The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-08-11 Info Packet~ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org August 11,2005 AUGUST 15 WORK SESSION ITEMS IP1 City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 Memorandum from the City Manager: Pending Items IP3 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Eric Goers - New Assistant City A~torney IP4 Memorandum from the Management Analyst: Parking Impact Fee - Annual Report IP5 Schedule of Outstanding Debt June 30, 2005 IP6 Memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Director: Angel Statue in City Park IP7 Building Permit Information July 2005 IP8 Agenda: August 15, 2005 City Council Economic Development Committee IP9 Agenda Packet for: August 18 PATV Board of Directors Meeting Memorandum from City Clerk: Tentative Schedule of 2005 Council Meetings PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES IP10 Iowa City/Coralville Animal Care and Adoption Center Advisory Board: May 25, 2005 IPll Board of Adjustment: July 13, 2005 IP12 Planning and Zoning Commission: July 21, 2005 IP13 Historic Preservation Commission: August 2, 2005 IP14 Airport Commission: August 8, 2005 IP15 Telecommunications Commission: July 25, 2005 ~ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET (~ITY OF IOWA (~ITY www.icgov.org August 11,2005 AUGUST 15 WORK SESSION ITEMS IP1 City Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 Memorandum m the City Manager: Pending Items MISCELLANEOUS ITEM~ IP3 Memorandum from the Attorney: Eric Goers - New ,~ 'Attorney IP4 Memorandum from the ement Analyst: Parking ~- Annual Report IP5 Schedule of Outstanding une 30, 2005 IP6 Memorandum from the Parks and Angel Statue in City Park IP7 Building Permit Information Jul IP8 Agenda: August 15, 2005 City Council Development Committee IP9 Agenda Packet for: August 18 PATV )irectors Meeting PRELl MINUTES IP10 Iowa City/Coralville Animal Care a~ Adoption Advisory Board: May 25, 2005 IPll Board of Adjustment: July 13, 2( IP12 Planning and Zoning Commis July 21,2005 IP13 Historic Preservation Comr August 2, 2005 IP14 Airport Commission: Au, 8, 2005 IP15 Telecommunications July 25, 2005 ~ City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas Au~ ~, 200~ www.icgov.org · MONDAY, AUGUST 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Formal Council Meeting Executive Session (Land Acquisition) Separate Agenda Posted Council Work Session · Planning and Zoning Items · Council Appointments · Agenda Items · Council Time · Schedule of Future Pending Items · TUESDAY, AUGUST 16 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting I TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS · MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall Labor Day - City Offices Closed · TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall TBD Special Council Work Session Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, OCTOBER 3 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session e TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, OCTOBER 17 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19 North Liberty TBA Joint Meeting Date: August 10, 2005 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Pending Items Attached is a proposed schedule/calendar for review of the current Work Session Discussion Items. I tried to group relevant issues on the same evening. Also, I would like to note the Development Code will likely require several meetings and that review may need to be done on off Mondays. We are awaiting Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations as to how they would like to present this issue to you. Work Session Discussion Items - as of 8/1/05 1. Timeline on North Side Fire Station - CM to provide memo 2. Funding priorities for the next budget - September 2005 3. Historic Preservation - Council to identify specific concerns 4. Alcohol Meeting with University Senior Staffer 5. Budget (September) Recycling Coordinator 6. CIP reviews 7. Restroom-Festival Stage 8. Use of private donations/naming of capital facilities 9. Scattered Site Housing Report Development of affordable housing (and purchase, how to make easier) 10. Development Code - recommendations from P&Z around May 1 (joint meeting) Meeting with Planning & Zoning on philosophies for zoning/City Codes 11. Downtown Loading Zones (8/1 work session) 12. Goal Session (after November election) 13. City Assessor (possible joint with County) 14. Survey employees on improvements/changes within organization (prior to goal session) 15. Parks & Recreation fundraising/sponsorship of projects 16. Transit Discussion 17. Board