Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-14 Info Packet CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET ---- ~-- -- ~-- April 14, 2005 CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org IP1 City Council Meetings and Agendas IP2 Memorandum from the Fire Chief: Fire Inspector Position IP3 Memorandum from tt~e City Attorney: Iowa City Community Civic Fund - Proposed Affiliate of Johnson County Community Foundation IP4 Memorandum from the City Clerk and the Production Coordinator, Cable Division: Cost for Cable/Video coverage of City Council work sessions I SCE'L .EOUS I IP5 Letter from the Mayor to Leah Cohen and Brian Flynn: Report from the Alcohol Advisory Board IP6 Memorandum from the City Manager: Collaborative Efforts with the Community IP7 Memorandum from the City Manager: Hiring Consultants IP8 Memorandum from the Director of Planning & Community DeveLopment: Proposed Zoning Code IP9 Memorandum from Assist. Director Planning & Community Development and the City Engineer: Dodge Street Reconstruction Traffic Issues IP10 Memorandum from Randy Hartwig: Airport Issues Update IPll Memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Commission: Fundraising for Capital Projects . IP12 E-mail from Frank Wilson: Thank You to Fire Department IP13 Iowa League of Cities: Capital City Sights 2005 Annual Conference IP14 Finance Department: Quarterly Investment Report January l-March 31, 2005 Agenda April 27, 2005: Joint Meeting: City Councils of Iowa City, North Liberty, and Coralville, Johnson County Board of Supervisors, Iowa City School Board April 14, 2005 Information Packet (continued/ 2 I PRELIMINARY DRAFT/MINUTES I IP15 Historic Preservation Commission: March 10, 2005 IP16 ParEs and Recreation Commission: March 9, 2005 ~ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET (~ITY OF IOW,A, C_.ITY April 14, 2005 www.icgov.org APRIL 18 WORK SESSION ITEM, IP1 leetings and Agendas IP2 Memorandum ~the Fire Chief: Fire Inspector Position IP3 Memorandum e City Attorney: Iowa City Civic Fund - Proposed Affiliate of Johnson unty Community Foundation IP4 Memorandum from the Clerk and the Production Cable Division: Cost for Cable/Video Council work sessio~ IP5 Letter from the Mayor to Leah and Brian lynn: Report from the Alcohol Advisory Board IP6 Memorandum from the City Manager: 'ative Efforts with the Community IP7 Memorandum from the City Manager: Hiri~ Consultants IP8 Memorandum from the Director of Plann 3ommunity Development: Proposed Zoning Code IP9 Memorandum from Assist. Director ~g &~Community Development and the City Engineer: Dodge Street Reconstru~ ~n Traffic ~es IP10 Memorandum from Randy Hartwig Issues U IPll Memorandum from the Parks an, (: Fundraising for Capital Projects IP12 E-mail from Frank Wilson: You to Fire Department IP13 Iowa League of Cities: ~ital City Sights 2005 Anm nce IP14 Finance Department: Investment Report January :h 31, 2005 I PRELIMINARY DRAFT/MINUTES IP15 Historic Pres~ation Commission: March 10, 2005 / IP16 Parks and~ecreation Commission: March 9, 2005 / ~ City Council Meeting Schedule and -'~'- -'~ Work Session Agendas April14, 2005 CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org · MONDAY, APRIL 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · Planning and Zoning Items · Agenda Items · Council Appointments · Fire Inspector · Affiliate Foundation · Televising Work Sessions · Council Time · Schedule of Future Pending Items 7:45p Special Formal (Executive Session) Separate Agenda Posted · TUESDAY, APRIL 19 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS · WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27 Coralville City Hall 4:30p Joint Meeting of the CityCouncils of Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty; the Iowa City Community School Board, and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors · MONDAY, MAY2 EmmaJ. HarvatHall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, MAY 3 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · FRIDAY, MAY 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 8:30a Special Formal Evaluations · MONDAY, MAY 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, MAY 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, JUNE 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, JUNE 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting Iowa City Fire Department "Serving with Pride and Professionalism Since 1872" DATE: April 12, 2005 TO: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager^ ~-/'~ FROM: Andrew J. Rocca, Fire Chief ~ RE: Fire Inspector Position In mid-January, I received notification from the Department of Homeland Security that an FY04 Assistance to Firefighters grant proposal of $67,599 was approved for Iowa City. The funds were awarded for a permit-based fire inspection program and the position of fire inspector. Funding may be utilized in FY05 and FY06. The permit-based fire inspector program and fire inspector position are components of a planned program as identified in the department's ten-year strategic plan and annual goals and objectives. The proposed program will save the City a total of $67,599 over the next two fiscal years and would subsidize fire inspection fees. A permit-based fire inspection program is intended to proactively manage fire risk through consistent application of the Iowa City Fire Code. In 1996, the department implemented a biennial inspection schedule on all commercial buildings in the city. The current fire inspection program utilizes emergency response personnel to conduct general fire safety inspections. Three or four-person fire crews, using fire apparatus, perform the in-service company inspections. These personnel are subject to emergency response while conducting inspections and may not be afforded ample time to complete a comprehensive permit-based fire inspection program. The current fire company inspection program is based on a two-year rotation, which we believe to be ineffective in dealing with special systems and high-hazard occupancies. The risk created by the property use, the speed with which fire can spread, and the ability of occupants to safely exit the building, are the components that define high-hazard occupancies. With high-hazard occupancies; such as places of assembly, hazardous materials storage, flammable/combustible liquid storage, and lumberyards, factories, warehouses, laboratories, autobody shops, recycling plants, and the special processes associated with these uses, local fire code enforcement is lacking the required detail to effectively prevent or minimize loss in the event of a fire. The department proposes an annual permit-based fire inspection program to effectively enforce the locally adopted fire code. The annual program would generate revenue to partially fund the inspection costs in FY07 and in subsequent years by assessing permit fees to those occupancies that require extra vigilance in code enforcement due to the presence of a higher risk associated with a given use. Occupancies with fire alarms, fire suppression systems, flammable liquids, storage use and handling of hazardous materials, and high-piled combustible storage would benefit the most from the program. In fact, local contractors routinely contact the Fire Marshal's office requesting a follow-up inspection in order to correct deficiencies in systems and processes they have discovered. Emergency planning in places of assembly will also be addressed during the permit-based inspection. For example, in liquor-license establishments, fire safety and evacuation plans and a program to train crowd control managers will be developed in order to maintain a satisfactory level of public safety. FIRE DEPARTMENT ,' 410 E. Wa~Ili~gl(m Street , low~t CIO'. IA 52240 Prime: (319) 356-5260 FAX: (319) 356-5263 www. iq[il, org Office qf the Fire Chief Qffice of the Fire Marshal Battalion Chief* Fire Training Ha~at Public Education (319)356-5256 (319) 3565257 (319) 3565262 (319)3565258 (319) 356-5266 (319) 3565265 Page 2 I propose to implement an annual permit system, which includes a detailed fire inspection to improve the way high-risk occupancies are managed. Research by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) suggests that a fire code inspection program could substantially lower property loss due to fire. The NFPA study of several cities throughout the United States produced a number of findings and recommendations relevant to the proposed program: 1) Fire frequency rates and property loss due to fires appeared substantially lower in cities that annually inspected all or nearly all buildings covered by fire code; 2) Cities that had full-time fire prevention inspectors, but used firefighters for a large share of regular fire code inspections, appeared to have substantially lower fire rates, probably because the fire inspectors had more opportunities to motivate and educate building occupants, rather than because of greater thoroughness in direct hazard removal. Further research by NFPA suggests annual inspections, especially of higher hazard occupancies, will reduce the potential of fires on a long-term basis, reduce the severity of the fires which will decrease the amount of property loss and educate businesses on safety practices in relation to hazard reduction. The proposed annual permit-based inspection program is integral to our mission of providing the community the highest quality emergency and preventive services. The program is a strong, proactive approach in protecting lives and property from fire, educating the community, and in creating safer and healthier work environments. The permit-based inspection program would be applicable to approximately 400 high-hazard or special use occupancies and generate approximately $20,000.00 annually. A proposed fee schedule follows: Square Footage High Hazard Occupancy <1,999 $ 50.00 2,000-19,999 $ 75.00 20,000-49,999 $100.00 >50,000 $200.00 From a risk management and insurance standpoint, we believe this to be a positive risk and loss control management initiative. Furthermore, we believe our local insurance providers would find this program helpful in managing their risks. Implementation of this program is an important step in our efforts to continually improve our community's public safety. When a disaster strikes, comprehensive code enforcement plays a vital role for reducing damages caused by these tragic events and contributes to the overall financial viability of local business and industry. The database gained by the annual inspection program will also improve our response to industry emergency needs and improve the cimumstances involving firefighter and emergency responder safety. With this memorandum, I include my recommendation that the City of Iowa City accept the Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters grant funding by authorizing the fire inspector position as proposed in the FY06 budget. AJR/bdm cc: Roger Jensen, Fire Marshal Date: April 13, 2005 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Iowa City Community Civic Fund - Proposed Affiliate of Johnson County Community Foundation The following memo addresses issues raised during the City Council's last discussion of the proposed Iowa City Community Civic Fund, an affiliate of the Community Foundation of Johnson County (CFJC), and provides information from my subsequent conversation with Mary Ann Burk, President and CEO of the Community Foundation of Waterloo, Cedar Falls and Northeast Iowa. Ms. Burk is recognized as somewhat of an expert in this area, and both Mike Stoffregen of the CFJC and Council Member Regenia Bailey suggested that I contact her. First, the City Council should have an understanding of the County Endow Program (Iowa Code §15E.311; HF2302 from the 2004 legislative session). I have attached a copy of this legislation. I have also attached a copy of the summary from the Iowa Department of Economic Development's website, which explains the County Endowment Fund. This legislation is another component of the State's efforts to promote philanthropy, and its purpose is to "enhance the quality of life for citizens of Iowa by providing monies to new or existing citizen groups of this State organized to establish county affiliate funds or community foundations that will address countywide needs." (emphasis added). Beginning in the year 2005, half of one percent of the state's gambling revenues will be distributed to the 85-90 Iowa counties that do not have gambling entities. These funds will be deposited and distributed through qualified community foundations or community affiliates that address countywide needs. It is the CFJC, as the countywide organization, not the Iowa City affiliate, that will apply for the gambling money under this legislation. It is not necessary to have an Iowa City civic affiliate to access the gambling monies. Mr. Stoffregen has explained that such an affiliate will increase the possibility that the CFJC will get the gambling money by demonstrating broad-based county support and activity, and will serve as an advisory board for the use of the funds. I asked Mr. Stoffregen how much money he anticipates would be disbursed as grants in Iowa City, and he said that in general the foundation will look at populations served, although there are no guarantees that 60% would be disbursed to charitable entities within the City. I discussed the above concept of an Iowa City affiliate with Mary Ann Burk. In her mind, the purpose of the County Endowment Fund legislation was twofold--first, to encourage philanthropy, and second, to provide for one representative group in each county that would provide grants to meet county-wide needs. She believes the legislation is intended to encourage a regional and cooperative approach to the use of this money, and that the county entity most likely to access this money will be one with a governing board that is representative of the county. This is consistent with the IDED website, which states: "For purposes of the County Endowment Fund, this [the national standard requiring the Board to be "broadly representative of the community it serves."] would mean that the Governing Group should be broadly representative of a County (or Counties) both in terms of geography and in terms of the April 13, 2005 Page 2 personal background of its members." Ms. Burk also noted that, in her view, the legislative intent of the County Endowment Fund was not to allocate the county money to cities within the county based on population. I also asked Ms. Burk what she thought of the Council serving as the board of trustees for the Iowa City civic affiliate. Although she has both city and county affiliates that she works with, none are made up of the governing bodies of those cities and counties. She highly recommends that the representation on the board of trustees be much broader than the governing body of the city or county. Finally, in talking to Ms. Burk and reviewing the national standards for U.S. community foundations, I can find no legal basis for the footnote that is included in the policies and guidelines provided to me by Mr. Stoffregen which limited those persons who could be on the board of trustees. To summarize: 1. It is not necessary to have an Iowa City affiliate to access the gambling money under HF 2302. Presumably, the Council can provide its input on what the needs of the community are to the CFJC without having an affiliate. 2. If the Council chooses to create an affiliate for purposes of fundraising for human services and community events, it should consider the makeup of the Board and whether a Board composed entirely of the City Council will be the most effective for fundraising purposes. I look forward to discussing this matter with you at your work session. cc: Steve Atkins Dale Helling Marian Karr Mike Stoffregen eleanor/mem/CFJCfunds.doc 358 DEVELOPMENT ACTI~rrlES, §15E.311 ? shall include qual. ~ · ~ ~JE~305 Endow Iowa tax credit, to Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193] ttity may receive a ! q' For tax years beginning on or after January 2004 Acts, 1st Ex, ch 1001, §3, 4 1, 2003, a tax credit shall be allowed against the 2o0~ reaffirmation and reenactment is effective September 7, 2004, and ['he board shall Use ta~s'imposed in chapter 422, divisions ~I, III, and is retroactively applicable to January 1, 2003, for tax years beginning on or dow Iowa grants to after that date; 2004 Acts, let Ex, ch 1001, §4 V,~a-qd in chapter 432, and against the moneys and Section reaffirmed and reenacted ommunity founda- Cr~clits tax imposed in section 533.24 equal to liate organizations twenty percent of a taxpayer's endowment gift to 15E.307 through 15E.310 Reserved. a qualified community foundation. An individual all information re- fi~.ay claim a tax credit under this section of a part- DMSION XXII for-dollar funding hership, limited liability company, S corporation, he board, estate, or trust electing to have income taxed di- COUNTY ENDOWMENT FUND rectly to the individual. The amount claimed by munity foundation the individual shall be based upon the pro rata 15E.311 County endowment fund. :ommunity founda- share of the individual's earnings from the part- 1. The purpose of this section is to enhance the meet this require- nership, limited liability company, S corporation, quality of life for citizens of Iowa by providing estate, or trust. A tax credit shall be allowed only moneys to new or existing citizen groups of this ard demonstrating for an endowment gift made to a qualified commu- state organized to establish county affiliate funds nt moneys received nity foundation for a permanent endowment fund or community foundations that will address coun- as within the com- established to benefit a charitable cause in this tywide needs. efined by the quill- state: Any tax credit in excess of the taxpayer's tax 2. A county endowment fund is created in the the community if- liability for the tax year may be credited to the tax state treasury under the control of the department liability for the following five years or until de- of revenue. The fund consists of all moneys appro- · ded to new and ex- pleted, whichever occurs first. A tax credit shall priated to the fund. Moneys in the fund shall be iundations and to not be carried back to a tax year prior to the tax distributed by the department as provided in this ions shall not ex- ars per foundation year in which the taxpayer claims the tax credit, section. 