 2,187.95 $150,000 Residence FY95 FY96 1,322.09 1,316.19 1,259.24 1,249.38 623.30 625.04 87.70 91.32 $3,292.33 $3,281.93 city School County Other TotalTaxes $100,000 Commercial FY~$ FY96 1,295.40 1,299.80 1,233.82 1,233.82 610.71 617.26 85.93 90.18 $ 3,225.86 $ 3,241.06 $150,000 Commercial FY9$ FY96 1,943.10 1,949.70 1,850.73 1,850.73 916.07 925.89 128.89 135.27 $4,838.79 $4,861.59 ~23~5 geTOTLVYXLS Tax Com~m G:\9(~BUD REVENUE 96PROTAX.XLS 1/26/95 axable Value for Debt Service ~'IF Assessment axable Value for all but Debt Service eneral brary u~total FY 91 FY 92 F'Y 96 to FY 98 Property Tax Worksheet Revised 1/26/95 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 1,208,222,796 1,238,224,912 1,298,124,951 1,336,588,609 1,430,602,499 4.69% 2.32% 5.01% 2.97% 7.03% 8,387,576 9,762,153 5,562,371 4,268,135 4,822,447 19.t2% 16.38% -43.02% -23.27% 12.99% 1,199,834,920 1,226,462,759 1,292,562,580 1,332,420,474 1,425,780,052 4.60% 2.22% 5.39% 3.08% 7.01% R_gland & Bldgs 2,311,228 2,212,793 2,082,783 1,982,225 2,024,764 -15.67% -4.26% -5.88% -4.83% 2.15% FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 -- FY 94 FY 95 9,718,663 9,934,348 10,469,757 10,792,606 11,548,818 8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100 9.100 348,992 359,754 384,961 0.270 0.270 0.270 647,911 662,290 1,227,934 1,265,799 1,343,005 0,540 0.540 0.950 0.950 0.942 9.3120 10,366,574 10,596,638 12,046,683 12,418,159 13,276,785 2,353,751 2,540,412 2,762,942 2,823,912 1,927 1,955 ., 2.073 1.980 2,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,376,857 2.103 1.541 1.498 1.681 ~ployee Benefit 1,603,083 1.336 ebt Service 2,500,000 ---- 2.152 otal 14,569,657 15,560,389 16,587,095 17,181 , 101 18,477,554 6.80% 6.60% 3.58% 7.55% ~ty Tax Levy 12.125 12.570 12.826 12.889 12,953 0.50% gland Taxes 8,943 5,647 6,256 5,954 6082 gland Levy 3.00975 3.00375 3.00375 3.00375 3.00375 ~95 , , FY97 i FY98 L023,93__8. 1,533,694,656 1,602,404,177 4.08% 3.00% 4.48% ',817,251 7,817,251 7,817,25~- 62.10% 0.00% 0.00% · 206,687 1,525,877,405 1,594,586.926 3.89% 3.02% 4.50% :,095,198 2,095,188 2,095,188 3,48% 0.00% 0.00% · 96 FY 97 FY 98 ,997,774 12,359,607 12,916,154 8.1_00 8.100 8.100 399,926 411,987 430,53~' 0.270 0.270 0.270 ,407, ~'46 1,449,584 1,514,858 0.950 0.950 0.950 9.3200 9.3200 9.3200 ,904,846 14,221_.z,.178 14,881,550 103.98% 103.02% i 104.50% ,908,280 3,147,000 ~,340,000_-I 1 .~63 2.062 2.095 ,553,886 2,819,322 3,003,504 1.715 1.708 1.874 ,267,012 19,987,500 21,205,054 4.27% 3.74% 6.09% 12.998 13.090 13.289 0.35% 0.71% 1.52% 6293 6293 629," 3.00375 3.00375 3.00375 1,481 FY: Page ! VENSEN DODGE i IC February 10, 1995 Mr. Donald Yucuis Finance Director City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds Dear Mr. Yucuis: Attached is our Presale Analysis prepared in connection with the Citv's issuance of $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds proposed for sale on March 28, 199~. The Presale Analysis summarizes the purpose of this issue, describes how the Bonds have been structured and discusses other aspects related to the marketing of the Bonds. We will prepare a Postsale Analysis reporting and analyzing the results of the sate after the Bonds have been sold. We look fbr~vard to a successful offering. Sincerely, EVENSEN DODGE, INC. David M. Dirks Senior Vice President /lmn Enclosure 100 Court Avenue. Soite 215. Des Moines. Imva 50309 MICROFILMED BY CRES- ~NFORMATtON TECHNOLOGIES RETAKE C - 84 -- [VENSEN DODGE INC Febmary10,1995 Mr. Donald Yucuis Finance Director City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds Dear Mr. Yucuis: Attached is our Presale Analysis prepared in connection with the Citv's issuance of $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds proposed for sale on March 28, 1995. The Presale Analysis summarizes the purpose of this issue, describes how the Bonds have been structured and discusses other aspects related to the marketing of the Bonds. We will prepare a Postsale Analysis reporting and analyzing the results of the sale after the Bonds have been sold. We look for~vard to a successful offering. Sincerely, EVENSEN DODGE, INC. David M. Dirks Senior Vice President /Into Enclosure 100 Court Avenue. Suite 215. Des Moines. lmva 50309 Page Purpose of the Sale ............................................................................................................1 Proposed Terms and Conditions Of Sale ..........................................................................3 Preliminary Debt Schedule ...............................................................................................4 Bidding Requirements ......................................................................................................6 Rating ................................................................................................................................6 Federal Tax Considerations ..............................................................................................7 General Market Conditions ...............................................................................................9 Proposed Financing Timetable ........................................................................................11 List of Participants ..........................................................................................................13 PURPOSE OF THE SALE £ This Presale Analysis presents background information for the City's use in considering the issuance of $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds at a public sale on March 28, 1995. The Bonds will be issued to provide funds for various wastewater, water and other improvement projects within the City. The proposed projects are outlined on the following page. EVENSEN DODGE INC "'",'*~ ~o~,,~,,, Page I 143092 PROPOSED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE Principal Amount of Issue: Dated Date of Bonds: Proposed Sale Date: Type of Sale: First Interest Payment: Maturity Date and Amounts: $8,500,000 April I, 1995 March 28, 1995 Competitive. December 1, 1995 June 1, Call Feature: Year Amount 1996 $710,000 1997 710,000 1998 710,000 1999 710,000 2000 710,000 2001 710,000 2002 710,000 20O3 710.000 2004 705,000 2005 705.000 2006 705,000 2007 705,000 $8,500,000 Bonds maturing in the years 2003 tlu'ough 2007 are subject to call, at the option of the City on June 1. 2002 and on any date therea~er at a price of par and accrued interest. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation: Security: Yes Pledge of City's power to levy taxes without limitation as to rate or amount against all the taxable property in its territory. EVENSEN DODGE INC Page 3 [ ..........PRELIMiNAI~Y DEBT SCHEDUi~i~' The following schedule presents principal and interest payments for the Bonds based upon estimated market rates. The rates used for this schedule are an estimate of the rates the City might receive if the Bonds were sold today. The actual rates, however, will vary depending upon the tax-exempt market on the day the Bonds are sold. EVENSEN DODGE INC Se,500,D(X) 12-Yelr ~e~irto City of loN~ City, lONi DEnT SERVZC~ gCI~LILF DATE PRINCIPAL COUPOH INTEREST PERICX) TOTAL FISCAL TOTAL 12/ 1/95 307,~,00 30Z,~.00 6/ 1/96 710,0~.~ 4.900000 ~0,~.~ ~0,~.00 1,2~,~0.00 lZ/ 1/96 ~13,~.00 Z13,~.~ 6/ 1/97 710,000.00 5.000000 6/ 1/98 710,000.00 5.100000 I~/ 1/~ l~,gO.~O l~,gO.~ 6/ 1/~ 710,000.00 5.~00000 1~,~0.00 ~7,~0.00 1,~,~.00 lZ/ 1/~ 159,1~.~0 159,1~.00 12/ 1/ 0 140,355.00 6/ 1/ 1 710,000.00 5.~0~0 1~0,355.~ ~0,355.~ ~,710.00 12/ 1/ 1 121,1~.00 I~1,1~.00 6/ 1/ 2 710,000.00 5.5Q0000 121,185.~ ~1,1~.00 12/ I/ 2 101,~.00 101,~.~ 6/ 1/3 710,000.00 5.~OQOO I01,~.00 811,~.00 913,320.00 6/ I/~ ~5,000.00 5.650000 81,~.00 ~,~.OO ~,5~0.00 12/ 1/ 4 61,~.~ ~1,~.~ 6/ 1/ 5 ~5,000.00 5.~0000 61,~.~ 7~,~.~ ~,~7.~0 12/ 1/ 5 6/ 1/6 705,000.00 5.850000 41,5~.00 1~ 1/ 6 20,~.~ 20,9~.~ 8,SOO,OQQ.00 3,1~,5~.00 11,~9,5~.00 AC~U~ 8,500,000.00 3,169,5~.00 11,~9,5~.00 Oe~ecl 4/ 1/95 I~ith DeLivery of 4/ 1/9~ Bo,~d Yeors 56,586.667' Avers{~e Cook,on 5.60129:3 Averege Life 6.65~5 H Z C X 5.