and Commission make-up and process 18. Street Naming 19. Pools (slides, seniors ramp in) -Refer to Parks & Rec. Commission 20. Fall meeting with area legislators 21. Court Street Traffic Calming (monitor and report back) 22. Sidewalk repair program 23. Make all alleys private 24. WiFi (Economic Development) 25. Workforce Development 26. Old Bus Depot U:worksessiondiscussionitems805.doc WORK SESSION DISCUSSION ITEMS PROPOSED SCHEDULE Tuesday, August 16 Council Agenda Work Session Discussion Item #11 - Downtown Loading Zones Included on the August 16 Council Agenda is an ordinance amending the "Fees, rates, violations" etc. to address new regulations for loading zone enforcement. Tuesday, September 6 - work session preceding regular Council meeting Work Session Discussion Items #1 North Side Fire Station - Report from City Manager #2 Funding priorities for the next Budget - Council provides direction #5 Recycling Coordinator #6 ClP reviews - Council provides direction; suggest separate work session discussion of capital projects #7 Restroom - Festival Stage - City Manager update #16 Transit discussion - Council provides direction. Monday, September 19 - Continue discussion of Budget priorities and review of capital projects, notably Council review of unfunded projects (found in Budget document) Monday, October 3 - work session Work Session Discussion Items #3 Historic preservation - Council to identify specific concerns #17 Board and Commission makeup and process #18 Street naming #22 Sidewalk repair program #23 Make all alleys private #26 Old Bus Depot Monday, October 17 -work session Work Session Discussion Items #8 Use of private donations/naming capital facilities #13 City Assessor (possible joint with County) #15 Parks and Recreation Fundraising/sponsorship of projects Meetings to be scheduled with others Work Session Discussion Items #4 Alcohol meeting with University Senior Staff #9 Scattered Site Housing Report - awaiting their recommendations #10 Development Code Planning and Zoning Commission working through recommendations. Will approach Council with a suggested schedule #12 Goal Session - after November elections #20 Fall meeting with area legislators - will contact State legislators for Nov/Dec meeting dates Pendin.q Work Session Discussion Items #14 Employee survey #19 Pools (slides, ramps) - scheduled for August 17 Parks & Recreation Commission agenda #21 Court Street Traffic Calming - follow-up reports being prepared #24 Wi Fi - Schedule with Economic Development Committee #25 Workforce Development - Schedule with Economic Development Committee Mgr\wrksessitms8-10.doc Date: August 2, 2005 To: City Council Department Directors Division Heads ~ From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Eric Goers - New Assistant City Attorney I am pleased to report that I have hired Eric Goers to fill the vacant' position of Assistant City Attorney in my office. Eric received his J.D. from the University of Iowa in 1997 and since that time has been the Assistant County Attorney in the Washington County Attorney's Office. In that position he has handled many criminal jury trials as well as advised and represented elected County officials and department heads in civil matters. Eric will assist in representing the City in Magistrates Court and will handle a significant amount of civil litigation as his predecessor was doing. I have not yet finalized the other assignments. As soon as I do, I will send out a revised memo with the primary assignments for each of the attorneys in my office. Eric's first day will be September 7, 2005. We look forward to having him. eleanor/mem/goers.doc Date: August 5, 2005 ~ To: City Council CITY OF IOWA CITY Stephen Atkins, City Manager 4 I 0 East Washington Street Kevin O'Malley, Director of Finance ~owa City. Iowa 52240- 1826 (319) 356-5000 From: Leigh Lewis, Management Analyst (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Re: Parking Impact Fee - Annual Report City code section 14-9A outlines expenditure and refunding requirements for parking impact fees assessed on developments in the Near Southside Neighborhood. A five-year spending requirement states that "funds not expended or which remain unencumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following five (5) years from the date of the final impact fee payment" shall be considered refundable to individual developers upon written request - if received within 180 calendar days of the end of the five years. (Section 14-9A, Ord. No. 97-3806). The attached spreadsheet provides an accounting of the Parking Impact Restricted Fund from its inception in FY1994 