2. The aggregate amount of tax credits autho- 3. a. At the end of each fiscal year, moneys in ration or organiza- rized pursuant to this section shallnot exceed a to- the fund shall be transferred into separate ac- county or regional tal of two million dollars. The maximum amount counts within the fund and designated for use by nay be awarded on of tax credits granted to a taxpayer shall not ex- each county in which no licensee authorized to than three grants ceed five percent of the aggregate amount of tax conduct gambling games under chapter 99F was sear. credits authorized· located during that fiscal year. Moneys trins- e for grants, the 3. A tax credit shall not be transferable to any ferred to county accounts shall be divided equally ,f factors including other taxpayer, among the counties. Moneys transferred into an ~1. A tax credit shall not be authorized pur- accountforacountyshallbetr~msferredbythede- For financial assis- suant to this section afte~ December 31 2005. partment to an eligible county recipient for that ° 5. The dePartment shall develop a system for county. Of the moneys transferred, an eligible hilanthropic activ- registration and authorization of tax credits under county recipient shall distribute seventy-five per- r being considered this secti~Jn ahd Shall control the distribution of all cent of the moneys as grants,to charitable organi- tax credits to taxpayers providing an endowment zations for educational, civic, public charitable, tding match being gif[ subject to this section. The department ~hall patriotic, or religious uses, as de£med in section adopt administrative rules pursuant to chapter 99B.7, subsection 3, paragraph "b', in that county ~rganizations, the ' 17A for the qualification and administration ofen- and shall retain twenty-five percent of the moneys ;ion of a communi- dowment gifts, for use in establishing a permanent endowment he applicant's geo- 2003 Acts, 1st Ex, ch 2, §83, 89 fund f~r the benefit of charitable organizations for Section is effective June 19. 2003, and applies retroactively to January educational, civic, public, charitable, patriotic, or' munity needs and l~ 2003. for tax years beginning on or after that date: 2003 Acts. ist Ex. ch 2. §8~ religious uses, as defined in section 99B.7, subsec- ] funding will ad- ~o~ furore repeal of this section effective June 30. 2010. see 2003 Acts. tion 3, paragraph '~b". ist Ex, ch 2. §93 b. If a county does not have an eligible county )f awards, recipient, moneys in the account for that county by a lead philan- shall remaii~ in that account until an eligible pt more than five 15E.306 Reports. county recipient for that county is established. used by the entity By January 31 of each year, the lead philan- c. For purposes of this subsection, an "eligible thropic entity, in cooperation with the depart- county recipient" means a qualified community ~3 ment, shall publish an annual report of the activi- foundation or community affiliate organizationi as scinded pursuant ties conducted pursuant to this division duringthe defined in section 15E.303, that is selected, in ac- 193] previous calendar year and shall submit the re- cordance with the procedures described in section :, 4 port to the governor and the general assembly. 15E.304, to receive moneys from an account creat- ~ve September 7, 2004, and r tax years beginning on or The annual report shall include a listing of endow- ed in this section for a particular county. To be se- raent funds and the amount of tax credits antho- lected as an eligible county recipient, a community rized by the department, affiliate organization shall establish a county affil- 2003 Acts. 1st Ex, ch 1, §92, 93 late fund to receive moneys asprovided by this sec- [2003 enactment of section rescinded pursuant tion. §15E.311, DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 360 4. Notwithstar~ding section 12C. 7, subsection ment fund shall not revert at the close of a fiscal 2, interest or earnings on moneys deposited in the year. county endowment fund shall be credited to the 2004 Acts, ch 1136, §1 county endowment fund, Notwithstanding sec- NEW section tion 8.33, moneys credited to the county endow- CHAPTER 15F COMMUNITY ATTRACTION AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT Legislative intent relating to continuation of prior statutes nonreversion of funds, and continuation of prior awards; 2000 Acts. ch 1174, §31 SUBCHAPTER I 15F. 202 Community attraction and tourism VISION IOWA BOARD program. 15F. 203 Community attraction and tourism i5F. 101 Definitions. program application review. 15F. 102 Vision Iowa board. 15F. 204 Community attraction and tourism fund. 15F. 103 Board duties. 15F. 10~1 Department duties. 15F. 105 Compensation and expenses. 15F. 106 Benefits. SUBCHAPTER III VISION IOWA PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER II COMMUNITY ATTRACTION AND .TOURISM 15F. 301 Definitions. ?RO~RAM ~'~D FLr~O 15F. 302 Vision Iowa program. 15F. 303 Eligibility. 15F. 201 Definitions. 15F. 304 Vision Iowa program application review. SUBCHAPTER I a. Three members of the general public, one member from each of the three tourism regions. VISION IOWA BOARD b. One mayor of a city with a population of less than twenty thousand. 15F. 101 Definitions. c. One county supervisor from a county that As used in this chapter, unless the context has a population ranking in the bottom thirty- otherwise requires: three counties according to the 1990 census. i. "Board"means the vision Iowa board as crc- d. Four members of the general public. ated in section 15F. 102. e. One mayor of a city with a population of 2. "Department" means the Iowa department twenty thousand or more. of economic development created in section f. The director of the department of economic 15.105. development. 2000 Acts, ch 1174, §1 g. The treasurer of state or the treasurer of state's designee. h. The auditor of state or the auditor of state's .15F. 102 Vision Iowa board, designee. ,1. The vision Iowa board is established con- 3. All appointments, except the director of the sisting of thirteen members andis located for ad- department of economic development, the trea- ministrative purposes within the department, surer of state, and the auditor of state, shall be The director of the department shall provide office made by the governor, shall comply with sections space, staff assistance, and necessary supplies 69.16 and 69.16A, andshallbesubjecttoconfirma- and equipment .for the board. The director shall tion by the senate. All appointed members of the budget funds, ito pay the compensation and ex- board shall have demonstrable experience or ex- penses of the board. In,performing its functions pertise in the field of tourism development and the board is performing a public function on behalf promotion, public financing, architecture, engi- of the state and is a public instrumentality of the neering, or major facility development or con- state, struction. 2. The membership of the board shall be ap- 4. All members of the board, except the direc- pointed as follows: tor of the department of economic development, The legislation creating the County Endowment Fund is already in effect. However, funding for the County Endowment Fund will accumulate dudng this fiscal year (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005). It is anticipated by the Department of Revenue that the first distribution of funds to Qualified Community Foundations will occur in the Fall of 2005. The County Endowment Fund is not just a mechanism to distribute gambling proceeds to counties that do not currently receive many of those dollars. It is intended to encourage the formation of Qualified Community Foundations or Affiliates, which hopefully serve a broader and longer-term purpose than just being a conduit for gambling proceeds. In order to qualify for receipt of funds, an entity must ~t typically seeks gifts and donations from a wide Affiliate organization typically reduces their own either be an Affiliate of a Qualified Community range of donors, in addition to any public staffing needs and costs, and can concentrate on Foundation or a Qualified Community Foundation. programs that may be available, and provides the two main functions of a foundation: developing In either case, the legislation specifies that the entity services to assist those donors in fulfilling their relations with donors and potential donors, and should "address countywide needs." According to philanthropic interests; distribution of grants throughout the affiliate's Iifhe National Standards that must be met (and It invests the funds it receives, and uses some of geographic area. aintained), the Governing Group of the the proceeds to make grants to charitable Many county affiliates already exist in Iowa. rganizatio~ must be "broadly representative of the agencies and activities that address "community" Generally speaking, affiliates enjoy all of the ommunity it serves." For purposes of the County needs (single-purpose "fund drives" are too benefits of a Qualified Community Foundation ndowment Fund, this would mean that the narrow in scope to be considered Community without having the burden of all of the administrative overning Group should be broadly representative Foundations); personnel, paperwork, and cost normally associated a County (or Counties), both in terms of it performs financial reviews or audits on itself and with operating a Foundation. eography, and in terms of the personal background reports regularly to the iRS and other regulatory f its members, agencies regarding its activities and performance. In essence, the affiliate (or affiliates) contract with an experienced Foundation to provide the staffing, What is a Community Foundation? An organization can become eligible for receipt of paperwork and typically pay approximately 1% - 2% the County Endowment Funds by either: per year for those services. The Affiliate has a A Community Foundation is a tax-exempt, . Becoming an affiliate of an existing Qualified Governing Body that works with local donors and independent, publicly-supported philanthropic Community Foundation; or agencies and directs the distribution of funds back organization that operates for the long-term benefit - Creating a new county-wide or multi-county to the county or counties they represent. of a defined geographic area. Some of the defining Qualified Community Foundation. characteristics are: Although the central Qualified Community What is an Affiliate? Foundation invests the funds, the Affiliate's It has an independent governing body Governing Body is instrumental in deciding which representing the broad interest of the area An Affiliate organization contracts with an agencies and causes will receive grants from the served, with members serving limited terms and established "Central Foundation" to provide certain Affiliate's fund. without compensation; services: temporary investment of funds, accounting It continually interacts with the community(les) it and auditing, marketing, legal services, and more. A complete list of the benefits of affiliation can be serves, determining the area's needs and The Affilliate has its own Governing Body. By found on the IDED Endow Iowa website priorities; contracting out many of the "stains" functions, the (www. iowasmartidea.com/endowiowa). DATE: April 11, 2005 TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager . FROM: Marian K. Kart, City Clerk ~ ~'~ Bob Hardy, Prod. Coord., Cable D?vision Re: Cost for cable/Video coverage of City Council work sessions City Council will be discussing televising their work session at their meeting on April 18. A similar discussion occurred in 1999/2000 and resulted in the attached information (memo dated January 19, 2000) being provided to you. Essentially nothing has changed since that memo but the audio system itself is five years older and deteriorating. The costs noted are also five years old and would have to adjusted upward. Even though current work sessions do not exceed the three hour duration noted in the mention we should consider what the future may hold with a new Council. One other issues that should be mentioned is the "run time benefit" of a work session. Formals are broadcast live and re-run several times prior to the next formal. It is doubtful you'd want the same procedure for work sessions. Work session information is somewhat dated as a result of the Tuesday formal session (i.e. Davis annexation discussion on Monday night versus Tuesday night when direction was given to change CZA). In addition not all items discussed at the work sessions are on the formal meeting agenda the next evening. For those reasons it may be confusing to re-run the work session multiple times. Both of us are available to address questions you may have. U:wstv.doc media unit uml mi o:,0o owa To: Steve Atkins, City Manager Fm: Bob Hardy, Prod. Coord. Cable Division Re: Cost: CableNideo coverage of City Council work sessions The following is information about cost for cable television coverage of City Council work sessions. I have tried to be comprehensive. A. Basic cost of work session coveraqe 1. The basic cost will be $14,000 per year to produce 25 live City Council work sessions 3 hours each in length. 2. This is approximately $560 per work session. 3. It will also cost approximately $125 per extra meeting hour if a work sessions exceeds a 3 hour length. ** 4. If joint work sessions are included in this request, it will cost an additional $ 3,360 per year foran estimated six (6), three hour meetings. 5. This estimate includes: · Staff cost--3 hours production time--for a minimum of four (4) staff persons to operate three (3) cameras and the production switcher/audio mixer required for each production. ° Staff cost--4 hours total--for set-up and break-down of equipment. · Staff cost--4 hours--for pre-production and post-production preparation of videotape for cablecast. ° Staff cost--lhour--for scheduling and cablecast handling of each production. · Associated overhead and materials cost. · * If work sessions are consistently over 3 hours in length, an additional staff person would be required to relieve others. B. Required chanqes and additional cost 1. It is highly recommend that work sessions be conducted from the dais, like formal meetings, for optimum video coverage. This set-up has been desi~lned to effectively accommodate video coverage and would provide superior cablecast of work sessions. Some savings in staff and equipment cost would also be realized. Cost: CableNideo coverage January 19, 2000 Page 2 2. If the current work session arrangement on the Chamber floor is maintained, there would be several changes and purchases that would be required. a. Space Arrangement: The following changes in the room set-up would be necessary: · Adjustment to the Council seating and audience area would be required to accommodate cameras. · If audience participation is expected, microphones would be needed in the audience seating area. · Additional changes may be requested as experience dictates to improve audio/video coverage. b. Audio: Council members would be required to wear lav-type microphones. · Purchase of the following equipment would be necessary to ensure cablecast quality audio: -Audio sub-mixer ..... $1,200 to $1,500 -Additional audio cables/snake .......... $300 to $500 ~Additional electrical cables, misc. connectors, etc ....... $100 · The purchase of 9 lav-type microphones at $400 per microphone is strongly recommended if joint session coverage is included. c. Multi-media Presentations · It is assumed that Council desires to share "presentations" and related multi-media materials with the TV audience. For this reason, the "presentation" set- up/space/equipment, i.e., overhead, video presenter, computer, etc., would need to be redesigned to accommodate video coverage. Additional cost should be expected to make such changes. C. Impact on the Cable Division 1. Production services available to City organizations and the community will be reduced. The Cable Division is an Enterprise Fund with a somewhat fixed annual budget. For this reason, annual production services available will decrease by the amount equal to the annual cost of work session coverage. 2. Additional temporary part-time staff will need to be hired by the Media Unit. Many of the current temporary staff have fixed schedules based on a Tuesday night availability. New staff with Monday night availability will be required. 