~1~ ~ Uat~ RUNDATE: 02-0~-1995 g 11:35:35 99.2000000 FILEN/~IE: Z~ACII'Y K~Y: 95-12 BIDDING REQUIREMENTS Sealed bids will be received until 2:00 PM, Central Time, on March 28, 1995. At that time they will be opened and tabulated. Council consideration and action will occur at a meeting at 7:30 p.m. the same day. The bidders will be required to submit their bids in accordance with requirements stated in the Ternis of Offering. Bidders will be required to purchase the Bonds at a price not less than 99.2% of Par. The discount is a marketing feature which allows the purchaser to take its profit in the discount bid on the Bonds and to reoffer the Bonds at Par. The estimated underwriters compensation for issues of this size and maturity length should run between 0.5% and 0.8% depending on market conditions. The appropriate compensation of a purchaser varies depending upon the issue size, rating and market conditions. The competitive bid 'process assures that bidders will keep their profit margins at appropriate levels. A second requirement is that interest rates must be bid in ascending order. This bidding restriction is designed to protect the call feature on the Bonds. The call feature, which occurs first in 2002, gives the City the flexibility to refund or call the Bonds at an earlier date if interest rates drop significantly or if the conditions affecting debt repayment change. RATING The City will request a rating on the Bonds from Moody's Investors Service. The City's Moody's rating on its outstanding general obligation bonds is "Aaa". EVENSEN DODGE INC Page 6 The following paragraphs present a brief sununtoD, of federal tax regulations and rulings which impact the tax status of the Bonds, as well as allowable uses of proceeds. In reference to the following paragraphs, it is our udderstanding that the Bonds: 1. will be issued as governmental purpose bonds: 2. will be designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations; 3. will be subject to arbitrage rebate. Tax Exemption The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 divides all debt sold by governmental issuers into the categories of "Governmental Purpose Bonds" and "Private Activity Bonds". Governmental Purpose Bonds are issuable on a tax-exempt basis while Private Activity Bonds, with some exceptions, are taxable. To be considered a Private Activity Bond, an issue must meet the following txvo tests: 1. More than 10% of the proceeds of the bonds is used in the business of a nongovernmental unit, and 2. More than 10% of debt service on the bonds is paid either directly or indirectly by a nongovermnental unit.. If private activity is unrelated to the governmental use, the cutoff is 5%. The Bonds will be issued as Governmental Purpose Bonds. For the Bonds to maintain their tax-exempt status, the governmental purpose of the projects financed with b6nd proceeds must be retained throughout the life of the Bonds. Another provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is a 100% disallowance of the interest deduction for banks which purchase tax-exempt bonds. An exception to this provision allows banks to deduct interest expense incurred related to the purchase or carrying of governmental bonds when the jurisdiction issues no mor~ than $10 million of tax-exempt ~tebt in the calendar year. When possible, it is to the City's advantage to designate its tax-exempt debt as Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations because such debt is slightly more marketable under current market conditions. The City will designate the Bonds as Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. 14J092 ,4rbitrage Rebate The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 also requires a rebate to the federal government of any interest earnings on the proceeds of the Bonds that are in excess of the yield on the Bonds ("arbitrage"), with the following exceptions: Issuers who issue less than $5,000,000 of governmental purpose bonds during a calendar year do not have to rebate arbitrage earnings on any governmental purpose bonds issued during that same calendar year. Issuers are exempt from rebate if they meet either a 6~month spending exception, an 18-month spending exception, or a 24-month spending exception. The requirements of the three exceptions are generally as follows: 1. Proceeds spent 100% in six months, with a de minimis exception for governmental bonds and 501(c)(3) bonds. 2. Proceeds spent within 18 months, on the following schedule: 6 months. 15% 12 months - 60% 18 months - 100%, except for de minimis amount or a reasonable retainage which must be spent within 30 months of the issuance date. The 18-month exception can apply to any type of tax-exempt bond, including industrial development bonds or mortgage revenue bonds. 3. Proceeds spent within 24 months, on the following schedule: 6 months - 10% 12 months - 45% 18 months - 75% 24 months - 100%, except for de minimis amount or a reasonable retainage which must be spent Ithm 06 months of the date of issuance. The 24-month spending exception can only be used for construction projects financed with governmental bonds or 501(c)(3) bonds. EVENSEN DODGE INC 143092 Page 8 GENERAL MARKET CONDITIONS A graph showing The Bond 8uyer's Index (BBI) dated February 2, 1995 follows. This graph shows the movement of tax-exempt rates since 1982. As presented in the graph. m-exempt rates have been falling over the past few weeks after rising through most of 1994. The BBI is currently at 6.40%. We have estimated. based on current market conditions, that the Bonds will receive a net interest rate of between 5.70% and 5.90%. Nevertheless, the possibility of sudden shifts in the market exists because of its sensitivity to events that cannot be foreseen. Theretbre. we carmot predict what the actual rate of interest will be when the Bonds are sold on March 28. EVENSEN DODGE INC 143092 Page 9 Bond Buyer 20 Bond Index Monthly Data 1982-1995 12.5% 10.5% -- 8.5% 6.5% 4.5% 1982 15.44% on 1./14/82 OlF2~4')S o~ ........... Month 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source: "The Bond Buyer" Year 19 YEAR LOW 5.20% on 10/21/921 1993 1994 1995 EVENSEN DODGE~ INC. PROPOSED FINANCING TIMETABLE City of Iowa City, Iowa $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds Preliminary Financing Schedule February 1995 March 1995 April 1995 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I0 II 12 13 [4 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 -D)/'~...-. .... A-CTI-(SN . _ --' PARTIEg January 25 Prepare preliminary debt schedule and preliminary Evensen Dodge financing schedule. February 13 Initial draft of financing plan (presale analysis) distributedEvensen Dodge to financing team. February 14 City Council adopts Resolution to set date of:publicCity hearing. February 28 Public hearing on proposed issuance of G.O. bonds. CityCity, Council adopts resolution to proceed with bond issue.Evensen Dodge March I Draft of POS sent overnight mail to financing team.Evensen Dodge March 10 Comments due on draft of POS. All parties March 14 Print and mail POS. Materials sent to rating agency.Evensen Dodge March 20-27 Evensen Dodge contacts potential bidders. Evensen Dodge March 28 Bond sale. Bid opening at 2:00 p.m., Central Time, All parties award at 7:30 p.m. March 29 - Closing preparations. Evensen Dodge April 27 April 28 Tentative Bond closing. All parties EVENSEN DODGE INC 143092 Page II LIST OF PARTICIPANTS I~suer. City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Don Yucuis 319-356-5052 319-356-5009 (FAX) Bond Counsel Ahlers, Cooney Law Firm Suite 600 100 Court Avenue Des Moines. IA 50309 Ken Hayhie 515-243-7611 515-243-2149 (FAX) Financial Consultant Evensen Dodge, Inc. Suite 215 100 Court Avenue Des Moines. IA 50309 David M. Dirks Senior Vice President Evensen Dodge, Inc. Suite 5100 601 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Charles A. Upcraft Vice President 515-282-6138 515-282-0252 (FAX) Securities Depository The Depository Trust Company 55 Water Street New York, NY 10041 Jeanne M. Krzmarzick Associate 612-338-3535 612-338-7264 (FAX) EVENSEN DODGE INC [43~92 Page 12 MEETING S~Y NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE ACTION JANUARY 18, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: PLAN COMMITTEE Ann Bovbjerg, Judith Klink, Pruess, Dee Vanderhoef John Watson Terry Tr~eblood, Marilyn Kriz PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval Deb Liddell, Rex Members discussed ways to proceed to begin implementation