thru June 30, 2005. This information shows what fees have been collected, calculates the five-year deadline for use of these funds (based on the final payment date), and makes application of purchases made to date in order to determine future spending requirements. The Parking Impact Restricted Fund balance is $54,190.95 thru June 30, 2005. There are no spending requirements at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Karin Franklin Joe Fowler Mitch Behr Parking Impact Restricted Fund Use of Funds thru June 30, 2005 In View of the Five-Year Rule Per Iowa City Code section14-9A-9A, Parking Impact Fees assessed on developments in the Near Southside Neighborhood must be used for 'acquisition and/or construction of' parking facilities in the Near Southside area by the end of the quarter immediatley following five years from receipt. If not utiltized within this time frame, fees are refundable to individual developers upon written request. The following information applies expenditures from the Parking Impact Restricted Fund to fee payments in order to determine if this five-year spending requirement is being appropriately met. Receipts: Expenditures: 02/07/94 Carlson, McClure & McWilliams (2,500.00) Appraisal Services 07/15/94 Rich & Associates-Appraisal (4,579.87) 09/01/95 Hertz Appraisal Services (2,500.00) 08/31/96 Rich &Assoc- Newramp (2,363.50) 06/30/97 510 S. Capitol Property (88,686.80) Southtown Properties 08/04/93 09/30/98 136,000.00 136,000.00 (Breese Belle Project) 07/01/97 Johnson County Recorder (143.20) H & L Apartments 08/24/93 09~30~98 8,000.00 8,000.00 09/30/97 Johnson County Recorder (41.00) Fitzpatdcks 04/18/94 06/30/99 12,000.00 12,000.00 10/01/97 Johnson County Recorder (17.00) Kidwell-219 Harrison (1 of 3) 08/01/95 09/30/00 8,000.00 8,000.00 10/03/97 Jacobsen, Glenn D & Pric (103,773.92) Clark-Burlington St. 02/23/96 03/31/01 22,823.51 22,823.51 04/10/98 Telephone Charges (0.67) Kidwell-219 Harrison (2 of 3) 08/02/96 09/30/01 8,000.00 8,000.00 03/04/99 Telephone Charges (0.07) Kidwell-517 S. Linn (1 of 3) 10/10/96 12/31/01 22,824.37 10,782.52 12,041.85 05t21t99 Iowa Realty Trust ~,1,000~00) Revenue use through June 30, 1999: 205,606.03 Total Expenditures thru June 30, 1999: (205,606,03) Balance from 6130199:Kidwell/517 S. Linn (1/3) 10/10/96 12/31/01 12,041.85 12,041.85 Hodge Construction 600 Capitol 10/24/96 12/31/01 45,648.75 45,648.75 Kidwell-219 Harrison (3 of 3) 08/21/97 09/30/02 8,000.00 8,000.00 07/29/99 Iowa Realty Trust Account Kidwell-517 S. Linn (2 of 3) 11/24/97 12/31/02 22,824.37 22,824.37 (Land Acquisition) (128,785.09) Hodge Construction 600 Capitol (2/3) 03/31/98 03/31/03 45,648.75 40,270.12 5,378.63 Revenue use through June 30, 2000: 334,391.12 Total Expenditures thru June 30, 2000: (334,391.12) - Page 1 of 3 - Parking Impact Restricted Fund Use of Funds thru June 30, 2005 In View of the Five-Year Rule Receipts: Expenditures: Balance from 6/30/00: Hodge / 600 Capitaol (2/3) 03/31/98 03/31/03 5,378.63 5,378.63 09/15/00 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax @504 S.Capitol St. (2,892.00) 10/01/00 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@ 510 S.Capitol (2.936.00) 633 Partners-509 S. Linn-Jim Clark (1/3) 06/03/98 06/30/05' 1,506.52 449.37 1,057.15 & 7 Harrison Revenue use through June 30, 2001: 340,219.12 Total Expenditures thru June 30, 2001: (340,219.12) Balance from 6/30/01:633 Partners-509 S. Linn-Jir 06/03/98 06/30/05* 1,057.15 1,057.15 09/15/01 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@504 S.Capitol St. (3,294.00) 09/15/01 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@510 S.Capitol St. (1,310.00) Kidwell-517 S. Linn (3/3) 11/13/98 12/31/03 22,824.38 5,220.85 17,603.53 09/15/01 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@ 7 Harrison St. (1,674.00) Revenue use through June 30, 2002: 346,497.12 Total Expenditures thru June 30, 2002: {346,497.12) Balance from 6~30~02:Kidwell-517 S. Linn (2/3) 11/13/98 12/31/03 17,603.53 6,782.00 10,821.53 09/15/02 Jo. Co. Prop. Tax@ 504 S.Capitol St. (3,510.00) 09/15/02 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@ 510 S.Capitol St. (1,540.00) 09/15/02 Jo. Co. Prop. Tax@ 7 Harrison St. (1,732.00) Revenue use through June 30, 2003: 353,279.12 Total Expenditures thru June 30, 2003: (353,279.12) Balance from 6/30/03:Kidwell-517 S. Linn (2/3) 11/13/98 12/31/03 10,821.53 10,821.53 08/15/03 Jo. Co. Prop. Tax@ 504 S.Capitol St. (3,740~00) 08/15/03 Jo. Co. Prop. Tax@ 510 S.Capitol St. (1,594~00) Clark-Burlington St. (2/3) 03/04/99 03/31/04 22,823.51 22,823.51 08/15/03 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@ 7 Harrison