3. Council Chamber production equipment may need to be replaced more frequently. The increased use of this equipment dictates a review and possible increase of maintenance schedules and shorter replacement schedules. IP5 April 11, 2005 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washing>Ion Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 Leah Cohen (3 ~) 3S6-$000 Bo-James Restaurant (319) 356-5009 FAX 118 East Washington Street www.icgov.org Iowa City, IA 52240 Brian Flynn Joe's Place 115 Iowa Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Leah and Brian: The City Council has agreed to schedule time on our May 2, 2005 Work Session agenda to receive a report from the Alcohol Advisory Board as previously agreed upon in October 2004. In addition to your presentation, I anticipate there will be questions from Council members as well. We are looking forward to your report and ask that any written material you will be providing for Council be delivered to the City Manager's Office by noon on Wednesday, April 27, so that it can be included in Council's meeting packet. It will be very helpful for us to have an opportunity to review the material prior to the meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Ernest W. Lehman Mayor Cc: City Council Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager R.J. Winkelhake, Police Chief mgdasst/Itrs/cohen report.doc Date: April 8, 2005 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Collaborative Efforts with the Community The attached was prepared by Superintendent Lane Plugge. L Collaborative Efforts with the Community ] Local Units of Gove~;~iment Financial Support for School-based Youth and Family Development Programs Johnson County Board of Supervisors Family Resource Centers: Hills, Penn, Twa/n, Coralville Central/Ki.rkwood Juvenile Justice Youth Development Grant - Students Advocates: City, West, South East, Northwest · City of Iowa City Bus Passes: Secondary Schools · City. of North Liberty. Family Resource Center: Penn · City of CoraNille Family Resource Center: Coralville Central/IGrMvood Bus Passes: Secondary Schools · City. of Hills Family Resource Center: Hills · University. of Iowa (College of Engineering) ' MESA Program Agencies that have staff on-site at school(s): · United Action for Youth T~vam, Mann, Wood, Northwest, South East, Funded by ICCSD 21st Century, Youth Development Grant, Drop Out Prevention budgets · MECCA .(Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse) City, West Funded by Juvenile Justice Youth Development and ICCSD Safe and Drug Free Schools budget · Mid-Eastern Community. Mental Health Twain Funded by Mental Health Center · Big Brothers Big Sisters Twain, Mann, Penn, Wood, Roosevelt, Lucas Funded by Big Brothers/Big Sisters - Twain funded by ICCSD 21~t Century budget · Johnson County Extension Hills, Twain, Mann, Wood Funded by Johnson County Extension and ICCSD 21~ Century Schools budget · Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Twain PREP Preschool Program Funded by Neighborhood Centers and Johnson County Empowerment Family Literacy Programs at Mann and Twain Funded by ICCSD 21't Century budget Agencies that receive district funding to provide services not on-site: · Youth Homes, Inc. (transportation and the ACE pull-in program) Agencies that provide funding for district programs · Sixth Judicial Juvenile Court Office · Johnson County Department of Public Health-Empowerment Area Initiative · United Way - School Children's Aid Fund Programs work in close collaboration with school staff(information and referral, joint case-planning, placing volunteers) · Domestic Violence Intervention Program · Shelter House · HACAP / Interagency Case Management · Johnson Count¢'Attomey's Office · Youth Homes, Inc. · Adolescent Health and Resource Center · Elder Services RSVP Program (+ all agencies listed above) Not included in the list are the 15 to 2o agencies that district staff refer students and families to and/or have staff come in to do workshops/presentations. Facility Partnerships · City of Iowa City, Scanlon Gymnasium Mercer Park swimming pool Mercer Park baseball field Wood School Family Resource Center and Preschool (CDBG) Wood School Gymnasium · City. of Coralville Coralville Recreation Center Gymnasium and swimming pool Wickham gymnasium Van Allen gymnasium · City. of North Liberty Van Allen soccer fields · Kirkwood Community College I~:kwood Community College Continuing Education Classes at City, West, South East and Northwest Adult and youth recreation programs use various gyms 1eot seasonal activities. Date: April 7, 2005 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Hiring Consultants The Council asked that I provide a memorandum outlining the issues that lead us to recommend the use of consultants. Please keep in mind we can use consultants for numerous purposes. For example, it is not uncommon for us to secure the services of a medical doctor for a disability and/or related personnel matter or special legal counsel if needed to defend an employee who is being sued as a result of fulfilling their duties. Engineering consultants such as structural, environmental, aviation, industrial, etc., who offer expertise that we do not have within our complement of employees are also contracted. Plan consultants for Parks & Recreation, or community development experts such as for drafting special zoning or land use regulations can be used. The City generally secures consultants for the following reasons: 1. Rather than hire permanent staff for a very special and often limited purpose it is easier and less expensive to hire a consulting engineering firm that has assembled the talent we need for a particular project. This consulting firm can respond in a rather short-term fashion with resources to provide us with the work product we desire. 2. The timeliness of a project; that is, if it is our desire to secure a project "now" and we do not wish to sacrifice other existing projects, already on our agenda, the use of a consultant allows us to address the specific professional talent need in a prompt fashion. This can be particularly important if there is a federal or state grant that may be available. 3. There are often licenses and other special certifications required that our regular professional staff do not have, and that we find are not cost effective to maintain within the City organization. 4. There are often regulations that encourage the use of independent consulting firms to provide us with recommendations, analysis, and design work. mgr/mem/consultants.doc To: City Council From: Karin Franklin, Directo Re: Proposed Zoning Code It is our understanding that recently members of the City Council have met with members of the Land Development Council (LDC), a group of representatives from the Homebuilders Association and the Iowa City Association of Realtors, about the new Zoning Ordinance. Attached is the document distributed to you by the LDC and a response from the staff based on our work with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cc Planning & Zoning Commission City Manager The following summary is prepared by the Land Development Council. This summary is not exhaustive. Rather, is intended only as a brief overview of some key sections of the proposed Development Code rewrite. OVERLAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The goal should be to reduce the need for a burdensome OPD process. Unfortunately, the proposed Code revisions significantly expand the areas that trigger the OPD process. An OPD should allow for flexibility in design to meet the particular needs of the site. This code mandates design standards, particularly in the area of garage placement and pedestrian facilities that actually eliminate flexibility. R Zones · Attached homes (0-lot duplex) are only allowed on comer lots and have strict design standards. Duplexes are only allowed on comer lots and have strict design standards. · The minimum lot sizes are increased in a majority of the R zones thus increasing urban sprawl and decreasing affordability. · Design standards are written throughout the new code. · Only 1 car is allowed to park in driveways of single family homes that meet the required setbacks. It is difficult to determine how or who will enforce this provision. · All lots less than 60' have mandated design standards. RM Zones · Multi-family buildings on 1 lot are required to be designed for privacy, with no direct views between windows. It is not clear what constitutes a direct view and who will interpret this. · Attached single family and duplex uses have strict design standards. · Building material standards are written throughout the code. · The Central Planning District, which is very large, has very restrictive design arffd' building material standards. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS Open Spaces · It is unclear whether the developer is required to dedicate the real estate (1) once the plat has been approved and the public improvements have been installed, or the earlier of within 2 years, after approval of the preliminary plat or by the time the City has issued 50 percent of the certificates of occupancy for the subdivision. Ground Cover · Paragraph 4 of Section 14-5K-3(C) is too vague. Requiring developers to not only dedicate a portion of land, but also to grade, seed and make it readY for recreational use runs the very real risk of completely eliminating any financial responsibility the City should rightly bear for new park space. Fees In Lieu/Use of Funds · This section provides that "all payments will be used to acquire or develop open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails that will benefit the residents of the subdivision or planned development for which payment has been made." (emphasis supplied). This language is too vague. Serious questions remain as to who will determine what benefits the residents of the subdivision. · This section gives the City five years in which to use the funds, with the ability to extend that period for another five years if less than 50% of the subdivision has been constructed. This is too long of a time period. · Park ground needs to be included as part of the public improvements accepted. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES The proposed code has excessive built-in delays and regulatory hurdles. The goal should be to make the approval process as predictable and efficient as possible and development professionals should enjoy a presumption of approval. Mandatory Neighborhood Meetings · While well-intended, this section is an unnecessary as state law already requires public notice and comment for any rezoning application. Performance Guarantees · The City currently has enough enforcement mechanisms without requiring performance guarantees. · There are no criteria set forth about when a performance guaranty would be required and no details about when those guarantees would be returned. Code and Zoning Amendments · A super-majority vote should not be required by Council when they disagree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on amending the Comprehensive Plan. · Requiting Council to meet with Planning and Zoning Commission anytime there is an "informal consensus" on Council that is contrary to the P&Z's recommendation is unnecessary, costly, and reinforces the presumption of disapproval. SENSITIVE AREAS The HBA does not view respecting our environmentally sensitive areas and encouraging affordable housing as competing policies. · Sensitive Areas should not be included in the Overlay Planned Development process. · Jurisdictional wetlands should be removed from City regulation. They are already covered by the Army Corps of Engineers. · The proposed code utterly fails to consider other effective wetland management strategies such as replacement, preservation, restoration/enhancement, and banking. · "Grove of Trees" is a new definition. However, its relevance to ecological standards of the area that makes it necessary to protect as an environmentally sensitive feature. Response to Land Development Council Summary of issues within the proposed Zoning Code Planned Development Rezonin.q Process Land Development Council: "The proposed Code revisions significantly expand the areas that trigger the OPD process." Response: Without any specific mention of what new areas the Land Development Council is referring to, it is difficult to know how to respond to this assertion. However, with the reorganization in the Code, there may be some confus~ion about several issues. · Sensitive Areas Overlay Rezoning: There have been no changes to the types of sensitive features that trigger a rezoning process. In the current code the sensitive features that trigger a planned development process are listed in 14-6K-lC-3. In the proposed Code this same list is in 14-51-3B. · In the current code, if a property owner wants to develop a manufactured housing park where the land is divided into lease lots, a rezoning to RFBH is required and the development must meet the standards in the code for manufactured housing parks. In the current code, the standards for manufactured housing parks are located in 14- 4D and the standards for the RFBH Zone are located in 14~6D-6. In the proposed code these standards have been simplified and incorporated into the planned development section of the code, thus eliminating an unnecessary zoning designation and simplifying a rezoning process that is currently confusing due to standards that overlap and in some cases conflict with one another. PLEASE NOTE: This process is distinct from the placement of individual manufactured homes on lots within standard subdivisions. In the current code and in the proposed code, manufactured homes, mobile homes, and modular homes are considered single family dwellings and allowed within standard subdivisions, if they are converted to real property and taxed as a site built dwelling, as provided in the Code of Iowa. Contrary to the Land Development Council's assertion, there are a number different ways that the proposed code will reduce the need for the plannied development process: · One of the most common reasons that developers apply for a planned development rezoning is so that they can modify the dimensional standards of the base zone, such as lot size and width, building height, and setbacks. In the proposed Code, in exchanqe for meetinq certain obiective standards, lot size, !ot width, and setbacks may be reduced in all the Sin.qle Family Zones without triR.qerin.q the need for a planned development rezonin.q. This will allow single family development on smaller lots, resulting in a win-win situation for both the developers and homebuyers. Because per lot infrastructure costs are lower for smaller lo{s, the resulting home lots are more affordable to homebuyers. The developers reap the financial benefits of being allowed to sell more home lots per acre. It can also h,elp to slow the rate of urban growth and allows flexibility to preserve environmentally sensitive features of the site without having to go through a planned development rezoning process. · Another common reason for requesting a planned development is the desire to build attached dwelling units, such as townhouses on land zoned for single family residential. Even though townhouses are allowed in the High Density Single Family (RS-12) Zone by right without going through a planned development process, the required lot width is too high to make townhouse development feasible. Therefore, in the proposed Zoning Code, the lot size and width standards for attached single family dwellings (townhouses) have been reduced in the R$-12 Zone, which will allow the development of townhouses without triggering the need for a planned development rezoning. Sin.qle Family Zones Land Development Council: "Attached homes are only allowed on corner lots and have strict design standards." Response: The proposed Code does contain a proposal to disallow duplexes on interior lots in the RS-8 Zone (thus only allowing them on corner lots) with the intention of encouraging a balance of detached and attached dwellings in this particular zone. However, the following changes in the proposed code will allow more opportunities for attached homes. · Attached homes will be allowed on corner lots in the RS-5 Zone, the most prevalent residential zoning designation in Iowa City. The current code does not allow attached homes of any type in the RS-5 Zone. The site deVelopment standards are intended to ensure that the attached homes will be compatible with the single family homes in the neighborhood. · Lot size and lot width have been reduced in the RS-12 Zone, so with the new code it will be possible to build attached homes in the RS-12 Zonei without having to go through a planned development rezoning process. The site development standards codify the standards typically negotiated through the planned development process. · The requirements in the R/O Zone have been changed in the proposed code to allow detached single family, attached single family, and duplexes. Currently, only upper floor apartments are allowed in this zone. The site development standards are intended to ensure that these residential uses will be developed in a manner that is compatible with the other land uses allowed in this zone. · Attached homes are also allowed in almost all of the Multi-family Zones, as is the case in the current Zoning Code. Land Development Council: "Duplexes are only allowed on corner lots and have strict design standards." Response: In the proposed code, duplexes are allowed as follows: · In the RS-5 Zone on corner lots - Currently duplexes are not allowed in this zone. · In the RS-8 Zone on corner lots - currently duplexes are allowed on any lot that meets the lot size requirements, which has resulted in whole areas being developed as duplexes. The proposed change will encourage a mix of single family and duplex development in the RS-8 Zone, which will help to create more stable neighborhoods over time. · In the RS-12 Zone on any lot. · In the RNC-12, RM-12, RM-20, RNC-20, and R/O Zones on any lot. Land Development Council: "The minimum lot sizes are increased in a majority of the R zones thus increasing urban sprawl and decreasing affordability." Response: In the current code the minimum lot size for detached single family dwellings in the RS-5 Zone is 8,000 square feet; in the RS-8 Zone, it is 5,000 square feet; in the RS-12 Zone it is 5,000 square feet. The minimum lot sizes have not been increased in the proposed Code. In fact in the proposed