of the Neighborhood Open Space Plan. The consensus of the committee was that it would be a combination of designing a general plan targeting areas within each watershed for open space and actively pursuing land as it becomes available. Vanderhoef indicated using the plan to see where open space deficits are the greatest may lead the committee in the direction it may go. Trueblood suggested that the committee determine what neighborhoods and districts might be priorities and what is needed in each neighborhood, adding the greatest need does not necessarily mean the greatest need in terms of acreage. Trueblood distributed a document prepared by Melody Rockwell which was an expansion of the comments category of the Neighborhood Open Space Assessment section of the plan. Vanderhoef asked members to review this document prior to the next meeting to see if the committee is in agreement with it and to possibly update it. Two areas are currently before the Planning and Z6ning Commission for rezoning: 1) Highway I/Miller/Hudson/Benton Street area across from Walmart; and 2) 655 Meadow Street. Highwa3 I/Miller/Hudson/Benton Street Area: Fromthe neighborhood open space perspective the plan indicates a deficit of 7.35 acres. The N.O.S. Plan indicates it would be desirable to have two 3-4 acre parks in this area, but rezoning would reduce the need and likely eliminate the possibility of two parks. Klink suggested drafting a plan for trails in this area and making the developers aware of it. Various committee members agreed the committee needed to provide a vision of what it would like in this area, indicating projected desires. The committee envisions land for a trail possibly being donated from the Jensen tract (when or if it is developed), and obtaining land in the flat area adjacent to the east of the Buss property for a neighborhood park. Access to the park would be via a trail from Harlocke Street and via sidewalk from Miller Avenue, assuming new residential development will occur on Miller Avenue. Bovbjerg felt it was important for the committee to be represented at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and City Council ~eeting to express the committee'~ recommendation/desires. Klink suggested taking a map or transparency showing the suggested park and trail areas to the City Council meeting, Liddell stated it would be helpful to have transparencies of the committee's recommendation that could be laid over a transparency of the area as it is now. Trueblood stated he would work with the Planning and Community Development Department to rework the Neighborhood Open Space formula to see what the deficit would be if the area is rezoned commercial. 655 Meadow: Vanderhoef stated according to the plan this area does not have a deficit, with Bovbjerg stating this should not prevent the committee from getting land for a connector trail to other areas. Liddell stated she would like to know what the people in this area would want. Vanderhoef suggested that a letter be sent to the neighborhood association for the Court Hill/Lucas area to see if they are interested in visiting with the committee about their vision for the neighborhood and making them aware of the possibility of putting a trail through this area. Bovbjerg stated as the committee develops a plan as to where open space is desired, it would be good to get this plan out to the various neighborhoods informing them of it and letting them know how they could help the committee and how the committee can help them. Liddell stated it would be a good idea to send a letter to all the neighborhood associations welcoming their input. Trueblood indicated that Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, stated she would be happy to put information into the various neighborhood associations'.newsletters. The committee discussed how often it should meet. Trueblood stated in addition to regular committee meetings there would possibly be meetings with neighborhood associations from time to time. It was decided to meet once a month, unless circumstances deemed otherwise. The next meeting is scheduled for 3:30 p.m., Thursday, February 16, at the Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center. MEETING SUMMARY NEIGHBQRHOOD OPEN SPACE ACTION PLAN C0~4ITTEE FEBRUARY 14, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: PR£LI INARY Subject to Approval MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Judith Klink, Rex Pruess, Dee Vanderhoef STAFF PRESENT: Deb Liddell, John Watson Terry Trueblood, Marilyn Kriz With respect to the meeting summary of January 18, 1995, no corrections or additions were made and they were approved. Pam Ehrhardt, a member of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, visited with the committee about the situation at the ADS site. The ADS Subcommittee of the neighborhood association would like from this committee an indication as to the feasibility of obtaining Parkland Acquisition Funds for a strip of land along the creek for parkland. Klink stated Hills Bank will be taking bids on plans from developers for O'Brien's property on February 21st; the bank took over this property due to O'Brien's bankruptcy. Vanderhoef felt this strip of land is property that is normally dedicated to the city by the developer. Trueblood stated O'Brien had initially agreed to dedicate approximately one acre along the creek, mostly floodway, which would have been sufficient after acquiring the Roger's property. This would allow for green space on both sides of the creek. Trueblood stated from staff's perspective it could not recommend purchasing property when the city should be able to acquire same through dedication. Bovbjerg stated staff could work with the bank, new developers and adjoining property owners to obtain a creative solution, with Vanderhoef adding dedicating land could possibly result in a tax break for the developer. Trueblood stated a definitive answer to the neighborhood association's request could not be made prior to February 21st, in that the Parks and Recreation Commission would need to make a recommendation first, then it would need to go to ~he City Council for approval. Trueblood stated he would contact Ms. Ehrhardt to inform her this matter will be put on the Parks and Recreation Commission's agenda for March 1st. With respect to the Highway i/Miller/Hudson/Benton Street area across from Walmart discussed at last month's meeting, Vanderhoef indicated this project will be going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Council has been informed what the committee would like with respect to a possible trail to connect Harlocke Street to Miller Avenue and where it would like some parkland on the east end. She reported a letter from the Jensen family is on file informing the city they would consider preserving the ravine on their property. Vanderhoef noted one public comment was made by Sandy Rhodes who stated he was aware of a foot path behind the apartments headed to the south down to Highway 1 where consideration should be given to putting a trail since people are apparently using it as such now. Klink stated she had heard the Jensen family was willing to preserve both ravines on their property, noting the northern one is deeper with a lot of scrub growth. Vanderhoef stated the letter alluded to only the "lower" (south) ravine in that it is a covenant area off the Ruppert property. Klink stated she hoped the northern ravine could also be preserved because it would be a more attractive place for a trail. With respect to Galway Hills pre-preliminary plans, Trueblood stated the Planning Department needed to receive comments by February 10. Staff indicated it was willing to consider all four "parkland" areas in excess of 2.5 acres, noting it did not appear any of them met the criteria of the'N.O.S. ordinance. It was also noted this committee would review the plat at this meeting and might follow up with a site visit. Trueblood indicated the pre- preliminary plans should be going to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the near future. Pruess pointed out a 1.08 acre area, noting it would be a nice connectivity point, with Bovbjerg stating the Planning and Zoning Commission has been looking at connectivity for a number of years. Trueblood