St. (1,794.00) Hodge Construction 600 Capitol (3/3) 04/06/99 06/30/04 45,648.74 45,648.74 03/30/04 Transfer to CIP#36960 (300,000.00) 633 Partners-509 S. Linn-Jim Clark (2/3) 05/24/99 06/30/05' 1,506.52 1,506.52 633 Partners-509 S. Linn-Jim Clark (3/3) 05/24/00 06/30/05' 1,506.52 1,506.52 Grandview Court Apts. (1/3) 08/21/00 09/30/07' 82,498.35 82,498.35 College Town Partner - Clark (1/3) 10/25/00 12/31/07' 7,932.50 7,932.50 Grandview Court Apts. (2/3) 08/21/01 09/30/07' 82,498.35 82,498.35 College Town Partner - Clark (2/3) 11/01/01 12/31/07' 7,932.50 7,932.50 Grandview Court Apts. (3/3) 08/20/02 09/30/07' 82,498.34 43,959.48 38,538.86 Revenue use through June 30, 2004: 660,407.12 Total Expenditures thru June 30, 2004: (660,407.12) - Page 2 of 3 - Parking Impact Restricted Fund Use of Funds thru June 30, 2005 In View of the Five-Year Rule Receipts: Expenditures: Balance from 6/30/04: Grandview Court Apts. (3/3) 08/20/02 09/30/07' 38,538.86 38,538.86 College Town Partner- Clark (3/3) 10/30/02 12/31/07' 7,932.50 7,932.50 09/08/04 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@ 504 S.Capitol St. {'3,952.00) Clark-Burlington St. (3/3) 02/12/03 3/31/08' 22,823.51 22,823.51 09/08/04 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@ 510 S.Capitol St. (1,544.00) 400 South Dubuque St. (1/3) 10/21/03 n/a 24,800.48 24,800.48 09/08/04 Jo. Co. Prop.Tax@ 7 Harrison St~ (1,724.00) 512 South Dubuque St. (1/3) 01/12/04 n/a 21,257.56 13,124.65 8,132.91 06/30/05 Transfer to CIP#36960 (100,000.00) 400 South Dubuque St. (2/3) 11/12/04 n/a 24,800.48 24,800.48 512 South Dubuque St. (2/3) 01/14/05 n/a 21,257.56 21,257.56 Total revenue from Parking Impact Fees thru June 30, 2005: 821,818.07 767,627.12 54,190.95 Total Expenditures thru June 30, 2005: (767,627.12) * Ordinance number 97-3806 amended the language of Section 14-9A, specifying that funds which remain unencumbered "following five years from the date of the final impact fee payment..." be subject to refunding; inserting the word 'final'. This understanding has been applied to fee payments initiated after the ordinance was signed on 08/26/97. - Page 3 of 3 - City of Iowa City Schedule of Outstanding Debt As of June 30, 2005 This page intentionally left blank. DATE: August 5, 2005 . ~ ~'-~ =~m,,~ _,~ TO: City Council ~~~ ~,,- City Manager ~ FROM: Kevin O'Malley, Director of Finance Leigh Lewis, Management Analyst C I t y o f I o w a C i t y RE: Outstanding Debt Schedule Attached you will find several schedules summarizing the City's outstanding debt obligations as of June 30, 2005. This includes general obligation (GO); parking, sewer and water revenue bonds. Schedules for the individual bond issues outline what the funds will be used to make the principal and interest payments each year. A discussion of Iowa City's debt policy can be found on pages 4 -7. If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact me at 356-5053. This page intentionally left blank. City of Iowa City Schedule of Outstanding Debt As of June 30, 2005 Table of Contents Total Debt Outstanding: Total Obligation by Funding Source ................................................................................................................. 1 Debt Repayment Schedule by Fiscal Year ...................................................................................................... 2 General Obligation Bonds: Outstanding Debt Obligation - Summary by Individual Issue .......................................................................... 3 Fiscal Policy ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Debt Service & Property Taxes ........................................................................................................................ 6 Debt Repayment Schedule by Fiscal Year ...................................................................................................... 8 Individual G.O. Bond Issues Outstanding (1997- 2005) ................................................................................. 9 Revenue Bonds: Sewer Revenue Bonds Outstanding: Outstanding Debt Obligation - Summary by Individual Issue ........................................................................ 21 Annual Cost per Utility Customer ................................................................................................................... 22 Debt Repayment Schedule by Fiscal Year ....................... ' ............................................................................. 23 Individual Sewer Revenue Bond Issues Outstanding (1996 - 2002) ............................................................. 