code, the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, and minimum setbacks may be reduced through the density bonus provisions (14- 2A-7A), thus providing new opportunities to reduce sprawl and increase affordability. The minimum lot width has been increased for detached single family dwellings in the RS-5, RS-8, and RS-12 Zones to reflect how land has been typically subdivided over the last ten years and to provide adequate lot width to accommodate current single family home designs. Land Development Council: "Design standards are written throughout the new code." Response: Each of the base zone articles contains "site development standards." Many of these standards exist in the current code, but are scattered throughout different sections. With the proposed code, an attempt was made to consolidate all these various standards into each respective base zone article to make the code easier to use. Some new standards are incorporated into the Code based on recommendations from Duncan and Associates, the consultant hired by the City to analyze the shortcomings in our current code, and also based on the policies and goals of Iowa City's comprehensive plan. An attempt was also made to provide more flexibility in the Code to allow activities and development not currently allowed. With this added flexibility, standards are incorporated into the Code to address potential negative impacts on surrounding properties. For example, in commercial zones outdoor storage of materials and products is not currently allowed. The proposed code allows outdoor storage and display areas, provided certain site development standards are met to protect surrounding properties and public areas along street frontages. The same is true in residential zones. For example, lots narrower than 60 feet or less than 8,000 square feet are not currently allowed in the RS-5 Zone. In the proposed Code, smaller lots are allowed, provided certain site development standards are met to ensure that the residential character of the resulting development is similar to that enjoyed in other areas zoned RS-5. Land Development Council: "Only 1 car is allowed to park in driveways of single family homes that meet the required setbacks. It is difficult to determine how or who will enforce this provision." Response: This is an existinq standard in the zoninq code. Subparagraph14-6N-1B-3b of the current zoning code states, "Except as provided below, in P, zones and in the C and I Zones within 50 feet of an R zone, no parking shall be permitted in the front yard." In the paragraphs following there are various exceptions to this rule listed, one of which is the one mentioned by the Land Development Council. This provision remains the same in the proposed code. Required setbacks (yards) are intended to provide open space on a lot, and thus only certain minimal uses of the setback areas are allowed. However, in the proposed code, the minimum front setback for the principal dwelling has been reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet. The minimum setback for a garage is 25 feet, which would allow room for parking in front of the garage without encroaching into the area that is intended to remain open space on the lot. The minimum garage setback also enables parking a large vehicle, such as a truck or SUV, without it hanging over the sidewalk. In addition, the setback standards in the Code are minimum standards, the homeowner/developedhomebuilder always has the option to set a garage back further on the lot to allow room for additional cars to be parked in the driveway. Land Development Council: "All lots less than 60 feet have mandated design standards." Response: Only one new site development standard has been added to the Code in the single family zones. Paragraph 14-2A-6C-6 states, "On lots less than 60 feet in width, garages and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape...." There are many ways that this standard can be met: The code provides some examples of ways to meet the standard, but any option that meets the requirement will be allowed. This provision is intended to respond to repeated references in Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan to establish garage placement standards for small single family lots. This approach was also recommended by Duncan and Associates and has been employed by a number of communities around the country to provide opportunities for smaller, more affordable home lots while ensuring that the resulting neighborhoods will remain attractive and livable and retain value over time. Multi-Family Zones Land Development Council: "Multi-family buildings on 1 lot are required to be designed for privacy, with no direct views between windows." Response: In the current code, multi-family buildings located on the same lot must be separated by a distance equal to the height of the highest building (14-6Q-2E). This provision is intended to provide adequate space between buildi~ngs to provide for light, air, and privacy between dwelling units and to provide adequate separation for fire protection. To maximize density, multi-family buildings are often built to the maximum height allowed in the zone. In most multi-family zones, the height limit is 35 feet. Therefore, on lots with multiple buildings, the buildings must be separated by at least 35 feet. In the proposed code, in order too provide more flexibility in the placement of buildings on a lot, this standard was reduced to a minimum separation distance of 10 feet. However, allowing buildings to be located in such close proximity may result in a loss of privacy to the residents living the buildings. Therefore, standards to address privacy and fire protection were added to the code. In the proposed Code a multi-family building is allowed to be located within 10 feet of another multi-family building on the same lot provided that the buildings are designed to provide a minimum amount of privacy between dwelling units. The proposed code states, "Buildings containing residential uses must be designed to preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units." This provision also contains standards for locating balconies and air conditioning units and meeting fire separation requirements. The standards are fairly straightforward. The alternative is to require a greater separation distance between buildings as is required in the current code. Land Development Council: "Building material standards are written throughout the Code. The Central Planning District, which is very large, has very restrictive design and building material standards." Response: The "Central Planning District Multi-Family Design Standards" are currently located in 14-5H-5N of the City Code. These standards were adopted in 2000 to address concerns expressed throughout the community about the unacceptable design of multi-family buildings, particularly in the older parts of the city where a real mix of housing types exist. Large apartment buildings were being built without windows or doorWays facing the street, resulting in long blank building facades along residential streets. In addition to the blank facades, many of the buildings were out of scale (bigger and taller) than surrounding development. Large parking lots were located along street frontages and adjacent to single family homes without any screening or landscaping. Sometimes the building would be built "on stilts" with the parking located at the street level under the building. The adoption of these multi-family standards has greatly improved the quality and design of multi-family buildings in the Central Planning District. During subsequent comprehensive planning efforts in other parts of the community, these same concerns have been expressed along with requests to extend these standards citywide. Therefore, in the proposed code, the Central Planning District Multi- family Design Standards have been more appropriately located in the multi-family article of the code. The basic minimum standards have been applied in all multi-family zones. The more detailed standards that address compatibility within older neighborhoods only apply in the Central Planning District. The current point system used in the current code has proven to be quite cumbersome and difficult to administer consistently. Therefore, in the proposed code, the point system has been eliminated and the standards have been rewritten to be more objective and easier to administer. The PRM and the R/O zones already have design standards in the current code. These have been rewritten to be consistent with standards in the other multi-family zones and to clarify standards where there has been some confusion in the past. Open Space Requirements No chanqes have been made to the existinq open space requirements in the code other than to clarify that required improvements to the open space have to be made prior to dedication to the City. Review and Approval Procedures We agree with the Land Development Council that the approval process should be as predictable and efficient as possible. That is why the review and approval procedures are clearly stated within the proposed code. The current code lacks clear information about where to apply and what procedures have to be followed to get a permit or an approval. The vast majority of this chapter of the code is not new. It is a codification of the existing procedures. Land Development Council: '~Vhile well-intended, (the mandatory neighborhood meeting requirement) is an unnecessary [sic] as state law already requires public notice and comment for any rezoning application. Response: Currently, the city has a voluntary "good neighbor meeting" policy, which encourages developers to meet with surrounding property owners prior to application. Such meetings help to dispel misinformation and rumor about a project, and provide an avenue for input from the surrounding property owners outside of the adversarial atmosphere of the public hearings. For developers that have utilized this practice, it has often helped to reduce community opposition and helped to smooth the approval process. The Planning and Zoning Commission feels that these types of meetings should be required when there is a request for an annexation or an upzoning adjacent to existing residential areas. Land Development Council: "The City currently has enough enforcement mechanisms without requiring performance guarantees. There are no criteria set forth when a performance guaranty would be required and no details about when those guarantees would be returned." Response: There are no new requirements for performance guarantees in the proposed zoning code. There are only a few instances in the current zoning code where a performance guaranty is required. These have not been changed. This section merely explains the procedure ifa performance guaranty is required. Land Development Council: "A super-majority vote should not be required by Council when they disagree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on amending the Comprehensive Plan. Response: The current code does not explain the procedure for applying for a change to the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan and accompanying district plans were created with the input of hundreds of citizens. These grassroots planning efforts are monitored and closely reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission feels that any request for changes to the plans to address the desires of individual property owners should be carefully considered in the context of the larger plan. Because the Commission is more intimately aware of the public input and the various elements of the comprehensive plan and district plans, they feel that their recommendations regarding changes to those plans should receive greater weight in the decision-making process. Land Development Council: "Requiring Council to meet with Planning and Zoning Commission anytime there is an "informal consensus" on the Council that is contrary to the P&Z's recommendation is unnecessary, costly, and reinforces the presumption of disapproval. Response: The zoning code used to contain a provision that required a super-majority vote of the Council in cases where the Council disagreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. In fact, a majority of cities in Iowa contain this same provision. The Council voted to eliminate this provision from Iowa City's code a number of years ago and in it's place adopted a resolution to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss cases where they disagreed with P&Z's recommendation. In the proposed code, this procedure is referred to in the procedures section to make it clear to the applicant what will occur if there is a disagreement. This is not a change to the current practice and such a meeting is conducted both in cases where P&Z has recommended disapproval and the Council is intending to approve the application and in cases where P&Z recommends approval and Council intends to disapprove the application. Sensitive Areas The Planning and Zoning Commission agrees with the HBA that respecting our environmentally sensitive areas and encouraging affordable housing should not be competing policies. Currently, on sites with sensitive features, development density is allowed to be clustered away from sensitive areas through the planned development process, thus allowing flexibility to preserve environmental features while providing needed housing opportunities within the City. No chanqe to this wise practice is proposed in the new code. Land Development Council: "Sensitive Areas should not be included in the Overlay Planned Development Process." Response: Currently, sites with sensitive areas that trigger a sensitive areas rezoning are required to be reviewed through the planned development process. This process provides the flexibility to modify the underlying zoning requirements so that development can be clustered away from sensitive features of the site. In other words, the planned development process allows a transfer of density to areas of the site more suitable for development. This is not a change to the current ordinance. However, the provisions have been simplified and consolidated into one section of the Code. Land Development Council: "Jurisdictional wetlands should be removed from City regulation. They are already covered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed code utterly fails to consider other effective wetland management strategies such as replacement, preservation, restoration/enhancement, and banking." Response: No substantive chanqes have been proposed to the current sensitive areas ordinance. The current zoning code incorporates the required review by the Army Corps of Engineers and also incorporates required buffered areas around jurisdictional wetlands. No changes have been proposed to this section of the Code. The change proposed by the Land Development Council would be a substantive change to the current ordinance. The current and proposed codes contain the same provisions for compensatory mitiqation in cases where development activity is proposed in a requlated wetland. It also allows the very measures mentioned by the Land Development Council. (See 14-51- 6, Jurisdictional WetLands, particularly subsection F, Design Standards, and subsection G, compensatory mitigation. Land Development Council: "'Grove of Trees' is a new definition. However, is [sic] relevance to ecological standards of the area that makes it necessary to protect as an environmentally sensitive feature." Response: The definition of "grove of trees" is not new. It has always been in the sensitive areas ordinance. No change to this definition or how "groves of trees" are regulated is proposed in the new code. Date: April 11, 2005 ~,~/' .