stated the lower, most southern area may or may not serve as a neighborhood park, depending on the Willow Creek trail plan which is only a conceptual plan at this time. Klink felt it was not necessary to preserve the upper, northeast parcel, noting it would take a lot of cleaning up, with scrubby growth, quite uneven topography and a burned down barn. Bovbjerg stated this parcel could act as a buffer, making the entry into this subdivision more attractive. Vanderhoef noted the city could require that the area be cleaned up and some grading completed prior to it being accepted. Vanderhoef questioned whether these areas would be adequate to cover the acreage that this subdivision is required to give according to t~e N.O.S. plan, with Trueblood indicating it may exceed the requirement in terms of acreage, but not suitability. Vanderhoef noted it would not meet N.O.S. criteria in terms of usable open space, and had a problem with accepting some of the areas, in particular the upper, northeast parcel. Pruess stated there is a man-made dam which there was talk about'raising, noting this would be expensive to do. Trueblood stated if the city thought it would be desirable to preserve, staff would have the Engineering Division look to see if this was necessary, what the expense would be and staff would need to determine maintenance problems and liability. The co~mittee discussed the possibility of trails. Vanderhoef stated the Rohret Road Phase 2 project would be going before the City Council this summer which will result in a connection to Highway 218. Trueblood indicated the plan calls for eight foot sidewalks, with Vanderhoef indicating if this is the case the co~u~ittee should be thinking in terms of a trail down from Melrose Avenue along the highway to Rohret Road. Bovbjerg stated the committee should have a definite thinking of green space to take to' the Planning and Zoning Commission. Trueblood felt the next step would be for staff to be in attendance at the joint staff meeting when this development is discussed to obtain input from other city departments, i.e. 2 Planning, Public Works; then taking it to the Parks and Recreation Commission at its ~ext meeting on March 1st. Pruess liked the idea of a trail along Highway 218, a buffer for noise and residences, which would tie into Melrose Avenue. Staff will keep the committee posted as this development proceeds. Klink stated she would like an overhead map produced showing a possible trail system for the west side, pointing out this would be very tentative but would show the overall goal. Vanderhoef stated she and Casey Cook have been discussing which direction to go with trails, whether trails go to the river vs. river providing trails. She indicated it appears all trails lead to the river, with Pruess agreeing. Vanderhoef agreed with Klink that a map showing a tentative trail system would be a good idea. Vanderhoef stated as she reviewed the Neighborhood Open Space Assessment prepared by Melody Rockwell that it became evident the committee should have maps setting out the watersheds, which the committee could use at meetings and could take to the neighborhoods. She indicated she would like to start as soon as possible to work with the Neighborhood Services Coordinator to get out and get input from neighborhoods; Bovbjerg also felt it was important to obtain the neighborhoods' ideas. Vanderhoef stated as soon as nice weather was here she would like to go out to the various neighborhoods, walking with them through it to see what they want. She stated it would be nice to have some type of overlay which could be placed over the map of the neighborhood so it could be used to draw various ideas. Bovbjerg indicated there were larger maps which were used with overlays when this plan was presented to the City Council. Vanderhoef asked how the committee would like to proceed, whether they wanted to go through the entire plan before going to the neighborhoods. Bovbjerg stated the committee should look at the overall plan, looking at areas of particular need but also being alert to developments/possibilities as they come up. She stressed it was important that all city departments be alert to the possibility of open space/trails when they are working on any project ~ having a "green mind". She indicated a sewer line will be put.in along the Pepperwood addition, and Public Works, Planning and the Parks and Recreation Departments should be on notice and looking at trail possibilities. Pruess asked if the city would be taking advantage of the possibility.of a trail when the sewer line is extended from the old plant to the new plant, with Trueblood stating Public Works is aware we would like consideration given to a trail along the sewer easement and are keeping this in mind. Vanderhoef asked how the negotiations were going with respect to acquiring additional land adjacent to Wetherby Park, with Trueblood indicating he had not received any response to letters/phone calls. Klink suggested developing a map similar to the map included in the telephone book, which would show the neighborhood open space and putting in red quantitative circles to show the amount of deficit in each area and a schematic trail system. This map could be sent out to the neighborhoods before meeting with them to get their reaction. Vanderhoef felt she would like to obtain the neighborhoods' input first. Klink stated this would be a way of schematically communicating to the neighborhoods what is already available and asking what they think about the suggested possibilities. Bovbjerg felt it would be good to put words into pictures to give neighborhoods something to react to. Vanderhoef asked Trueblood to obtain maps for the committee to start working with. Vanderhoef indicated she would like each individual watershed area enlarged on a map, possibly 11 x 17 or larger. Vanderhoef stated the committee could begin working on the maps at its next meeting. Klink asked about the sensitive areas overlay, with Bovbjerg indicating it was an overall map of Iowa City setting out sensitive areas (woods, ravines, etc.). Bovbjerg felt this map could be adapted and used as an overlay (transparency) to show the sensitive areas. Trueblood stated he would contact the Planning Department to see what could be done. Vanderhoef stated at the next meeting the committee will start going section by section using the watershed maps to begin developing a schematic plan. The next meeting will be held at 3:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 1st. It will be held in the Civic Center lobby conference room (located in the main lobby of the Civic Center). Daily Iowan- Io~ $ta~e Bank & Trust Old Capitol Criterium February22,1995 Steve Atkins City Manager CMc Center 400 E. Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Arkins, I am writing you on behalf of The Daily Iowan and o a State Bank & Trust Old Capttol Cnterlum Iw ' ' ' bike race and in response to your generous offer of race support. I have been overwhelmed with the community interest extended to me and The Daily Iowan and Iowa State Bank & Trust Old Capitol Criterium steering committee members. Unfortunately, due to time limitations, we are not able to put on the caliber of event we are accustomed to and have decided to put all of our efforts and enthusiasm into the 1996 Criterium We expect the 1996 race to be even bigger and better due to community involvement and civic-minded individuals like yourself. Please be aware that some individuals do not agree with our decision to cancel the race this year. They may contact you for sponsorship of another race, but we hope that you choose to remain with The Daily Iowan and Iowa State Bank & Trust Old Capitol Cdtedum. We look forward to your support in 1996. Thank you again for your offer of support for the race. I will be contacting everyone in May with plans for the 1996 Criterium. I look forward to meeting with you then. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns, I may be reached at (319) 3384744. Sincerely, Joanne E. Higgins The Daily lowan and Iowa State Bank & Trust Old Capitol Criterium Race Director Richard L Ferguson President Stephen J. Atkins · City Manager City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 February 21, 1995 Dear Steve: Your letter of February 2, 1995 invited an update on ACT's expansion plans in Iowa City. Much has happened at ACT since I wrote to Mayor Horowitz in January of 1994 to report on the progress of our infrastructure project. A quick sununary of events of the past year may be helpful. Earlier this year we hired a national firm with expertise in facilities planning to assist us. That firm was charged with appraising current uses of our existing facilities, factoring in our projections for growth over the next ten years, and recommending the functions to be performed in both the existing and new buildings. This process was completed in early summer. One outcome of this facilities plam~ing study was a derision to assign priority to building the 110,000+ square foot building now under construction in the BDI park. That facility is scheduled for completion and occupancy in July/August of 1995. At that point, we intend to relocate functions and staff now performed at four leased properties (two in Coralville, one in Tiffin, and one in Iowa City). In additioo, we will relocate a number of staff from our main cea-npus to the new building. Finally, all staff in the McCarrel Center (our current distribution center and warehouse located behind the Iowa City Racquet Club) will move to the new building. Eventually, we plan to sell the McCafrei Center. This is not likely to happen until we complete the next office building. The move~ described above have temporarily eased our demand for new office space--as has a decision made recently that directly effects our space need. One of the large contracts ACT has held with the U.S. Department of Education dating back to the 1970s requires large numbers of temporary staff at various times throughout the year. During the past two years, we have found it increasingly difficult to obtain in Iowa City sufficient numbers of individuals with the skills required for these positions. As a result, we determined earlier this year to perform much of this work elsewhere. Most of this work involved'temporary staff, but it also involved a number of full-time positions. While this move has freed up some office space in Iowa City, ACT's steady growth has largely consumed that space. Our Board of Trustees has authorized funding to I'dre an architect to design the new building. However, given all of tile initiatives described above, we have determined not to undertake construction of a new office building in 1995. American College Testing 2201 N. Dodge St., P.O. Box 168 Iowa City, Iowa 52243 (319) 337-1079 FAX (319) 337-1059 Stephen J. Atkins February 21, 1995 Page2 While we do intend to proceed with a new building in due course, we are approaching that action deliberately. Oue reason for this is that we are in the midst of a major expansion of our services, a number of which could have very signiticant implications for ACT's growth nationally and, in Iowa City. These include a new system for workforce development called Work Keys. This new system, just introduced last year, is picking up steam and promises to be a major part of ACT's growth in the future. A second new initiative is just now emerging. Earlier this month, we opened in Chicago the first of what we intend to be a national chain of "ACT Centers" that will work with individuals, schools and employers in the areas of educational and workplace planning and development. Additional centers will be opened during the next 12 months. We have created a development/support team for the ACT Centers in Iowa City and expect it to grow in number as the number of Centers grow. Both of these, and several other, initiatives bode well for ACT's growth in Iowa City. The direction of that growth will affect the amount and type of space we need. In summary, while we don't anticipate breaking ground this year for a new office building, we have committed approximately $6,000,000 to the development of our physical plant in Iowa City. And, equally important from the long-term view, we are investing heavily in several new initiatives which, as they become successful, will yield a substantial number of new high-paying full-time jobs for the greater Iowa City area. Our multi-million dollar investment iu the infrastructure project on the ACT campus completed last fall was not undertaken lightly. We continue to look forward to the day that the next step in our campus development plan becomes a reality. Thanks for thla information on the signalization project. It will come as no great'surprise to you that the ACT staff, aud those at the other businesses who enter and exit Highway 1 near our entrances, will be greatly disappointed to learn that uo near-term relief is in sight. In that regard, there was considerable dismay expressed by staff when the Council acted favorably on a signal at West High but did not respond favorably to their request. While our staff understand thd constraint~ of City government, they are also deeply concerned about safety, especially at peak traffic times during the day. Having personally experienced the challenges of getting onto Highway 1 from ACT in the early morning or late afternoon, and routinely observ!ng individuals travelling at higher speeds than they should and then using the right turn lanes at our entrance as passing lanes, I'm more than sympathetic with our staff. In view of the information you've provided, it's likely that you'll have a few respectful but concerned iudividuals at the February 28 public hearing to state their position on this matter. Steve, I trust the information on our building plans is helpful. I'd be happy to expand on it in any way that would be useful to you and the Coundl. Sincerely, Richard L. Ferguson J-8 The Orlando Sentinel, Sunday. January 8, 1995 What buyers really want in a new home By KenneL~ ~. Harney " d designer or the study. says consumers now ............ ~, -~.,= ,~u~ ~ ~Lu~is[ical tie; ~[ot .attractions for 1995 bike paths, hiking~ want f . . 77.7 percent .of consumers put "lots of natur-~l. COmautory amenities. _~/other~m~.n. ly allo..w but promote Interaction with open space" in the must-deliver ~ategory, along wikh another traffic-relatad feature -- street de- N~t so hbt: leabig '~i~rts, golf courses I'Ve .. ' _~, children and community organiza- signs that take the shape of cut-de-sacs, circles clubhouses and splashy subdivisio*, ~-,-~-'~- Y ..~pn~J 'lT~ey also put an mcreasmgly m h re:i~ Extra secumty services -- es-,ec all- --: .... / .u,l .on.mt.eractl~on with the enmronment throu h · ~ ~ P-,~e me aciusion o~ wooded tracts. nature paths ~d ~ No. 3 top draw in a planned community: Pl.ent~ of .w. alk~king paths. Ideally, says cles while you re asleep at night -- are ~ --~ ..... ~ .. o-called w~Iderness areas, where possible Warrick, the paths meadeugh wooded In fact, you probabl wouldn' ~,~- ~. .... ,. nCTnld l$/]0a b.~ ~-Ontrast, sa S Warrlc tn a neighborhood that doesn't have them· nities were tennis courts, swimming pools, golf And some brand-new concepts, like "communi. courses and golf clubhouses. ty concierges" who'll provide you all sorts o~' time-saving, free services -- buying theater tick- ets, making reservations, helping with catering arrangements or shopping -- are on the verge of taking off big-time· These are just a few of the findings emerging from a major poll of what American home shop- pers want -- and will pay a premium for -- in a newly developed COmmunity. Conducted for a group of the largest-volume home builders in the country, the study is based on responses from more than 800 consumers who bought or shopped for a home in planned communities last August and September in California, Texas, North Caroli- na, Florida and C-eorgia. The research was performed by American Lives Inc., a San Francisco-based company that "Everybody wanted to look out at rolling greens from their own windows," says Warrick. But that's changed dramatically. "The retdlty." Warrick says, "is that after llv/ng on the edge of a golf course for awhile, those homeowners discov- ered that golfers can be a pain. I mean they hit bails into your windows, they intrude on your pri- vacy, and that's no fun." Tennis courts used to be ranked as "essential" amenities by a high percentage of shoppers, but 0 longer. 