24 Water Revenue Bonds Outstanding: Outstanding Debt Obligation - Summary by Individual Issue ......................................................................... 31 Annual Cost per Utility Customer ................................................................................................................... 32 Debt Repayment Schedule by Fiscal Year .................................................................................................... 33 Individual Water Revenue Bond Issues Outstanding (1999 - 2002) .............................................................. 34 Parking Revenue Bonds Outstanding: Outstanding Debt Obligation - Summary by Individual Issue ....................................................................... 37 Annual Cost per Parking Ramp Space .......................................................................................................... 38 1999 Parking Revenue Bonds ....................................................................................................................... 39 Total Debt Outstanding June 30, 2005 This page intentionally left blank. Total Obligation by Funding Source For AI.~I Outstanding Bond Issues - As of June 30, 2005 - 2006 196,220,000 83,958,398 280,178,398 91,490,327 11,532,163 2007 183,710,000 ' 74,833,960 258,543,960 82~-87,638 11,177,810 ! 97~73,864 ! 18,140,907I 49,~63,742 25~,54~961 2008 170,970,000 66,237,515 237,207,515 73,3-0-2,400 10,823,457 ! 90,4~2,194 16,861,519I 45,757,946 237,207151~ 2009 159,035,000 58,153,848 217,188,848 ~-5~074,298 10,154,104 ~ 8~,286,142 15,900,924I 42;7731382 217,188,850 2010 146,730,000 50,569,998 197,299,998 5~928,731 9,482,351 ! '~,129,193 14,946,627I 39~81310-9-7 197,299,999 2011 134,060,000 43,513,471 177,573,471 4~,932,229 8,813,798~ -~ 68,976,110 13,994,65_4I 36,856,682 177,573,473 2012 120,840,000 37,014,302 157,854,30~- - 40,985,241 8,143,845_1 61,771,000 13,046,~82 1' 33,908,037 157,854,305 2013 107,070,000 31,103,139 138,173,139' - 33,089,622 7,474,867I 54,541,228 12,102,384 1 ' 30,965,041 138,173,142 2014 94,210,000 ~25,8i1,187 120,021,187 26,54~0~3 6,808,464 ~81,744 11,159,584 ~ 28,026;345 120,021,190 2l~1-5 83,425,000 21,076~665 104,501,665 20,613,335 6,1 40,349 ~ 42~,41~,,~-~'~ 10,219,249 I 25,115,760 104,5011668 2016 72,760,000 16,866,562 89,626,562 15,322,870 5,471,471 I 37,336,231 - 9,282,848I 22,213,142 89,626,5~2 2017 62,885,000 13,186,408 76,071,408 10,988,191 -4'~;97,781 I 32,241,341 -~,,346,998I 19,697,097 76,071,408 2018 53,580,000 10,013,165- 63,593,165 7,707,863 ~120,691 t 27,153,608 - 7,413,530t 17,197,473 63,593,165 2019 ' ~4,110,000 7,325,591 51,435,591 4,450,750 3~441,757 I 22,054,715 ~ 6,479,430I 15,008,939 51,435,591 2020 3-5,940,000 5,135,962 41,075,962 2,968,750 - ~762,323 J 16,972,155 5,551,615I 12,821,119 41,075,962 2021 27,305,000 3,379,570 30,684,570 1,485,750 2,079,139 1 ~8-6~ 4,622,150I 10,633,663 30,684,570 202~2 18,740,000 2,07~,0'10 20,811,010 .... 1,389,399 ~ 7,_2.~ ,469 3,693,750I 8,446,392 ~2023 12,805,000 1,~85,477 13,990,477 695,634 [ 4~65,926 2,769,150I 6,259,767 13,9901477 2024 7,930,000 593,413 6,523,413 ' I _2,602,950 1,545,5001 4,074,563 8,523;41~ 2025 4,930,000 235,031 5,165,031 ' I 1'7-3-6'712 921,850I 2,506,469 5,165,031 ~ 1,759,000 49;S31 1,803,931 .~. . 8-6~;~ - / 935,594 ~,603,83~ / -1- Debt Repayment Schedule by Fiscal Year For AJ Outstanding Bond Issues - As of June;.30, 2005 - 2006 ~2,510,000 9,124,436 21,634,_436- 9,202,689 354,353 7,381,982 11276,004 3,419,409 196,2201000 2007 12,740,{)00 8,596,444 21,336,~.~ __ 8,985,238 354,35:3' 7,311,670 1,279,388 3,405,796 183,710,00~ ~2008 11,935,000 8,083,665 20,018,665 8,228,102 669,353 7,176,052 960,594 2,984,565 170,970,000 2009 12,305,000 7,583,850 19,888,850 ~ 8_,145,567 671,753 ~ ~7,156,949 954,298 ~ 2,960,284 159,035,000 2010 12,670,000 7,056,526 19,726,526 7,996,502 668,553 7,153,083 951,973 2,956,416 146,730,000 201~1 13,220,000 6,499,167 19,719,167 ~ ?~946,988 669,953 7,205,109 948,473 2,948,644 134,060,000 2{)i2 13,770,000 5,911,162 19,681,162 7,895,619 668,978 7,_229,772 943,798 2,942,996 120,840,000 2013 12,860,000 5,291,954 18,151,954 6,_544,569 666,403 7,059,487 942,801 21938,696 107,070,000 2014 10,785,000 4,734,521 15,519,521 5,931,718 668,115 5,068,768 940,335 2,910,586 94,210,000 20~15 10,665,000 4,210,104 14,875,104 5,290,465 668,878 5,076,744 936,401 2,902,617 83,425,000 2016 9,875,000 3,680,156 13,555,156 4,334,680 673,690 5~094,890 935,851 2,516,045 72,760,000 2017 9,305,000 3,173,241 12,478,241 3,280,328 677,090 5,087,734 933,468 2,499,623 62,885,000 2018 9,470,000 2,687,573 12,157,573 3,257,113 678,934 5,098~893 934,100 2,188,~34 53,580,000 2019 8,170,000 2,189,626 10,359,626 1,482,000 679,434 5,082,55_8 927,815 2,187,820 44,110,000 2020 8,635,000 1,756,393 10,391,393 1,483,000 _683,184 5,108,288 929,465 2,187,456 35~940,000 2021 8,565,000 1,308,561 9,873,561 1,485,750 68~9,740 4,582,400 928,400~ 2,187,271 27,305,000 2022 5,935,000 885,533 6,820,533 - .693,765 3,015,544 924,600 2,186,624 18,740,000 2023 4,875,000 592,072 5,467,072 695,640 1,662,975 ~ _923,250 2,185,207 12,805,000 2024 3,000,000 358,381 3,358,381 866,238 924,050 1,568,094 7,930,000 2025 3~ 75,000 186,200 3,361,200 868~_ _ 921,850 1,570,875 4,930~000 2026 1,755,000 48,831 1,803,831 868,23~. 