~.. ~ To: Steve Atkins, City Manager ~,~ From: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Department of Planning and Community Development Ron Knoche, City Engineer ~ Re: Dodge Street Reconstruction Traffic Issues You requested an update on traffic issues associated with the Dodge Street reconstruction project. A temporary traffic signal has been installed at the intersection of Dodge Street and the eastbound 1-80 ramps. This is a temporary traffic signal for the duration of the construction project, but there will be a permanent traffic signal installed as part of the reconstruction project. The principal motivation for installing the temporary traffic signal at this time is to keep vehicles on the off ramp during the morning peak traffic period from queuing onto the main line of 1-80. During the times of maximum employment for Pearson and ACT (there is quite a bit of variation during the year because of the use of seasonal temporary employees), there have been regularly observed times during the morning rush hour when vehicles have extended onto the I- 80 main line. When the temporary traffic signals were installed, the operating system was not set up correctly by the contractor. Since that time we have attempted to get them operating properly. This has been a complicated matter in finding the correct balance between Dodge Street and the 1-80 off ramp. There are constant variations in traffic flow from all directions during the various times of the day and days of the week. As of April 4 we feel we have the signals operating as well as they can. There is still congestion at this intersection during the peak 25 minutes of the a.m. rush hour. This is primarily a function of the a.m. shift changes at Pearson and ACT. With the available number of lanes we simply cannot move such a large amount of traffic any more efficiently than we are currently. The complaints we have received are primarily from Dodge Street motorists. Generally, motorists on the 1-80 off ramp appreciate having the signal in place. Delay through this area on Dodge Street is something new for Dodge Street motorists. When this intersection was uncontrolled there were free-flow conditions on Dodge Street. Receiving the red traffic signal for any duration at all is perceived negatively by Dodge Street motorists. We would emphasize that what is described above is primarily a phenomenon of the peak 25 minutes of the a.m. rush hour. We have observed the intersection 5 or 10 minutes after the peak traffic period and found everything operating smoothly. A concern of ours is that this intersection may not operate any better after the reconstruction of Dodge Street is completed and the permanent traffic signal is installed. There are additional lanes needed on the 1-80 off ramp. This is under the jurisdiction of the Iowa Department of Transportation and we will attempt to work with them to see what can be done to improve this situation. Dodge Street Reconstruction Traffic Issues April 11, 2005 Page 2 We are preparing a letter for you to send to Pearson and ACT describing the traffic issues in this area and seeing if we can get them to consider staggered shift times during the morning rush hour. This is a common strategy in larger communities for dealing with peak period traffic issues. Spreading the peak traffic period over a longer time period is an efficient way to improve traffic conditions without expensive pavement improvements. Let us know if you have any questions regarding this matter. cc: Karin Franklin Rick Fosse Dick Kautz, Iowa DOT jccogtp/rnenYdodge.doc IPIO IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1801 South Riverside Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Office Phone (319) 356-5045 11 April 2005 To: City Council Re: Airport Issues Update 1. Runway Extension Project- I recently sent to the FAA for their approval revised cost estimates for the next phase (Grading work) of the project. This is needed for an amendment to the Engineering Services contract with Earth Tech covering the Phase 3 work. They are presently engaged in survey work in addition to design work. Also, we have discussed with our farm manager the expectation of areas which will be worked in this season so as to prevent any unnecessary plantings. 2. Aviation Commerce Park- You are well aware of the impending sale and the change in zoning for the remaining lots. The Commission supports the proposed zoning change. I believe there is increased interest and look forward to more results. 3. Airport Management- The Commission is working on identifying specific management tasks and how those can best be accomplished. Further discussion of various models will be undertaken at our April meeting and it is my desire to have a consensus among the Commission by our May meeting. The work of the interns has been a great help in organizing the Manager's Office in addition to work on long term projects. 4. Spring Fly-In Breakfast- Jet Air and a local church group are working on a Fly-In Breakfast scheduled for May. 5. Hangar Roof Repairs- Work is presently underway on roof repairs to two of the older hangars on the north side. This is funded with help from an Iowa Dept. of Transportation grant. There is at present only two vacant hangars. 6. Terminal Viewing Area (Park)- We are in the process of identifying and pricing equipment/materials. We have produced the more accurate depiction the FAA requested. One of our interns is involved on this project. 7. Misc. I recently met with the Engineering Dept. and contractor involved on the culvert for the Mormon Trek extension to ensure safe and efficient access to the site. Respectfully, Randy Hartwig Iowa City Airport Commission IPll CITY OF I0 WA CITY April 13, 2005 PARKS & RECREATION TO: City Council DEPARTMENT FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission RE: Fundraising for capital projects It is our understanding that the City Council would like us to consider fundraising efforts in order to assist with financing some of our proposed capital improvement projects. We recognize the fact that alternate sources of revenue are needed in today's economy. This is the case with many agencies and organizations, which makes it even more difficult to solicit donations. We are certainly willing to do our part, but we ask you to keep in mind that neither the Commission nor staff are professional fundraisers. Such endeavors typically take a lot of time, effort and expertise to be successful. The Commission is not prepared to make this part of our routine tasks, and we don't feel the staff has the time to devote to such assignments on a regular basis. To proceed with this, we will likely call on the Parks and Recreation Foundation and request that they lead the effort. As you know, the Foundation has been the driving force behind two successful fundraisers .... the Scanlon Gymnasium project, and the City Park restoration project. With the Scanlon project, however, a professional fundraiser was hired to lead the effort. The City Park restoration didn't require the assistance of a professional fundraiser, but it was much smaller in scale and was in response to a natural disaster which everyone could see; the community got behind it with little persuasion. In both cases, the Foundation assembled a group of community leaders to assist with the effort. We don't feel it would be responsible for us or the Foundation to make a habit of calling on other citizens to assist with a large variety of fundraisers. We will continue to discuss the possibilities of a few projects which we feel might lend themselves to fund- raising efforts such as corporate contributions or service club projects, and we will continue to look for grant funding possibilities. We are not exactly certain as to what you have in mind, so we hope this response is satisfactory for now. If not, please let us know. In the meantime we will keep you posted with regard to any efforts being undertaken, and any successes we might have. On beh/atf~f the Parks and Recreation Commission, as voted upon at their meeting of April ~on, Chair A ~A~O~O~ C~ ~ PHONE (319)356-5100 220 SOUTH GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY IOWA 52240-1632 ~ FAX (319)356-5487 Marian Karr From: MFWilson@Wabtec.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:25 PM To: andy-rocca@iowa-city.org Cc: council@iowa-city.org; steve-atkins@iowa-c[ty.org Subject: Recent Fire at 117 North Van Buren Dear Mr. Rocca, My son Sven Wilson was a tenant at 117 North Van Buren, where the recent fire was. I helped him move out his belongings last weekend. I was very surprised how little damage there was to his room and belongings, especially compared to the damage in the area of the fire on the third floor. My compliments to your department for rapidly controlling the fire, and minimizing the "collateral damage" to other parts of the dwelling. Congratulations and thank you. Frank Frank Wilson Technical Director, Train Control & Communications Wabtec Railway Electronics 5250 N River Bird NE Cedar Rapids, IA 52411-7797 319-247-6942 Fax 319-247-6980 mfwi!son@wabtec.com 4/12/2005 IP13 low o[ Cit. ies ~,~.";-'-ts 2oos A~ual Co~[~,~c~ Wec]nesclay, September ILl.- Fri&y, September 16 County Convention Complex, Des/V~oines, lA The Polk County Convention Complex is part of the Iowa Events Center, which also includes Vets Auditorium, the Wells Fargo Arena and the Hy-Vee Hall and is run by Global Spectrum. _of IP14 CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2005 Finance Department: Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective 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 six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. The average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill, as obtained from the monthly publication Public Investor, was 3.07% at 3/25/05. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the first quarter of this year were 48 basis points higher than the threshold. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the second quarter were approximately 208 basis points higher than investments purchased at this time last year. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. The Federal Reserve raised the target of the federal funds rate to 2.75% on March 22, 2005. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates 175 basis points since June. The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 1.60% in January 2005, 1.65% in February 2005 and 1.85% in March 2005. Federal Funds Rate 7.00 6.50 ' 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 EXHIBIT A CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 3/31/2005 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE VAN KAMPEN GOVT MUTUAL FUND 22-Jul-85 N/A 200,000.00 VARIABLE NORWEST BANK SAVINGS 01-Dec-99 N/A 200,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 13-Jun-02 N/A 2,000,000.00 VARIABLE IPAITNVELLS FARGO IPAIT 29-Nov-02 N/A 1,435,614.61 VARIABLE COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 08-Jun-04 01-Apr-05 2,000,000.00 2.06 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 08-Jun-04 08-Apr-05 750,000.00 2.08 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 08-Jun-04 15-Apr-05 2,000,000.00 2.10 WEST BANK CD 15-Oct-04 15-Apr-05 500,000.00 2.31 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 25-Feb-05 15-Apr-05 183,412.00 2.74 UICCU CD 29-Jun-04 22-Apr-05 750,000.00 2.46 UICCU CD 29-Jun-04 29-Apr-05 2,000,000.00 2.46 UICCU CD 29-Jun-04 06-May-05 750,000.00 2.46 LIBERTY BANK CD 10-Aug-04 13-May-05 2,000,000.00 2.50 UNION PLANTERS CD 13-Sep-04 20-May-05 750,000.00 2.70 UNION PLANTERS CD 13-Sep-04 27-May-05 2,000,000.00 2.70 UNION PLANTERS CD 10-Feb-05 27-May-05 2,000,000.00 2.99 WELLS FARGO SLGS 05-Nov-02 01-Jun-05 3,957,849.00 2.34 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Jun-05 184,742.45 1.67 IOWA STATE BANK CD 15-Oct-04 01-Jun-05 5,600,000.00 2.65 UNION PLANTERS CD 13-Sep-04 03-Jun-05 750,000.00 2.90 UNION PLANTERS CD 13-Sep-04 10-Jun-05 2,000,000.00 2.90 UICCU CD 24-Sep-04 17-Jun-05 750,000.00 2.81 UICCU CD 24-Sep-04 24-Jun-05 2,000,000.00 2.91 WEST BANK CD 17-Dec-03 30-Jun-05 3,136,641.17 1.55 FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 01-Jul-04 01-Jul-05 974,504.00 2.75 LIBERTY BANK CD 10-Aug-04 01-Jul-05 3,500,000.00 2.50 UICCU CD 24-Sep-04 01-Jul-05 750,000.00 2.86 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 20-Oct-04 01-Jul-05 3,000,000.00 2.48 IOWA STATE BANK CD 27-Jan-05 01-Jul-05 1,237,000.00 2.96 IOWA STATE BANK CD 15-Oct-04 08-Jul-05 2,000,000.00 2.69 IOWA STATE BANK CD 15-Oct-04 15-Jul-05 750,000.00 2.46 IOWA STATE BANK CD 15-Oct-04 22-Jul-05 2,000,000.00 2.81 IOWA STATE BANK CD 15-Oct-04 29-Jul-05 750,000.00 2.56 IOWA STATE BANK CD 15-Oct-04 05-Aug-05 2,000,000.00 2.83 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 20-Oct-04 12-Aug-05 750,000.00 2.37 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 20-Oct-04 19-Aug-05 2,000,000.00 2.60 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 20-Oct-04 26-Aug-05 750,000.00 2.45 FREEDOM SECURITY CD 20-Oct-04 02-Sep-05 2,000,000.00 2.65 WEST BANK CD 10-Nov-04 09-Sep-05 750,000.00 2.73 WEST BANK CD 10-Nov-04 16-Sep-05 2,000,000.00 2.79 WEST BANK CD 10-Nov-04 23-Sep-05 750,000.00 2.79 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 30~Sep-05 2,000,000.00 2.77 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 07-Oct-05 750,000.00 2.78 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 14-Oct-05 2,000,000.00 2.79 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 21-Oct-05 750,000.00 2.81 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 28-Oct-05 2,000,000.00 2.83 UICCU CD 09-Mar-04 01-Nov-05 3,262,263.40 2.06 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 18-Nov-04 04-Nov-05 750,000.00 2.84 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07-Dec-04 11-Nov~05 2,150,000.00 2.96 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07-Dec-04 18-Nov-05 750,000.00 2.97 WEST BANK CD 10-Feb-05 18-Nov-05 2,000,000.00 3.32 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07-Dec-04 23-Nov-05 2,150,000.00 2.98 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Dec-05 186,128.03 1.87 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 07-Dec-04 02-Dec-05 750,000.00 3.00 UICCU CD 12-Dec-03 09-Dec-05 6,577,860.00 2.33 US BANK CD 22-Dec-04 09-Dec-05 2,150,000.00 2.99 US BANK CD 22-Dec-04 16-De¢-05 750,000.00 3.00 US BANK CD 22-Dec-04 22-Dec-05 2,150,000.00 3.00 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 28-Dec-05 750,000.00 3.25 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 03-Jan-0§ 2,150,000,00 3,25 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 09-Jan-00 750,000.00 3.25 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 27-Jan-05 20-Jan-06 2,150,000.00 3.26 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 27-Jan-05 27-Jan-06 750,000.00 3.26 WEST BANK CD 10-Feb-05 03-Feb-06 2,150,000.00 3.37 UlCCU CD 10-Mar-05 10-Feb-06 750,000.00 3.61 UlCCU CD 10-Mar-05 17-Feb-06 2,150,000.00 3.61 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 10-Mar-05 24-Feb-06 750,000.00 3.62 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Jun-06 187,523.98 2.17 FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 30-Mar-05 30-Sep-06 7,020,000.00 4.11 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Dec-06 188,930.41 2.57 US BANK CD 25-Feb-05 26-Feb-07 2,261,901.00 3.94 LIBERTY BANK CD 11-Mar-04 01-Jun-07 190,347.39 2.67 TOTAL $117,184,717.44 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005 INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 12/31/04 111,528,320.46 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INTEREST INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE RATE PURCHASES 1/01/05 TO 3/31/05 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 09-Jan-06 3.25 750,000.00 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 28-Dec-05 3.25 750,000.00 WEST BANK CD 13-Jan-05 03-Jan-06 3,25 2,150,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 27-Jan-05 27-Jan-06 3.26 750,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 27-Jan-05 01-Ju1-05 2.96 1,237,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 27-Jan-05 20-Jan-06 3.26 2,150,000.00 UNION PLANTERS CD 10-Feb-05 27-May-05 2.99 2,000,000.00 WEST BANK CD 10-Feb-05 18-Nov-05 3.32 2,000,000.00 WEST BANK CD 10-Feb-05 03-Feb-06 3.37 2,150,000.00 US BANK CD 25-Feb-05 26-Feb-07 3.94 2,261,901.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 25-Feb-05 15-Apr-05 2.74 465,001.48 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 10-Mar-05 24-Feb-06 3.62 750,000.00 UICCU CD 10-Mar-05 10-Feb-06 3.61 750,000.00 UICCU CD 10-Mar-05 17-Feb-06 3.61 2,150,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 30-Mar-05 30-Sep-06 4.11 7,020,000.00 TOTAL PURCHASES 27,333,902.48 REDEMPTIONS 1/01/05 TO 3/31/05 UICCU (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 09-Mar-04 06-Jan-05 2.06 (138,234.04) WEST BANK CD 14-Apr-04 07-Jan-05 1.49 2,000,000.00) WEST BANK CD 14-Apr-04 14-Jan-05 1.49 (750,000.00) WEST BANK CD 14-Apr-04 21-Jan-05 1.53 2,000,000.00) WEST BANK CD 14-Apr-04 28-Jan-05 1.53 (750,000.00) UICCU (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 09-Mar-04 01-Feb-05 2.06 (215,239.75) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 10-May-04 ' 04-Feb-05 1.81 2,000,000.00) LIBERTY BANK CD 10-May-04 11 -Feb-05 2.27 (750,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 10-May-04 18-Feb-05 1.85 2,000,000.00) US BANK CD 08-Sep-03 25-Feb-05 1.90 961,187.50) US BANK CD 08-Sep-03 25-Feb-05 1.90 663,221.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 20-May-04 25-Feb-05 1.86 750,000.00) IOWA STATE BANK CD 24-Sep-04 25-Feb-05 2.51 637,492.50) WEST BANK (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 17-Dec-03 25-Feb-05 1.55 719,621,21 ) IPAIT IPAIT 29-Nov-02 28-Feb-05 1.45 206,667.60) IPAIT IPAIT 29-Nov-02 28-Feb-05 1.45 159,983.63) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 20-May-04 04-Mar-05 1.88 (2,000,000.00) UICCU (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 09-Mar-04 08-Mar-05 2.06 (358,817.89) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 20-May-04 11-Mar-05 1.90 (750,000.00) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 08-Jun-04 18-Mar-05 2.02 (2,000,000.00) UICCU (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 09-Mar-04 21-Mar-05 2.06 (307,911.68) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CD 08-Jun-04 25-Mar-05 2.04 (750,000.00) WEST BANK (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 17-Dec-03 29-Mar-05 1.55 (72,814.51) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL (PARTIAL REDEMPTION CD 13-Sep-04 29-Mar-05 2.39 (454,724.71) COMMERCIAL FEDERAL (PARTIAL REDEMPTION CD 25-Feb-05 29-Mar-05 2.74 (281,589.48) TOTAL REDEMPTIONS (21,677,505.50) INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 3/31/05 117,184,717.44 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND 3/3112005 3/31/2004 FUND INVESTMENT INVESTMENT TYPE AMOUNT AMOUNT ALL OPERATING FUNDS 88,437,931.18 82,654,531.01 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND 10,495,521.26 9,947,677.85 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE FUND 700,000.00 700,00000 BOND RESERVE FUND 17,551,265.00 17,417,184.00 TOTAL 117,184,717.44 110,719,392.86 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION 313112005 3/31/2004 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT NVESTMENT NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK 22,633,412.00 18,800,822.76 FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK 974,504.00 750,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN BANK 7,020,000.00 0.