'Tennis courts are nlc~," Says Warrick, but they ranked only 28th out of 39 features that I994 buyers defined as crucial in persuading them to buy in a community. Having a golf course within the COmmunity carne in 29th, and a golf clubhouse and pro shop ranked 34th. !nterviews .between 80,000 and 100,000 consumers a year -- promdrily for the real estate industry. Brooke Wamck, president of American Lives areas, parklands, and abut some homeowners' lots to enhance "a sense of interactivity among private houses and leisure-time, fun activities" by residents ofai1 ages. Among other high-value, e ll-pay-premmm. $~ price features that emerged in the new study: cro ~ An exercise or fitness center, overseen by t.he Community, should be located in the subdivi. sion. Nearly 51 percent of all consumers said this erti now e~ther essential or very important to their dally lifestyles· I~ Wilderness areas: Th~ idea, Warrick says, is to set asid. e_subs.tantial wooded acreage with the fauna aria nora that exist~re the develop- ment of the gub~'vlmon. ~dong with other open, rra~arm spaee~ and vest pocket parks, wilderness areas become part of what Warrick calls the new "outdoor living room" concept that buyers expect -- and will pay extra to get -- in a planned development. $o what features will command premium t~r.~fies in 19957 Here are the t¢lp ~v~ral- ' Kenneth R Ha ' '- cNo. 1j Community designs that deliver Iow"~Corp, a pub~ishi[~oTn~' president of the Harney · and quiet. Fully 93 percent of all home JBei~da, Md. g a cor~ulting.~rm based in .... Thenatto .... ' .... ' ' ' Bicycle program rolls out in Portland for anyone who wants to ride for free, [] Two Portland, Ore., social activists modeled their program after a similar one that is in motion in Holland. SEATTLE TIMES PORTLAND, Ore. -- Here's a city where you can get a free ride -- possibly the next best thing to a free lunch (maybe better, given America's weight problems). One hundred slightly battered yellow bicycles have been put on the streets by the nonprofit Unit- ed Community Action Network. Now anybody and everybody can ride free anywhere and every- where. Anytime. Nobody looks up these bikes at night. "No reason to," said Tom O'Keefe, the freewheeling social activist peddling the program. "People can't steal what's free." There are people hurting out there who need work but don't have transpot. tat/on. Brian Lacy, repair ahop manager "We're just using common sense,to acideve a common good," CommunitF Cyel/n~Ce~ ....... nonpront repan' shop where kids ...., O'Keefe, who says "p~ople can't steaJ what's free," rolls 2 recent~/* main manners and mechanics by rapaired bicycles through Pordand, Ore., for anyone to use for free. recycling used bicycles. "Them are people hurting out :here who need work but don't nave transportation," he said. 'And then there are other people ~ut there with bikes in their base. 'nents gathering dust and rust." Since the hikes were rolled out wo months ago, the biggest re. )orted problems have been flat ires and dented fenders. There's ~ telephone number riders can :all, but many have fixed the ~dkes themselves. As fa~ as O'Keofe or anybody else knows, not one yellow bike has been stripped for parts, van. dalized or damaged beyond repair. The share-a-bike idea came to O'Keefe in the middle of the night. Awakened by the noise of two thieves wheeling away his bicycle (a $10 garage-sale special), O'Keefe decided something had to be done. O'Keefe and partner Joe legating found the answer WJ~e watching a dooumentary about life in Hallmud where free community bicycles are used by everyone, from the down and out to daily comrauters. O'Keefe and friends began to knock on doors, asking for used bicycles. An auto shop agreed to paint the bikes for free, and a lo- cal sign shop printed up the roes. sage plates. C. alls have been coming in from people in Seattle, Saerarnento. Odif., Chteago, Dallas and other places. "They all want to know how to start their-own program. how to set the wheels in motion.'* O'Koef. said "1 toll '.rn it'~ .~v" To: IO~ CITY CLERK From: Board mr' Supermsorm Z-ZZ-~ 9:b7am p. Z of 3 John~.n Ceunb' /°WA ~ Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson Joe Bolk¢om Stephen P. Lacina Don Sehr Sally Stutsman BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 23, 1995 FORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. Agenda 2. Action re: claims Action re: informal minutes of Feb.ruary 7th, recessed to February 9th, informal minutes of February 14th, recessed to February 16th and the formal minutes of February 16th. 4. Action re: payroll authorizations 5. Business from the County Auditor. a) Action m: permits b) Action re: reports 1. Clerk's January monthly report. c) Discussion/action m: resolution transferring from General Basic and Rural Services Basic to Secondary Roads. d) Other 6. Business from the Cottory Attorney. a) Report re: other items. To: IO~ CITY CLERR From Board of Supervisors Z-22~9§ B:B7a~ p. 3 o~ 3 Agenda 2-23~95 Page 2 7. Business from the Board of Supervisors. a) Discussion/action re: appointment to HACAP. b) Motion authorizing the Chair to appoint a committee to study library funding for FY 97. c) Motion authorizing Zoning Administrator to destroy driveway permits off of state highways, oversize load permits, unapproved mobile home permits, unapproved building permits, budget files, and complaints that am more than ten years old. d) Action re: video taping public hearing on FY 96 proposed budget. e) Other 8. Adjoum to informal meeting. a) Inquiries and reports from the public. b) Reports and inquires from the members of the Board of Supervisors. c) Report from the County Attomdy. d) Other 9. Adjournment. CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT REPORT SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1994 Finance Department: Prepared by: Sara Sproule, Senior Accountant TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview Yields by Fund: All Funds Operating Fund General Obligation Bond Fund Employee Benefit Reserve Fund Revenue Bond Reserve Fund Sewer Revenue Bond Trust Appendix A - Benchmarks Appendix B - Glossary Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OVERVIEW The primary obiective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal, The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the three-month U.S. Treasury Bill. This index is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum s~andard for the portfolio's rate of return. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The Federal Reserve {Fed) raised short-term interest rates one half a percentage point each in August 1994 and December 1994. These increases are part of the Feds continuing effort to contain any sign of potential inflation. The Fed raised short-term interest rates four times during the first five months of calendar year 1994. For the six months ended December 31, 1994, interest rates have continued to increase due to actions taken by the Federal Reserve as noted above. The three month Treasury Bill rate for July 1994 was 4.39% compare~ to 3.05% for July 1993 and for December 1994 was 5.64% compared to 3,08% for December 1993. The increase in interest rates has had a positive effect on yields when comparing the six months ended December 31, 1994 versus the six months ended December 31, 1993. The favorable yield and basis point spread in the Sewer Revenue Bond Trust are due to an investment that was purchased in 1986 when rates were in the 9.50% range. The yield for the five months ended November 30, 1994 (this portfolio matured in November 1994) was 9.31%. The basis point spread in the Sewer Revenue Bond Trust ranged from a high of 176 in August 1994 to a low of 115 in November 1994. The basis point spread in the Employee Benefit Reserve Fund ranged from a low of negative 98 in November 1994 to a high of negative 43 in August 1994. This fund experienced negative spreads (yields less than ten year Treasury Bond rate). During the six months ended December 31, 1994, maturing funds in the Employee Benefit Reserve Fund were reinvested in investments of approximately six to twenty months due to the upswing in interest rates. Therefore, these shorter termed investments are being compared to a longer term benchmark. The remaining long-term investment in this fund (a Guaranteed Insurance Contract) will mature in fiscal year 1996. The short-term benchmark is the three month Treasury Bill and the long-term benchmark is the ten year Treasury Bond. The City experienced some negative spreads in the six months ended December 31, 1994 due to increases in interest rates by the Fed. Since most of the investments have a minimum three to eight month maturity, the City was not able to reinvest as quickly as we would have liked in the continuing rising interest rate environment. 