935,594 1,755,000 -2- General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds Outstanding This page intentionally left blank. General Obligation Debt Outstanding at June 30, 2005 - summary by individual issue - Principal & Outstanding June 30, 2005 Fiscal Year Interest Amount of Debt Paid in Payments Total Issue / Use of Funds Issue Full FY2006 Principal Interest Obligation 1997 G.O. / Multi-purpose 5,200,000 2007 547,000 1,000,000 70,500 1,070,500 1997 G.O. / Water construction 5,540,000 2017 478,650 3,600,000 1,166,250 4,766,250 1998 G.O. / Multi-purpose 8,500,000 2013 782,163 4,475,000 933,538 5,408,538 1999 G.O. / Multi-purpose 9,000,000 2018 755,963 6,175,000 2,009,488 8,184,488 2000 G.O. / Multi-purpose 14,310,000 2018 1,244,598 11,605,000 4,749,920 16,354,920 2001 G.O. / Multi-purpose 11,500,000 2016 1,142,905 8,895,000 2,609,115 11,504,115 2002 G.O. / Multi-purpose, 29,100,000 2021 2,822,055 24,240,000 8,837,470 33,077,470 $16.4 Mill Library Expansion 2002 G.O. / Multi-purpose; Refunding '92 Capital 10,600,000 2015 1,568,613 5,960,000 906,413 6,866,413 Loan Notes, '94 GO, '95 GO, and '96 GO 2003 G.O. / Multi-purpose 5,570,000 2014 721,970 5,015,000 822,680 5,837,680 2004 Taxable G.O. / Plaza Tower T.I.F. 7,305,000 2023 354,353 7,305,000 4,227,163 11,532,163 2005 G.0. / Multi-purpose 7,020,000 2015 860,960 7,020,000 1,551,448 8,571,448 Grand Total at June 30, 2005: 11,279,228 85,290,000 27,883,984 113,173~984 -3- General Obligation Debt- Fiscal Policy There are a number of guidelines available to public officials which assist in determining the balance between debt load and capital project financing. These guidelines include statuatory limitations set by state and federal authorities, recommendations from financial consultants and internal policy as set by administration. The following pages discuss benchmarks currently used by the City of Iowa City to evaluate it's financial position. Iowa City's fiscal policy specifies that "Debt incurred as a general obligation of the City of Iowa City shall not exceed statutory limits: presently 5% of the total assessed value of property within the corporate limits as established by the City Assessor." The five percent (5%) limitation was established by Iowa State Code and is often referred to as the "allowable debt margin". The following graph compares Iowa City's outstanding general obligation debt to the allowable debt margin. Outstanding debt at the start of fiscal year 2006 is $85.29 million and 2.59% of total assessed property values. This represents fifty- bNo percent (52%) of the $165 million allowable debt margin. $180 $165 $160 $140 · Allowable Debt Margin '~m ~ $120 (5% of Total Assessed Value) ~ ~ [] Debt Outstanding at 'o $100 e ,- Beginning of Fiscal Year c) o _~ ~ $80 ~-'- -- $85 'o $8o < $40 $20 $0 Fiscal Year (FY) -4- General Obligation Debt - Cost per Capita - While Iowa City is well within the five percent (5%) statuatory limitation, the cost per capita of General Obligation Debt has quardrupled over the past eight years. A number of large projects were undertaken during this time period to accomodate increasing demand on existing infrastructure and promote future growth along Iowa City's perimeter. Projects which have received significant funding from general obligation bonds during this time period encompass Mormon Trek and Camp Cardinal Road on the west, Foster Road/Dubuque Street in the northwest, Scott Boulevard north and east of Iowa City, and Gilbert Street (Sand Road) south of Highway 6. Projects in the central business district include the Downtown and Iowa Avenue Streetscape improvements, construction of the Court Street Transportation Facility and an $18.4 million remodel of the Iowa City Public Library as approved by voter referendum. Other major projects include construction of a new Public Works Facility and reconstruction of the Iowa River Power Dam. 180.00 $153 160.00 $143 140.00 $132 $134 (1) 120.00 100.00 $87 80.00 $67 $54 60.00 $39 40.00 20.00 0.