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK 8,500,000.00 7,300,000.00 HILLS BANK & TRUST 0.00 21,346.50 IOWA STATE BANK 14,337,000.00 16,550,000.00 iOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST 3,435,614.61 4,147,819.31 LIBERTY BANK 6,437,672.26 17,161,677.85 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION 19,740,123.40 23,094,006.00 UNION PLANTERS BANK 7,500,000.00 5,050,000.00 US BANK 7,311,901.00 4,524,408.50 US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES 0.00 0.00 WELLS FARGO BANK 4,157,849.00 4,271,751.00 WEST BANK 14,936,641.17 8,847,560.94 VAN KAMPEN 200,000.00 200,000.00 TOTAL 117,184,717.44 110,719,392.86 Amended JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCILS OF CORALVILLE, IOWA CITY AND NORTH LIBERTY JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IOWA CITY SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, April 27, 2oo5 Coralville Council Chambers 15x2 7th Street 4:00-6:00 p.m. Construction updates (County) (School Board) a) ~gth Avenue Ext. b) Forevergreen Road c) North Liberty Crandic Railroad & Hwy 96S Pedestrian Crossing 2. Camp Cardinal 98E Agreement (School Board) 3. Trails Update (NL) (County) 4. North Liberty Transit Task Force (NL) $. Joint Communication Study (County) 6. *Senior Community Assessment Update (JCCOG) 7. General Discussion (County) a) Trash in the roadways leading to the landfill. Discuss ideas to make it cleaner. b) County committee to address neglected properties in the unincorporated areas of the county. 8. Other 9. Next meeting JOINT MEETING/ CITY COUNCILS O,F CORA! JVILLE, IO~VA CITM AND/NORTH LIBERTY JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD ~F ~SUPERVISORS IOWA CITY SCHO(yL BOARD // / Wednesday, 2005 Coralville 1512 4:o~ p.m. 1. Construction updates Board) a) 12t~ Avenue Ext. b) Forevergreen Road c) North Liberty r 965 Pedestrian Crossing 2. Camp 3. Trails Update (NL) 4. North Liberty : Force (NL) 5. Joint Communication (County) 6. General Discussion a) Trash in leading to the landfill, ideas to make it cleaner. b) County address neglected ~ the unincorporated areas of the 7. Other ~ MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2005 HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Maharry, Chair; Tim Weitzel, Vice-chair; Richard Carlson; Michael Gunn; Mark McCallum; Jim Ponto; Amy Smothers STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Kerry McGrath, SHSI Local Government Coordinator; Dan Brookhart; Helen Burford; Kevin Burford; Bryan Clark; Jeff Clark; Cassie Isaacson; Shelly McCafferty; Charles Stanier; Heather Widmayer CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Public discussion of anythin.q not on the agenda; No items for were presented for discussion. Items for consideration (vote required) 1. Certificate of Appropriateness a. 618-622 Iowa Avenue Sunil Terdalkar reported this is a non-historic multi-family apartment structure in College Hill. Proposed alterations include replacing windows with new patio doors and adding balconies. Jeff Clark said the basic plan is to remove living room windows, and now put in patio doors. He said the building would look very similar to its current appearance. Michael Gunn asked why the windows were being removed, as they were recently replaced. Clark said they want to put in a patio and patio doors now. The building was much improved with the new windows, but at this point they would like to add patios. Mark McCallum said the new windows are an improvement, and the changes look fine. He noted it is not an historic structure. Amy Smothers asked about the windows in the entry doors. Clark said the existing windows have the diamonds. MOTION: Weitzel moved to accept the changes as proposed in the application. McCallum seconded, and the motion carried 7-0. Bryan Clark and Jeff Clark left at this point. b. 1227 Sheridan Avenue Terdalkar reported that the building is a non-historic single-family residence in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the applicants are requesting approval for demolition of the garage to replace with a 2- car garage and expansion of the house that includes a family room, and expansion of the kitchen. Applicants have submitted revised plans today. The applicant, Dan Brookhart, had no additional comments. McCallum asked if a current photograph of the house is available. Maharry said no, there is not one in the packet. McCallum asked for clarification of what is being proposed. Terdalkar explained, using the plan to illustrate. The plan includes expansion of the kitchen and garage, addition of a family room. The existing garage is for one car, and will be expanded to accommodate two cars. The two alternatives presented show a change on the front fa~;ade, in that extension the dining area and a front porch. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 2 Tim Weitzel noted that the exterior changes primarily involved the porch. He asked the applicant which plan he preferred. Dan Brookhart said they preferred the plans for the larger expansion, though they do not know yet if it will be financially or physically feasible. Maharry asked if the larger plan was the one originally submitted. Terdalkar said the two alternatives received on March 10, 2005 were revised versions of the original application, and the applicant is requesting approval for both plans. Gunn asked for an explanation of the existing garage. Brookhart outlined the existing garage and the proposed changes, using the diagrams. Richard Carlson said the plan effectively creates one wall with a middle entrance. Brookhart said yes. McCallum asked if the north elevation is visible from the street. Brookhart said from Sheridan, yes, but from the West side, it would be Maggard Street. Maharry asked if the Commission members need more time to review the plans, or have any additional questions for the applicant. MOTION: James Ponto moved to approve both new plans as presented in the revised drawings. Weitzel seconded. Maharry asked if there was further discussion. McCallum asked if the house is a 1950's ranch. Brookhart said yes. Maharry noted that the guidelines are flexible in regards to a non-historic structure. Weitzel asked if the guidelines apply. Maharry read from the guidelines, "it should not significantly detract from the character of the neighborhood." Carlson added, "it should not create a false historic character, and it should be compatible with the style and character of the neighborhood." He suggested that the question is whether the proposed alterations meet those guidelines. Maharry agreed that was the purview of the Commission for this project. Weitzel said the expanded house would be considerably larger than the existing house and the other houses in the neighborhood. Brookhart said he and his wife want to live on one floor. Maharry noted that the house would be larger, but not vertically. It would not dominate the neighborhood streetscape. Weitzel asked if the expanded house fits in to the existing neighborhood character. Smothers said she prefers the newer plans, as the plan included in the packet had no windows. She said that was her only concern with the original plan. Carlson added that he prefers the new roofline. McCallum agreed that the newer roofline has attractive variation. The motion carried 7-0. Brookhart left at this point. 308 S. Governor Street Terdalkar reported this house is a contributing single-family structure in the Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District. The applicant is requesting approval for alterations including replacement of the basement windows, storm door, and addition of handrails to front stairs. Aisc proposed are addition of shutters, repainting the existing siding, and replacing the fascia and soffit. Isaacson distributed photographs to help explain the proposed alteration color scheme. She said that she did not have a picture of the new storm door, but it will be the same material as the basement windows. The old door was a wooden frame with either glass or screening, which is now gone, and the door no longer fits. She added that she is unsure whether they need permission to paint or add shutters. Maharry asked Isaacson if she was familiar with the house and the current state of the house and stairs. Isaacson said the current concrete stairs are deteriorated, and her father talked to a contractor who has worked on such projects in the city. There would be no change in appearance. There was also an older railing that needs to be replaced, which would match the porch in both color and appearance. Maharry explained that the soffit is the underside of the roof overhang. He asked if the plan is to replace it as it looks now. Isaacson said the plan is not to change the appearance, just repair it. Maharry asked for confirmation that the plan is to repair it the way it looks now. Isaacson said yes. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 3 Carlson suggested that since few details were included in the application, the Commission members should specify exactly what they are approving. Maharry agreed and added that the Commission does not rule on repairs. Ponto. said that some parts of the soffit wou~d need to be replaced, as pieces are missing and would need to be replaced with material to match the existing. Smothers asked if the replacement basement windows are vinyl sliding windows. Terdalkar confirmed this. Maharry asked for confirmation that the replacement balustrades and handrails on the front porch stairs would look like the balustrade and spindles currently on the porch. Isaacson said as far as she is aware the plan is to replace the current pipe railing with a new one that matches the house. Carlson said that was stated in the renovation plan. Isaacson agreed. Maharry confirmed the plan is to replicate what is there. Carlson asked whether the plan is to re-side the house. Isaacson said they wou~d like to repaint the house and add shutters. McCallum asked if the Commission regulates shutters. Terdalkar said if the shutters were not there historically, they are not recommended. Isaacson asked if the shutters are not recommended. Weitzel said if shutters were not there originally, their addition is not recommended. Adding shutters can create a false sense of history. Maharry said that modern shutters are purely decorative, rather than serving a specific purpose. McCallum confirmed that Isaacson understood the distinction being made between not being recommended and being disallowed. Isaacson said yes. McCallum noted that a building permit is not required for the addition of shutters. Though they are not recommended, shutters could still be added if the owners so choose. Maharry agreed, saying that the purview of the Commission is for the windows, stair rails, front cement stairs, fascia, and soffit. He added that the Commission also could approve fiber cement board siding, if the applicants wanted to have that option. Maharry asked if there is a motion for those five topics. Carlson asked if the basement windows are included. Maharry said yes, or each area could have a separate vote. Carlson said the basement windows do not meet guidelines, since the foundation wall is more than 18" above grade, especially on the south side. He asked for clarification on what is included in the measurement of the foundation wall, whether it is up to the window or the entire foundation wall. Ponto said his interpretation is that it is measured where it transitions from foundation to siding. Carlson agreed, and said only one window conforms to the guideline. Isaacson asked how long the area had been designated an historic district. Weitzel said he believed since 2000. Isaacson said the windows were ordered a few years before, but were not installed. Then recently they installed them without realizing that permission was needed to replace windows in an historic district. Weitzel said it happens from time to time that people order windows without checking beforehand. It is an issue that is addressed on a case-by-case basis, whether they can be allowed or not. Maharry asked for confirmation that Carlson thinks some windows are more than 18 inches above grade. Carlson said he thinks all of the windows are more than 18 inches in height, with the possible exception of a couple on the north side. Gunn asked if there are any additional photographs of the house available. Terdalkar said no. Smothers said that there is a tradition in Iowa City that usualJy houses of the era have triple-paned windows in the basement. So even a two-pane window would be very different from what is expected. Weitzel asked about the origin of the 18 inch regulation, whether that was contained in the guidelines. Carlson said it is listed in the section under windows, page 19. Weitzel asked what the thought was behind the recommendation, noting that the owners could put three inches of dirt around the house to improve drainage, and make the grade less than 18 inches. Terdalkar said it is under the recommendation or disallowed section. But the guidelines state that an exception can be considered for basement windows where the foundation wall is less than 18 inches above grade, to allow for vinyl windows. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 4 Weitzel asked if the current grade is really known. Maharry asked what the dimensions of the windows are, noting that if they are 18 inches high, that can help with an estimate. Terdalkar said the smallest window is 18 inches in height, and the rest are 21 and 22 inches. Maharry said a motion could be made to include all aspects of the application or to review each part separately. Smothers asked when the work would be done. Isaacson said it would be done as soon as a permit is issued. Smothers asked for clarification that all of the work would be done this year. Isaacson said yes. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the replacement windows. Carlson seconded. Weitzel said either the Commission would have to go against the guidelines, or not allow the windows. Ponto said he shares Smothers' concern about the new basement windows having a two-pane appearance. Weitzel agreed that is a change in appearance. Carlson noted that vinyl windows are expressly disallowed. Weitzel said they are disallowed if the grade is less than 18 inches. Ponto added that they are not egress windows. Carlson asked if the interpretation would be different if they had been ordered before the district was designated. Maharry said that if the windows were ordered but not installed, the Commission might have recommended the applicants improve the drainage of their property by adding some dirt around the house, which would make the grade less than 18 inches. The ground slopes away from the house, improving drainage. McCallum said that if window wells were added, they would only have to be a few inches deep. Maharry said the intent would be to have a grade that is less than 18 inches. There is no style recommended at all, if it is less than 18 inches above grade, McCallum said the window wells would help hide the windows as well, along with landscaping. Gunn said increasing the grade might interfere with the door. Miklo suggested sloping the grade away from the door. Carlson noted that it is less of an issue on the north side, since it is almost at 18 inches already. Ponto asked if the motion could be amended to say that the grade should be increased such that the height is 18 inches or less. Maharry said yes, but asked if this will be enforced. Miklo said the Housing and Inspections Department could enforce it. Maharry agreed, if those steps are warranted for these windows. In his opinion, that is not warranted. Carlson said he thinks it is a noticeable feature of the house. He would vote against these windows unless the grade is less than 18 inches. Ponto said that if the grade were such that the height is greater than 18 inches, he would have to vote against it because they would not be in compliance with the guidelines. Maharry said the Commission could vote on the issue that night, one way or another. The applicant could then do alterations to the property and reapply in two weeks, if the guidelines apply to those particular windows. He does not think they would demand the windows be removed immediately. McGrath asked for clarification why Maharry is willing to make an exception to the guidelines in this case. Maharry said following the guidelines would create an economic burden to replace the windows, which outweighs the potential improvement of installing different windows. Miklo asked how this situation differs from Grant Street. Weitzel agreed there is a question of consistency. Maharry said no, these are not prominent windows in his opinion. Ponto agreed, and vinyl could be allowed for basement windows because of moisture at ground level. Gunn said that the Commission is discussing how to make the windows conform to the guidelines. Vinyl windows are allowed if the grade is less than 18 inches. Isaacson asked for confirmation that if the grade were raised, then she would reapply. Maharry said yes, if the windows are voted down at the current meeting. He added that the other option is to remove the windows from the application, and vote on everything else. Ponto asked if that is allowable. Maharry said that is up to the applicant. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 5 Isaacson asked if it is recommended to remove the windows from the application that night. Maharry said she could ask the Commission to review everything except the windows. Miklo said that the vote could be "subject to" raising the grade. Otherwise, the windows would not be in compliance. Maharry noted for the record that if the grade were not raised, then the windows would not be in compliance, and would be subject to penalty. McGrath asked for a summary of the decision. Maharry said the original motion was to approve the windows, which was then amended to be subject to raising the grade to be less than 18 inches. Carlson seconded. Maharry asked if there was further discussion. Weitzel said he would like to add the clause that if the grade is not raised, the windows are not compliant. Maharry said that could be stated in the certificate. The motion carried ?