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT YIELDS BY FUND ALL FUNDS SIX MONTHS ENDED 12-31-94 FUND Operating General Obligation Bond Employee Benefit Reserve Revenue Bond Reserve Sewer Revenue Bond Trust SIX MONTHS ENDED 12-31-94 SiX MONTHS E~VDED 12-3~-93 TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 6-30-94 INTEREST 794,818.40 18,816.54 161,204.13 240,397.21 4,010.63 1,219,246.91 736,269.57 1,583,372.96 ANNUALIZED BALANCE 16,601,835.38 353,260.29 2,253,479.14 5,095,010.88 43,060.32 24,346,646.01 19,584,579.00 41,277,106.06 YIELD 4.79% 5.33% 7.15% 4.72% 9.31% 5.01% 3.76% 3.84% YIELD 10.00% 8.00% -- 6.00%-;~" ~ 4.00% -" 2.00% 0.00% ~ Operating YIELDS BY FUND I~I General Employee Obligation Benefit Bond Reserve Revenue Sewer Bond Revenue Reserve Bond CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT YIELDS OPERATING FUND SIX MONTHS ENDED 12-31-94 MONTH July August September October November December TOTALS FY95 TOTALS FY94 INTEREST 118,601,85 122,381.45 122,179.35 137,125.03 150,201.03 144,329.69 794,818.40 378,307.98 ANNUALIZED 3 MONTH BASKS POINT BALANCE YIELD TBILL SPREAD 2,812,653.36 4.22% 4.39% -17 2,768,449,68 4.42% 4.50% -8 2,634,475.65 4.64% 4.64% O 2,791,096,11 4.91% 4.96% -5 2,925,596.11 5.13% 5.25% -12 2,669,564.47 5.41% 5.64% -23 16,601,835.38 4.79% 12,350,060.84 3.06% OPERATING FUND VS 3 MONTH TBILL JULY 94 THROUGH DEC 94 YIELD 5.50% 4.00%- 3.50°/~-~~~ 0 m OFUND D 3 MO TBILL 3 CITY OF IOWA CiTY INVESTMENT YIELDS GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND SIX MONTHS ENDED 12-31-94 MONTH ANNUALIZED 3 MONTH BASIS POINT INTEREST BALANCE YIELD TBILL SPREAD July 1,853.63 38,219.18 4.85% 4.39% 46 August 1,853.63 38,219.18 4.85% 4.50% 35 September 1,793.84 36,986.30 4.85% 4.64% 21 October 2,761.58 53,739.73 5.14% 4.96% 18 November 5,517.81 100,356.17 5.50% 5.25% 25 December 5,036.05 85,739.73 5.87°.4 5.64% 23 TOTALSFY95 18,816.54 353,260.29 5.33°.4 TOTALS FY94 8,431.51 267,397.25 3.15% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND VS. 3 MONTH TBILL JULY 94 THROUGH DEC 94 YIELD 5.50% ~ ' 4.50% 4.00% 3,50% [33 MO TBILL [3FUND 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT YIELDS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE FUND SIX MONTHS ENDED 12-31-94 MONTH July August September October November December TOTALS FY95 TOTALS FY94 ANNUALIZED 10 YEAR INTEREST BALANCE YIELD TBOND 27,228.4-7 382,263.04 7,12% 7.61% 27,229.23 382,286.37 7.12% 7.55% 26,743.59 378,338.70 7.07% 7.81% 26,808.36 371,616.67 7.21% 8.02% 26,406.59 367,968.86 7.18% 8.16% 26,787.89 371,005.50 7.22% 7.97% 161,204.13 2,253,479.14 7.15% 169,601.56 2,324,641.78 7.30% BASIS POINT SPREAD -49 -43 -74 -81 -75 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE FUND VS. 10 YEAR TBOND JULY 94 THROUGH DEC 94 YIELD 8.50% 8.00% ~'~ 7.50% ~ 7.00%- 8.50%! 6.00% .L.. i [] FUND O 10 YR TBOND 5 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT YIELDS REVENUE BOND RESERVE FUND SIX MONTHS ENDED 12-31-94 JMONTH July August September October November December TOT/~LS FY95 TOTALS FY94 ANNUALIZED 3 MONTH INTEREST BALANCE YIELD TBILL 37,914.47 840,470.57 4.51% 4.39% 37,082.13 816,086.29 4.54% 4.50% 37,718.86 802,175.24 4.70% 4.64% 41,122.89 859,598.12 4.78% 4.96% 41,632.81 865,715.52 4.81% 5.25% 44,926.05 910,965.14 4.93% 5.64% 240,397.21 5,095,010.88 4.72% 170,747.65 4,544,773.49 3.76% BASIS POINT SPREAD 12 4 6 -18 -44 -71 REVENUE BOND RESERVE FUND VS. 3 MONTH TBILL YIELD JULY 94 THROUGH DEC 94 6.00% 5.50% I 5.01 4.50% 4.00% t~ iOFUND !O3 MO TBILL CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT YIELDS SEWER REVENUE BOND TRUST SIX MONTHS ENDED 12-31-94 MONTH ANNUALIZED 10 YEAR BASIS POINT J INTEREST BALANCE YIELD TBOND SPREAD Jul)/ 891.25 9,568.96 9.31% 7.61% 170 August 891.25 9,568.96 9.31% 7.55% 176 September 891.25 9,568.96 9.31% 7.81% 150 October 891.25 9,568.96 9.31% 8.02% 129 November 445.63 4,784.48 9.31% 8.16% 115 December O.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0 TOTALS FY95 4,010.63 43,060.32 9.31% TOTALSFY94 9,180.87 97,705.64 9.40% SEWER REVENUE BOND TRUST VS, 10 YEAR TBOND JULY 94 THROUGH DEC 94 [310 YR TBOND~ nFUND APPENDIX A: BENCHMARKS The three month Treasury Bill is used as a benchmark for: The ten year Treasury Bond is used as a benchmark for: TYPE FUND Certificates of Deposit Operating Discount Notes General Obligation Bond Iowa Public Agency Investment Trust Revenue Bond Reserve Money Markets Treasury 8ills Guaranteed Investment Contract Treasury Notes Mutual Fund Employee Benefit Reserve Sewer Revenue Bond Trust 3 Month TBill 10 Year TBond July 1994 4.39% 7.61% August 4.50% 7.55% September 4,64% 7,81% October 4.96% 8.02% November 5.25% 8.16% December 5.64% 7.97% APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY Annuallzed Balance Basis Points Benchmark: Long-term Benahmark: Short-term Interest Earned Spread Yield The investment cost times the number of days the investment is outstanding during the year divided by the number of days in the year. One one-hundredth of a percent (.01%). Used to express yield differentials. For example, the difference between 5% and 7% is 200 basis points. The intermediate US Government Bond used as a comparison of yields against the following types of funds: Employee Benefit Reserve and Sewer Revenue Bond Trust, The Three Month Treasury Bill used as a comparison of yields against the following types of funds: Operating, General Obligation Bond and Revenue Bond Reserves. The sum of interest earned on the accrual basis. The difference in basis points between the yield achieved and the benchmark. Equal to the interest earned divided by the time-weighted balance of principal during the fiscal year. g OFFICE OF THE IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING DAN L. HUDSON DENNIS BALDRIDGE CAROLYN RURKE February 22, 1995 Dear Conference Board Member: The meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the public hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's FY '96 budget is scheduled for Monday, February 27, 1995 at 6:30 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed, so you may review the information before the meeting, are: 1. The Agenda. 2. A copy of the January 30, 3. The Amended Budget. 1995 minutes. For you reference, the amended budget reflects the 3% salary increase that was discussed at the January 30, Conference Board meeting. 1995 If you have any questions about the budget, or anything else, feel free to call me. Sincerely, Dan L. Hudson Iowa City Assessor 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET · POST OFFICE BOX 1350 ~ IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 TELEPHONE: 319-356-6066 MICROFILMED BY CREST INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE OF THE IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING DAN L. HUDSON DENNIS BALDRiDGE CAROLYN BURKE February 22, 1995 Dear Conference Board Member: The meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the public hearing on the Iowa city Assessor's FY '96 budget is scheduled for Monday, February 27, 1995 at 6:30 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed, so you may review the information before the meeting, are: 1. The Agenda. 2. A copy of the January 30, 3. The Amended Budget. 1995 minutes. For you reference, the amended budget reflects the 3% salary increase that was discussed at the January 30, Conference Board meeting. 1995 If you have any questions about the budget, or anything else, feel free to call me. Sincerely, Dan L. Hudson Iowa City Assessor 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET · POST OFFICE BOX 1350 · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 T · ELEPHONE: 319-356-6066 February 22, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Iowa city Conference Board will meet at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, February 27, 1995 at the Iowa City Civic Center Council Chamber. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a public hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's proposed budget for FY '96. AGENDA: 1. Call meetinq to order by the Chairperson. 2. Roll call by taxinq body. 3. Act on minutes of January 30, 1995 Conference Board Meeting. 4. Public hearinq on budqet. 5. Adopt budqet. 6. Other business. 7. Adjournment. Dan L, Clerk, Hudson Iowa City Conference Board CITY CONFERENCE BOARD JANUARY 30, 1995 City conference Do~rd: January 30, 1995, 6:32 P.M. in the Council Chambers at the Iowa City Civic Center. Mayor Susan Horowitz presiding. IOWa C_i_t_y ~o~Qil Members Pres~t: Baker, Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton. Johnso~ County Supervisors ~resent: Duffy, Lacina, Stutsman. IC $choo~ ~ Me~ers Present: Champion, Matheson. Others. Present: Hudson, Atkins, Helling, Karr, Gentry. Tape Recorded: Reel 95-15, Side 2. Chair Horowitz called the meeting to order and Clerk Hudson called roll and stated that a quorum was present. The City moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference Board meeting, February 28, 1994, School seconded, and the motion carried, 3/0. City Assessor Hudson presented his proposed FY '96 Assessment Expense Fund BUdget. The decreases being $6,825 for assessment rolls and postage, $500 for cancellation of the 28E agreement, and a $17,306 increase in the unencumbered balance. The increases being $10,740 for a 4% salary increase, $1,420 for FICA and IP~RS, $1,600 for bonds which are purchased every 6 years, and $450 for minor fund adjustments. The proposed levy rate would decrease from .22132 to .206.01, a decrease of 8%. Funding for 'the Special Appraisers Fu~.d of $30,000 was request@~, $%,500 ~ start a car replacement fund and $28,500 for projected aer~ial photo and mapping oQsts, all covered by a levy r~. of .02023. ~scussion was.hel~ 9~out the budget, the 4% S~r~ increase, a~d the cost of t~ The ~y N~ved ~Q set the salary in¢{~se ~t 3%, School seco~d, ~nd t~9 motion carried, 3/0'~~. After discussion about the hours the assessor's office is open, it was moved by the School to reconsider the above 3% motion and seconded by the City. The motion carried, 3/0. Therefore, the budget will be published with the 4% salary increase and the final decision will be made on salary after the public hearing. Further discussion on office hours will be held at the next meeting. The County moved to accept the proposed budget for publication, City seconded, and the motion carried, 3/0. The County moved to set the public hearing for Monday, February 27, 1995 at 6:30 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center, City seconded, and the motion carried, 3/0. The vacancy on the Iowa City Board of Review has been advertised and there was one applicant. It was moved by the City to appoint Ernest Galer to the Board of Review for a term ending December 31, 2000, School seconded, and the motion carried, 3/0. The City moved to reappoint Dan L. Hudson as Iowa City Assessor for a six year term beginning January 1, 1996 until. December 31, 2001, School seconded, and the motion carried, 3/0. There being no further business, it was moved by the City, seconded by the County to adjourn at 7:14 P.M. Motion carried unanimously, 3/0. Dan L. Hudson Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board ITEM NO. AMENDED ITEMIZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND EXPENDITURE ~ 9~5 FY 96 31 32 32 35 35 35 31,32,35 SALARIES City Assessor First Deputy Second Deputy Plat Supervisor Clerk Appraiser/Clerk Longevity $ 49,600 42,160 39,680 29,660 25,090 17,330 2,375 $ 51,090' 43,430 40,870 30,550 25,840 20,220 2,525 Total Salaries $205,895 $214,525 OTHE~ EXPENDITURES 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Board of Review $ 9,000 Employer Share: FICA 16,440 Employer Share: IPERS 11,020 Mileage & Auto 1,600 office Supplies, Post. & Tele. 16,125 Publications, Subscr. & Dues 1,200 Bonds & Workman's Comp. 800 Equipment Maintenance 200 Appraisal Service 400 Insurance 31,250 Continuing Education 3,000 Appeals to Court 25,000 Schools & Conferences 3,000 Legal 2,000 Unemployment 2,000 Conference Board 0 Examining Board 30 Co~nputer Charge 8,800 $ 9,000 17,100 11,590 1,600 8,800 1,400 2,400 200 400 31,500 3,000 25,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 0 30 8,800 Total Other Expenditures $131,865 $127,820 TOTAL BUDGET UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $337,760 - 21,758 $342,345 - 39,064 TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $316,002 $303,281 Mapping Car Replacement AMENDED BUDGET - SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND FY 95 $ 168,157 + Y,000 FY~6 165,636 1,500 TOTAL UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $ 175,157 -111,157 $ 167,136 -137,136 TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION GRAND TOTAL TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $ 64,000 $ 380,002 $ 30,000 $ 333,281 MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED Maximu~ assessment expense fund 1,483,301,875 x IPERS & FICA Funds Unemployment Compensation & Tort Liability .00027 = $ 400,490 = 28,880 = 2,800 Maximum for assessment expense fund = $ 432,170 Maximum special appraisers fund 1,483,301,875 x .000405 = $ 600,740 Maximum allowed without State approval = $1,032,910 Maximum emergency fund 1,483,301,875 x .00027 = $ 400,490 (Which requires State Appeal Board Approval) Maximum that could be raised by taxation for FY '96 = $1,433,400 LEVIES AND RATES SINCE 1980 Assessment ~xpense Fund ~iscal ~ear Amount ~evied ~evy Rate 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 146,050 175,930 184,145 192 960 20] 186 200 278 181 958 186 780 149 491 218 823 191 619 234 390 25~,789 242,474 228,690 316,002 303,281 .26746 .29593 .30081 .28004 .27000 .22454 .18905 .17616 .13953 .19279 .16666 .19498 .20574 .18729 .16688 .22132 .20446 Special Appraiser's ~und Amount. Levied LeW Rate $ 61,000 .09592 15,000 .02177 98,868 .13000 73,890 .08284 75,000 .06416 45,000 .03743 75,000 .06104 120,000 .09269 78,000 .05845 64,000 .04482 30,000 .02023 To: I0~ CITY CLERK From: Board oF Supervisors 2-12-95 D~§pa p. Z o~ 3 dohmon Counly Charlos D. Duffy, Chairperson Joe Bolk¢om Stephen P. La¢ina Don Schr Sally Slutsman BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 28, 1995 INFORMAL MEETING 'O Agenda 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. 2. Review of the informal minutes of February 2lst recessed to February 23rd and the tormai minutes of i6 ebmary 23rd. 3. Business t?om the County Attorney. a) Discussion with counsel re: County/Executive Session. b) Other litigation strategy in Street vs. Johnson 4. Business from the County Engineer. a) Discussion re: b) Discussion re: c) Discussion re: d) Other extension of 50-50 Agreement on Vincent Avenue. road vacation 1-95 (a portion of Vincent Avenue). road embargoes. Business l?om the Board of Supervisors. a) Reports b) Other 6. Discussion from the public. 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 lo: IOY. A CITY CLERK From: Board of Supervisors Z-12-95 l:l~p~ p. 3 o~ 3 Agenda 2-28-95 Page 2 7. 5:30 p.m. -- Second Public Hearing on FY 96 proposed budget estimate/discussion. a) Discussion re: resolution adopting FY 96 budget. 8. Recess. You and your crew are cordial]y invited as our guests to a get-together with the staff of the Housing Rehabil.ita- tion Office of ~owa City. Here is an opportunity for you to: Learn what it .is like to work with our program - the ins and outs. Learn about the various HUD regulations. Find out about the quality of work and construc- tion standards expected. Discuss problems you may have about the pro- gram. Tell how you think we could work together more effectively. Receive our revised construction manuaiD Visit with other contractors participating in this program. COME, EAT, LEARN, TALK GET TOGETHER WHAT: Soup & Sandwiches WHEN: February 28, 1995 Tuesday e~enin~g 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. WIlERE: The Cottage 14 South Linn St. R.S.V.P. by Feb. 21st call 356-5246 (8-12 a.m. preferably) giving your name & the number attending HOPE TO SEE YOU! GET TOGETHER HOUSING REHABILITATION of IOWA CITY