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year (FY) (1) An $18.4 million expansion of the Iowa City Public Library was approved by voter referendum in November, 2001. The subsequent 2002 G.O. issue totaled $29.1 million, with annual debt service of $3.8 million through 2012. -5- Debt Service and Property Taxes Annual principal and interest payable on general obligation bonds are financed through a property tax (debt service) levy. User fees may be used to abate this if a portion of the proceeds were used to finance utility improvements. Water, sewer and parking abatements do occur with the 1997 G.O. and 2002 Refunding G.O. issues (see pages 9 and 17). The annual debt service levy can thereby calculated as total principal and interest payable (general obligation only) less abatements and divided by net assessed property valuations. The following graph illustrates the annual cost of debt per $1,000 of taxable valuation in Iowa City over the last nine years. $5.00 Debt Service Levy per $1,000 of Taxable Yaluation = $4.00 0 '~ $3.00 ~- 0 $2.00 ..I $1.oo $0.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year (FY) Debt Service Levy as a Percentage of the Total Property Tax Levy Iowa City's fiscal policy states that "the debt service levy shall not exceed 25% of the (total) city levy in any one fiscal year." The certified debt service levy for fiscal year 2006 is $4.149 per $1,000 of valuation, or 23.4% of the City's total $17.729 levy. 3O% 26%(1) 25% 20% 20O./o~ 23% 23% 20% 17% 14%J 15% 1~,. ~ (recommended maximum: 25%) 10% 10% 5% (t) The debt service levy did exceed the 25% margin in FY2004 due to a $29.1 million G.O. issue in 2002, $18.4 of which was required by referendum for expansion of the Public Library. The FY2005 Budget and Capital Improvement Program brought the levy back below the 25% margin in FY2005. -7- General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds - Summary Debt Repayment Schedule - by Fiscal Year - 2006 7,495,000 3,784,228 11,279,228 9,202,689 354,353 177,193 310,900 1,234,094 85,290,000 2007 7,585,000 3,468,380 11,053,380 8,985,238 354,353 172,984 318,525 1,222,281 77,795,000 2008 6,520,000 3,177,773 9,697,773 8,228,102 669,353 800,318 70,210,000 2009 6,680,000 2,915,085 9,595,085 8,145,567 671,753 777,766 63,690,000 2010 6,795,000 2,643,310 9,438,310 7,996,502 668,553 77~256 57,010,000 2011 7,025,000 2,359,228 9,384,228 7,946,988 669,953 767,287 50,215,000 2012 7,265,000 2,060,110 9,325,110 7,895,619 668,978 760,514 43,190,000 2013 6,~2~_,~ !~,66.~. 7~963,6~0 6,544,569 _ 6~,403 752,689 35,925,000 2014 5,860,000 1,464,060. 7,324,060 5,931,718 668,115 724,227 29,705,000 ~015 5,480,000 1,193,805 6,673,805 5,290,465 668,878 714,462 23,845,000 20~ 4,405,000 933,3~ 5,338,370i 4,334,680 673,690 330,000 18,365,000 2017 3,560,000 712,418 4,272,418 3,280,32~ 677,090 315,000 13,960,000 2018 3,~0~ _~__3_!~4~ 3,9~,~ 3,257,113 678,934~. 10,400,000 2019 1,80~,000 3~_6,~34 2,161,434 1~8~,0~0 ~43~ 6,995,000 2020 1,900,000 266,184 2,166,184 1,483,000 683,184 5,190,000 2021 2,005,000 170,490 2,175,490 1,485,750 689,740 3,290,000 2022 .625,000 68,765 693,765 693,765 1,285,000 2023 660,000 35,640 695,640 695,640 ~,000 -8- 1997 $5.2 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This issue funds the costs of the construction, reconstruction and repairing of bridges, street and public walkway improvements; the construction, reconstruction, extension, improvement and equipping of works and facilities for the collection and disposal of surface waters and streams; the rehabilitation and improvement of existing city parks; the reconstruction, extension and improvement of the municipal airport; the improvement and equipping of the library, including roof and carpet replacement; heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system; the expansion of Fire Station #3, the renovation of the City's Animal Shelter and replacement of portions of the Civic Center roof. 2006 500,000 47,000 547,000 547,000 1,000,000 2007 500,000 ~,500 523,500 523,500 500,00C -9- 1997 $5.54 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This issue funds the cost of various water projects including Iowa River Power Dam, Site Development, Water Main and Engineering. 2006 300,000 . 178,650 . ~478,650 478,650 3,600,000 2007 300,000 163,950 463,950 463,950 3,300,000 2006 300,000 149,250 449,250 449,250 3,000,000 2009 300,000 134,550 434,550 434,550 2,700,000 2010 300,000 . 