-0. Carlson said that it is difficult to evaluate the application because there are no plans showing what will be done. There are contractors' estimates, but no indication what the finished product will look like. Maharry said that for the stair rails and soffit, the plan is to construct it of wood to match the existing porch, which includes the spindles and rails. Carlson asked how the post would be constructed. Terdalkar said that information was discussed over the phone, and specific plans were not included in application. Carlson said he approves of the concept of the repairs, but would like some details. McCallum asked for confirmation that the plan is not to reside the house. Isaacson said they plan to paint the existing siding. McCallum said a ruling is not needed for paint. Maharry said the Commission could approve residing, if the applicants want to do that in the future. Gunn asked how the front stairs would be repaired. Terdalkar said there are two sets of stairs. The concrete stairs in front go only about 30-36 inch in height, and are being replaced with concrete with no change in appearance. The conversation with the applicant did not make clear if there was any plan for the wood stairs, but he thought they were going to be replaced, along with an addition of railing, which will be similar to that on the porch. A railing is not required for the concrete stairs. Maharry asked for confirmation that the front cement stairs would be replaced exactly as they are now. Isaacson said yes. Maharry said that would be ruled as 'No Material Effect', and can be approved. He added that the fascia and soffit would be repaired to look as they currently do, so that is No Material Effect and can be approved. Those do not need a full Commission review. Siding and the stair rail still need to be decided. He asked if the application could wait until a plan or drawing for the finished porch railing is submitted. Isaacson said that it could be provided. Shelley McCaffedy noted that if only $40 was budgeted for the railing, it is probably going to be a pipe. Maharry asked if a pipe railing was already there. Terda~kar said yes, but he believes that the amount of $40 is budgeted for the railing for concrete stairs. Nothing is stated in regards to the railing for the wood stairs. Gunn said the Commission could request more details or approve and cite the guidelines that need to be followed. He asked which way would be more reasonable and efficient. Maharry asked if there are specific guidelines that apply to the post. The spindle and balustrade would be restored to match the house, but what will the post look like. Terdalkar said there was no estimate included for the repair to the wooden stairs. Maharry said it would be helpful to have additional information, plans, or even a drawing of the finished product for the stairs, railing, and balustrade. Weitzel said if waiting for additional details on the stairs, the rest of the application should be cleaned up as well. Maharry said the windows have already been approved. There is No Material Effect on numbers 7 and 8. Smothers noted that a known contractor is doing the work. She said she is confident he wilt make sure the post looks appropriate. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 6 MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the fiber cement board replacement on the siding. McCallum seconded. Maharry asked for additional discussion. Carlson said he is not comfortable with approving a wholesale replacement without seeing the current material and its condition. He is concerned with preserving the original material, since the condition of the original clapboard underneath the current siding is unknown. Weitzel withdrew his motion. MOTION: Gunn moved to table the discussion and wait for more details on all points left in question. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Gunn confirmed that City Staff would be available for any further assistance, if necessary. Terdalkar confirmed this. Isaacson left at this point. 528 E College Street Terdalkar reported this is a contributing structure in the College Green Historic District. The proposal includes restoration of a porch and shed, after they were demolished without the applicants' knowledge or consent. Maharry asked if the applicants have any comments. McCafferty said there are two changes to the porch from the previous plan. The changes were originally ruled as No Material Effect, as they were to be repaired. The porch was demolished and removed while the applicants were out of town, but several components were saved, such as the columns. However, they would now like to reduce the area of the shed to allow room for the A/C condenser. They would also prefer not to construct the balustrade. It is not required by code, and it appeared not to be original to the porch. Weitzel asked for confirmation that the shed is the structure at the nodh end of the porch. McCafferty said yes. It was also demolished, but they do have enough clapboards and the door to rebuild it. A door will be added to the west side, so the shed can be a little larger. The additional door will allow the A/C condenser to be serviced. Weitzel asked about the spacing of the columns. McCafferty said the columns will be closer together than on the original porch, but it will not be visually noticeable. Weitzel asked for confirmation that it will match the original materials. McCafferty said yes. Ponto asked if the proposal included a window in the shed. McCafferty said no. Kevin Burford said the shed is small and a window would not be very functional. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve the proposal as written. Weitzel seconded. Maharry asked if there were any additional questions for the applicants, or discussion. Weitzel said the changes are reasonable. McCallum said the new plans look nice. Burford said that all other inspections have been passed, so this is the last step to gain occupancy. The motion carried 7-0. He noted that he had considered ruling the project as No Material Effect, but he was not completely comfortable with that and therefore brought it before the Commission. 529 Brown Street · Terdalkar reported that the structure is a key-contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. Proposed alterations include repair to the foundation for the kitchen, replacement of three windows on the south side, and installation of two new basement windows. Also, the proposal includes a stair replacement. Maharry asked if the applicants had any additional comments or details. Stanier said no; everything was in the application packet. Maharry asked if the Commission had questions for the applicants. If not, he asked if there was a motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 7 MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the proposal as written. Ponto seconded. Maharry asked if there was any further discussion. He noted that the Commission has allowed alteration to windows in the past, to accommodate specialty kitchens. Weitzel added that they currently do not match anyway. Carlson said it is difficult to see the door in the foundation, but it is not significant. The motion carried 7-0. 2. Approval of the February 10, 2005 and February 15, 2005 Minutes: Maharry asked if there were any changes for the February 10 Minutes. Smothers requested a change to page 9, "Smothers said this structure is a classic Iowa barn." She asked that it be changed to more accurately reflect the intent of the statement. She asked that it be changed to, "Smothers said that she could appreciate their renderings. However, she did not think they looked like they belonged in Iowa." Carlson said that on page 7 after the second paragraph, the Minutes should say that Pardekooper left the room. MOTION: Weitzel moved to accept the February 10, 2005 Minutes as amended. Carlson seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Maharry asked if there were any changes for the February 15 Minutes. No changes were noted. MOTION: Carlson moved to accept the February 15, 2005 Minutes as written. Weitzel second. The motion carried 7-0. Discussion with Kerry McGrath, SHSI Local Government Coordinator Maharry welcomed McGrath to the meeting. McGrath said one reason she attended was to see how the meetings are run. She said she would send feedback and suggestions on that topic via email. She said also that her office does have a number of items that could be useful, such as a video from Maryland about due process. Her office also has videos that talk about design issues, which could be used for educational programming. McGrath said the other reason she attended the meeting was to gather feedback on the lessons the Commission members learned from the events surrounding the designation of the Gilbert-Linn District. McGrath asked for comments regarding the process and controversy, and suggested going around the table and giving everyone a chance to respond. Gunn asked for clarification of what McGrath wants to know. McGrath said another way to view it is to ask what new wisdom people have gained from the experience. McGrath asked if the Commission members would be comfortable with having her offer an opinion. Maharry said yes. Weitzel said there was an uphill struggle with education, especially in educating landlords who owned residential structures, about considering themselves part of the community and not just extracting money from it. The landlords needed to consider the bigger picture, and also consider that it is better for their tenants to live in an attractive building. That message never sank in. McCallum said the Commission tried to anticipate the objections by excluding commercial properties, from prior experience~ There is a lot of misperception regarding the market. He said probably the major obstacle to the nomination was that the area has less residential ownership. Maharry invited comments from the audience. McCafferty said that the Commission had great success with Longfellow and other areas, and took Northside for granted. Their guard was down in terms of education and addressing property rights concerns. A lot more preliminary education was needed. Burford added that there was a long history of dissension in the area on record that was not resolved or mitigated. That dissension was used to polarize the community, and made negotiation efforts difficult. The whole concept of being historic and the reasonable idea of preservation in the community got lost, and the issue boiled down to property rights versus community. She noted that it is hard to convince people to respect history. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 8 Maharry said arguments were made for preservation, such as the economic benefits of preservation and the increase of property values, but those issues did not matter to the ones with the votes. It came down to property rights issues. Maharry said the Commission could have given more information about the economic benefits, but preservation is contrary to the goal of extracting profit from a rental property by maintaining it as little as possible. He added that he does not know if even offering economic incentives above their current profit would change that, since it is a question of property rights. The Council supported property rights, and that presented a difficulty. The requirement for a super majority was also an issue; since a majority was in favor of preservation, but only 20% had to be in opposition to overturn it. Maharry noted that the neighbors are considering designation of a much smaller district in the future, with lower landlord occupancy. He added that one argument was that properties had been preserved already for 100 years, so why is a change needed. However, two historic properties are already endangered or demolished, in the two months since the decision was reached. Ponto said part of the problem seemed to be that the Council heard all the intense opposition first, so the arguments in support of creating the district seemed like a reaction. If the cases had been presented the other way around, perhaps the outcome would have been different. There were a lot of advocates for the creation of the district. Burford said that Friends of Historic Preservation did make an effort to reach out and educate the community in the summer. They had an historian come and speak to the neighbors about the histories of their homes, and organized a walking tour of the area. Maharry said that opponents to the designation kept combining the local and the national districts. Both the Council and the media in turn supported that view, and the perception was that since there was a possible mix-up with one, the whole nomination was flawed. Maharry asked what the general ratio of staff to the number of properties under their purview is for other commissions in Iowa. Iowa City has one half time position for -1100 structures. McGrath said that Iowa City has the largest number of locally designated structures. She said that there are no staff in other Iowa programs that are fully devoted to preservation. She noted that Iowa City is a very successful program. McGrath noted that McCafferty had asked for feedback on a national listserve regarding how cities handle staffing for support of large numbers of properties. McCafferty said she was not able to analyze the results too closely, but part of the issue is comparing similar programs. Iowa City's staff person provides a lot of technical and design assistance that may not be offered in other programs. McGrath said that it would be helpful to make sure applications are complete and given to the Commission members early enough to review before the meeting. That would help the Commission protect itself, and is very important for the applications. Maharry noted that Terdalkar is new to his position, so is still learning. McGrath agreed, and noted how important it is to have the tangible photographs and drawings. It is also important to be very clear and specific about what is expected for the record when things are approved, so there is no doubt what is involved and how things should proceed. McGrath said that she looked at the objections and the meeting transcript, and it seemed like at some point everyone stopped listening to each other. That included her office. She said her office should have supported the decision for a revised nomination. She added that the feeling was that allowing a public hearing in August was a special case. Her office was naYve not to expect a revised nomination. Everyone learned a lot. The National Register letter for the appeal remanded the nomination back to the state for reconsideration, because there were some items missing from the appeal. McGrath noted that in the objections the point was made that the area around Mercy Hospital was zoned commercial specifically to encourage medical center development. She asked if that was true. Miklo agreed that was the intent in the late 1970's, though that specific goal was not clearly documented. The plan was to convert the existing houses north of Mercy Hospital into medical offices, which did happen to a few of them. The idea was to allow reuse of the buildings, not necessarily to demolish them to make room for new development. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 9 McGrath said that the point on the commercial zoning near Mercy Hospital was not addressed early on, and the possible interpretation that the nomination could be viewed as contrary to the intent of the zoning. Weitzel said that point was presented in some of the hearings in a very hostile manner. He said that was the first time he had heard about the zoning. McGrath said it is a cardinal rule when pursuing historic designation or conservation districts, to investigate current zoning. Maharry asked if that would be local or national. McGrath said there is no national zoning. Maharry agreed, and noted that what happened was a smaller district was created because of the zoning. Maharry said the National District only determines if it is historic, and does not take into account what Mercy, for example, would do with the properties. McGrath agreed, adding that though the Commission knows that, public perception is that if it is nationally listed, it will automatically become either a conservation or a local historic district. This argues for sensitivity to zoning, and knowing the nuances. Maharry said an architectural historian was hired to create a district. If she did not take zoning around Mercy into account when creating the district, future people need to be informed about that issue. McGrath agreed that consultants should be made aware of zoning issue, when doing National Register districts. Burford said there is an immediate power to a negative idea, whereas a positive idea requires much more effort. The individual leading the opposition misrepresented the value to the commercial properties and owners regarding the National Register. Education requires massive effort in the community. Burford added that there were a large number of people in the community as a whole who supported preservation. However, they were not given any rights in this situation. The response did not leave room for community. Maharry said that part of the issue was due process, and the fact that the Commission should be neutral until a vote is taken. It is not the Commission's place to lobby, but to only take evidence into consideration and decide if designation of a local historic district is in the best interests of the City. However, the opposition has no such restriction. Miklo suggested that at the beginning of the process, sending out a clear and informative letter might have flushed out the opposition earlier, and given time to plan a counter to his tactics. That is something to consider for future nominations. McCafferty said it is relative to the zoning issue, and the perception the City Council has of the district. The College Hill District had very similar components, but played out very differently. The perception was that there was overwhelming support for designation of College Hill, but in reality the people who were opposed had been satisfied. Gunn said that while historic preservation has been successful in the past, it has not been easy. There is a new district that was not there before, with an expanded Brown Street national and local district. Gilbert- Linn is a setback, but there were some gains. That is a tough neighborhood, and more preservation needs to be done. The question is what the Commission is working on now. McGrath said the Commission is at this point in a great position to reduce designation and take action in education. That would include distribution of clarifying materials and gathering friends and volunteers. Educational activities can be more fun for the public, and there is a range of activities that could be organized. She suggested looking into activities that involve children, such as classroom activities, as a way to reach their parents. When children are involved, the parents were also active and involved. For example, children in Mt. Vernon do a project where they researched their own house history, which got parents interested in historic preservation. McCafferty said the Commission has talked about educational initiatives, such as brochures and videos, and updating the website. There are some things happening in the schools as well. However, there is no one to do it. Someone is needed either to plan or coordinate the activities, or to energize and coordinate the volunteers. McGrath suggested using college students and volunteers, and offered to assist. She added that the Iowa Community Cultural Grant and National Trust Grants are available to help fund these things, so there is money available. Maharry noted that homeowners are not generally the issue in regards to education about historic preservation. The issue is trying to change the opinions of property owners who do not live in the homes. McCafferty said that there were a number of homeowners in Goosetown that had some misconceptions, so it is not solely a question of owner occupied versus rental properties. Maharry said that Goosetown Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 10, 2005 Page 10 was largely a question of economics. If restoration does not cost more than renovation, then they would be convinced. However, landlords are different, because they do not want to put any money into their properties, and generally do not see value in preservation. McCallum asked if there are any good zoning models available to encourage preservation, incentives. He asked if there are any cities that have programs doing things right, to use as an example or for ideas. McGrath said that Dubuque is one city to look at in Iowa. Nationally, Raleigh, NC is a very successful program, though they have far stricter guidelines. Kalamazoo, MI has a strong staff person and has done some good things. She noted, however, that elements of the different programs would need to be evaluated, picking out the good aspects. McGrath offered additional suggestions, such as thinking about different kinds of incentives and what would be feasible. Also, creating committees of volunteers chaired by Commission members might be helpful. They can work on different issues. Friends of Historic Preservation is doing good work. Part of success lies with playing to people's interests. McGrath said that Iowa City is a model program that has accomplished a lot. She said she went through the transcripts of the recent meetings to try to come up with educational approaches to some of the objections made in the meetings. She said she would email her suggestions. She recommended putting the next grant to an educational project and let designation activities rest. Staying on neutral ground may help the controversy settle. Weitzel asked where landlords fall on that spectrum. McGrath suggested that landlords also said things that could be made educational. McGrath suggested doing an economic impact study. Maharry said one was done and given to the parties involved. McCafferty said that was part of a grant. McGrath said it should be a formal study that would be useful especially in terms of evaluating property values, tourism, and there is some consideration of job creation. Across the board, locally designated districts are winners, according to these reports. Maharry said that was done and given to the Council. Gunn noted that the majority supported the nomination. McGrath reiterated that preservation takes time and persistence, but that this event was a small setback. The nomination could be redone. Maharry said it would be reevaluated later in the year. Burford asked how McGrath would overcome the objections of the other extremes of opinion that were being expressed in the meetings. McGrath said she would have to reread the minutes. She added that though the Council voted against the nomination, most members felt compelled to go on record in support of preservation. McGrath suggested having the Commission members meet with Council members, just one on one, to discuss preservation and its goals, as well as to gain some resolution to the events. Listen to what they are saying, hear the misunderstandings and misconceptions, and work on education. McGrath agreed that the decision ultimately is political. She said she would send the comments, and that she would back the Commission in terms of an economic impact study and an array of educational things. Maharry thanked McGrath for coming to the meeting, and said it was good timing since there will be new Commission members at the next meeting. Adiournment MOTION: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Smothers seconded. The motion carried ?-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. iistoric Preservation Commission Minutes ~larch 10, 2005 'age 11 Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 118 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23 7/14 7/28 8/11 8/25 9/8 10113 11110 R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O O M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X M. Maharry 3/29105 X X X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O J. Ponto 3/29~07 X X X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E -- Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting .... = Not a Member MINUTES DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matthew Pacha, Jerry Raaz, Phil Reisetter, Sarah Walz, John Westefeld STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Terry Robinson FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Pacha, seconded by Westefeld, to approve the February 16~ 2005 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Walz~ Seconded by Westefeld that the City purchase the McCollister Property (adiacent to Sand Hill). Unanimous. INTRODUCTIONS Gustaveson welcomed Jerry Raaz to the commission; introductions were made. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. DISCUSSION OF BASEBALL FACILITIES; REQUESTS FOR USE OF SAME Trueblood has received two requests for multiple uses of our baseball facilities this 'summer. The Recreation Division is expecting an increase in requests this year as Coralville has temporarily eliminated their facilities due to the construction of the new hotel. Coralville anticipates having a new softball complex available for use in spring/summer of 2006. Trueblood named several organizations that have priority use of the fields at this time. Parks and Recreation staff will be meeting with Iowa City Boys Baseball and Girls Softball to encourage them to change their scheduling routines which should allow us to accommodate more requests and allow for more efficient use of our ball field maintenance staff. Trueblood reported that an adult baseball team requested use of Mercer Field #1 every Sunday and were informed that. we would not be able to accommodate their request as this would then utilize this field seven days a week. The fields need to have at least one day for watering, maintenance and rest. Staff is also concerned that the field is too small to accommodate adult baseball. No action is needed from the Commission at this time. Pacha praised Ball Field Maintenance staff for their continued excellence in maintaining the Iowa City fields. Pacha asked if more staff was needed to accommodate these requests. Robinson announced he and his staff are looking at shuffling hours to efficiently maintain the fields in hopes of lessening the need for overtime. Parks and Recreation Commission March 9, 2005 Page 2 of 5 REVIEW OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Trueblood reminded Commission of memo from City Council asking the Commission to discuss the possibility of some fundraising efforts to help in funding some of the smaller project requests. Trueblood reemphasized his concerns about this approach from the standpoint of staff time. He highlighted a couple of projects that may be candidates for corporate funding. 1) Sand Lake Trail located behind Hills Bank. Perhaps Hills Bank may be interested in becoming involved with this project. 2) Festival Stage improvement--Riverside Theatre may be willing to help find funding for this project. Gustaveson stated that there might be a need for a professional fundraiser as this is beyond our ability. He likes the idea of contacting Hills Bank for their support. He also mentioned that Riverside Theatre has their own fundraising capacity and thought perhaps we could "piggyback" with them. However, Gustaveson did mention that many businesses have been "tapped out" when it comes to funds available for projects. Walz asked if Johnson County has a foundation in existence to assist with fundraising efforts. Trueblood indicated his understanding is that this organization does not raise the funds but serves a holding and disbursement function. Reisetter supported the idea of joining forces with surrounding communities and review the possibilities of hiring a professional fundraiser. Trueblood explained the Parks and Recreation Foundation to new members. Also suggested that it may be necessary for the Foundation to take a more aggressive role in fundraising, but again, raises concerns of the time required by its volunteers. O'Leary suggested that perhaps we contact some of the service organizations in the area. As President of the Optimist Club, he stated that they are often looking for causes to donate money. O'Leary will speak to the group about donating money to a specific project. Raaz asked about grant opportunities. Trueblood stated that there are not many grant opportunities for these types of projects, indicating that the most readily available grants are for trails and protection of natural areas. Trueblood will draft a memo to City Council for the Commission to review at April meeting PURCHASE OF LAND FROM IOWA NATURAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Trueblood discussed the possible purchase of land from the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation that is located adjacent to Sand Hill (McCollister Property). He asked for a recommendation from the Commission regarding acquisition of this property at a price of $22,000. Klink advised that she enthusiastically supports this purchase. She feels it is a good long-range investment and a great bargain. Moved by Walz~ Seconded by Westefeld that the City purchase the McCollister Property (adjacent to Sand Hill). Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission March 9, 2005 Page 3 of 5 STATUE IN CITY PARK Gustaveson reviewed a request from Bruce Titus, General Manager of Carlos O'Kelly's. Mr. Titus is requesting that the Commission allow him to erect a statue, at no cost to the City, in one of the Iowa City parks in memory of children who have lost their lives. Trueblood stated that these types of requests are usually handled within the Parks and Recreation Department, however, one of the fundraisers, wanting to avoid any possible controversy, asked the City Attorney if this would be viewed as a religious symbol. It is an angel with an inscription reading "Our little angel." Klink feels that city parks are not the appropriate location for a statue of this nature. She suggested that they donate an item that is more park-related such as a tree or a park bench. Raaz asked commission and staff if there are any guidelines in place for this type of request. Trueblood stated that the Parks and Recreation Department does not have a written policy to cover all possible situations. Reisetter brought up two items of concern regarding this type of request. 1) The Supreme Courts pending rule on weather it is appropriate for governments to erect religious statues, etc., in public places. 2) If the Supreme Court does make such a ruling, that the commission then needs to see a prototype to assure that it is aesthetically pleasing. Loomer asked if it would be possible for them to place such a statue in Oakland Cemetery. Trueblood expressed Titus' wish to place it in a park as it is a celebration of life, feeling that placing it in a cemetery would make give it more of a grave stone appearance. Gustaveson expressed that he feels it is important for families and friends of these victims to have a central location that they may go to memorialize their loved ones. He feels it is somewhat brazen and callous for the Commission to say no to such a request. O'Leary is in agreement with Gustaveson stating that he would not want the Commission to have to say no to such a simple request. He does not see such a statue as being abrasive or offensive to anyone. Reisetter reiterated his desire to have standards set for this type of request. Raaz stated that such a statue is worthy of consideration by the Commission, however, there is a need to create some guidelines. Perhaps include in these guidelines a statement saying that a tree or bench would be no problem but that other requests beyond that would be discussed on a case to case basis. Trueblood will meet with Mr. Titus to see if he would be willing to look at other options. Trueblood will also ask the City Attorney to provide something in writing that he can share at the next Commission meeting. Commission will table this item at this time. COMMISSION TIME Klink expressed her gratification in seeing projects come to fruition, such as the bridge in Willow Creek West, Benton Hill Park, etc. Parks and Recreation Commission March 9, 2005 Page 4 of 5 O'Leary spoke on behalf of John Nolan who wanted him to express his gratitude for the great job that the Forestry Division has done adding trees to the College and Burlington Street areas. Westefeld expressed thanks to Mike Moran regarding the Alliance Soccer Club Tournament that was held at Mercer Park Aquatic Center/Scanlon Gymnasium the previous weekend. There were approximately 92 teams that played in the tournament. Westefeld said that it was a great job done by the Recreation staff. CHAIR'S REPORT No report DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood discussed status of Parks and Recreation Master Plan. He hopes to have a draft or request for proposal by the next meeting to present to the Commission. He talked with the Parks and Recreation Director of Coralville about the possibility of having a consultant come in and do a master plan for both Iowa City and Coralville at the same time, therefore being more economically efficient. Terry will continue speaking with her about this possibility. P1N Grant summary/proposal distributed for review. Trueblood stated he is not looking for official comments from the Commission until the Neighborhood Council meets later this month. Commission just asked to review and call Trueblood with questions. Movement has begun towards looking at pedestrian bridge at the Rocky Shore Peninsula. Four possible locations are being reviewed and preliminary cost estimates being processed. Some progress with Sand Hill. Met with Driftless Land Stewardship, company out of southwestern Wisconsin, who has submitted a proposal for a management plan and also some preliminary cost estimates for removal of the locus trees. The Cemetery is going through a process to computerize all records. The City Clerks Office is also involved. This system will allow people to print maps of grave locations, and will make the record keeping much more streamlined. It is proving to be a very time consuming process. Trueblood announced the addition of two new staff members to the Parks and Recreation Department. Jessica Hamer has replaced Tammy Neumann as the Office Coordinator of the Recreation Division. Jamie Jenn has filled a 5/8 vacancy in the City Hall Maintenance Division. Trueblood announced that Moran, Robinson and himself will be out of the office March 20-23, 2005 for a conference. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Walz, seconded by Raaz to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Parks and Recreation Commission March 9, 2005 Page 5 of 5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1/12 2/16 3/9 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/19 12/14 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 NM X X Judith Klink 1/1/07 NM X X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 NM X X Ryan O'Leary 1/1/06 NM X X Matt Pacha 1/1/05 NM X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 ...... X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 NM X X Sarah Walz 1/1/07 NM X X John Westefeld 1/1/06 NM X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum .... Not a Member