119,850 _419,850 419,850 2,4_00,000 2011 300,000 105,000 405,000 405,000 2,100,000 2012 300,000 90,000 390,000 390,000 1,8_00,000 201:3 300,000 ' 75,000 375,000 375,000 1,500,000 2014' 300,000 60,000 360,000 360,000 1,200,000 201_ ~ 300,00~ 45,000 345,000 345,000 900,000 2016 300,000 30,000 330,000 330,000 600,000 20-17 300,000 15,000 315,000 315,000 300,000 -10- 1998 $8.5 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This issue funds the costs of the acquisition of land for streets and sewers; improvements to streets, bridges, sidewalks and public ways; the rehabilitation and improvement of city parks; the reconstruction, extension and improvement of the municipal airport; the reconstruction, improvement and repair of water works property; and the reconstruction, extension, improvement and equipping of works and facilities for the collection and disposal of surface waters and streams and detention facilities. ~ 782,163t 2006 575,000 207,163 782,163 4,475,000 2007 575,000 181,288 756,288 756,288~ 3,900,000 2008 575,000 155,413 730,413 730,-41 ~ 3,325,000 2009 550,000 ~t 2-9,250 679,250 679,2~-0~ 2,750,000 2010 550,000 103,950 653,950 ~ 2,200,000 2011 550,~00 78,100 628,100 ~ 1,650,000 2012 5_~5~_,_0_00 52,250 602,250 ~-60~ ~ 2013 550,000 26,125 576,125 576,125,550,000 __ -11 - 1999 $9 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This issue funds construction of Civic Center 3rd Floor, Library Computer replacement, Library ICN room, Police 2nd Floor Design, Public Works Complex, Scanlon Gym, Art, Airport Master Plan-Land Acquisition, Captain Irish Pkwy- Act/Dodge, Downtown Streetscape, Iowa Ave. Streetscape, Park Accessibility Programs, Park Development, Park Footbridge Replacements, Park Parking Lot Improvements, Park Shelter Improvements, Park Sidewalk Replacements, South Site Soccer Fields, S. Sycamore Regional Stormwater Detention, Summit St. Bridge Repl., Woolf Ave-Newton/River St. 2006 -~475,000 280,963 755,963 ~5~5,963 6,175,000 2007 475,000 260,538 735,538 ._735,538 5,700,000~ 2008_ 475,000 24011 i3, 715,113 715,113 5,225,000 2009 475,000 _~1_9,688 694,688 694,688 4,75~,000 2010 ~ 475,000 199,263~ 674,263 __ 674,263 4,275,000 2011 475,000 176,363 653,363 653,363 3,800,000 2012 475,000 156,988 631._,~§8 631,988 3,325,000 2013 475,000 135,138 610,138 610,138 2,650,000 2014 475,000 112,813 587,613 587,813 2,375,000 2015 475,000 90,250 565,250 565,250 1,900,000 2016 475,000 67,688 542,688 542,688 1,425,000 2017 475,000 45,125 520,125 520,125 950,000 2018 475,000 ~2_2,_ 563 497,563 497,563 475,000 -12- 2000 $14.31 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This issue funds construction of GIS Systems, Airport Master Plan, Hwy. 6- Sidewalk/Drainage, Fire Apparatus, Public Works Complex, Art, Downtown Streetscape, Iowa Ave. Streetscape, Park Accessibility Programs, Park Development, Park Restroorn Replacement, Cemetery Expansion, Wetherby Park Development, Park Playground Equipment, City Park Stage, Mormon Trek- Abbey Lane/Hwy. 1, Airport Terminal, Civic Center Roof Repair, Walden Woods Park, Tennis Court Renovation, Finance/Human Resources Computer System, Parks Maintenance Facility, Civic Center 3rd Floor, Iowa Ave. Trail, River Street Paving, S. Sycamore Regional Stormwater Detention, Foster Road-Phase 2 2006 646,000 604,598 1,244,598 1,244,598 11,605,000 2007 675,000 572,59~ 1,247,598 1,247,5981 10,965,000 2~)8 -~ 710,000 ! 538,848 1,248,848 1,248,8481 10,290,000 2009 745,000 503,348 1,248,348 1,248,3481 9,580,_000 2010 785,000 466,098 1,251,098 1,251,0981 8,83{5,000 2011 830,000 426,063 1,256,063 1,256,0631 6,050,000 2012 870,000 383,733 1,253,733 1,253,733~ - 7~-2'~(~600 2013 920,000 339,363 1,259,363 1,259,363~ 6~3~0,0~0~ 2014 970,000 291,983 1,261,983 1,261,9831 5,430,000 2015 1,025_,_0___0~ .... 2_4~1_,_058 :1~26610-~ ~'266,0581 4,460,000 2016 1,080,000 186,733 1,266,733 1,266,7331 3,435,000 2017 1,145,000 128,953 1,273,953 1,273,9531 2,355,000 2018 1,210,000 66,550 1,276,550 1,276,550 1~i~-10~00 -13- 2001 $11.5 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This bond funds the construction, reconstruction, improvement and repair of streets, water mains/extensions, storm water drainage systems and sanitary sewer facilities; e~ension and improvement of the municipa! airport and cemete~ facilities; the equipping of fire, police, street and civil defense departments; acquisition of a GIS system; Civic Center HVAC improvements; construction of a downtown transit interchange facility and the acquisition, enlargement, improvement and equipping of a Transit Intermodal Facility, Public Works Complex, skateboard facilities and a new city park; and improvements to existing city parks and Mercer's baseball field complex. 2006 745,000 397,905 1,142,905 1,142,905 8,895,000 2007 670,000 368,105 1,038,105 1,038,105 8,150,000 2008 695,000 339,630 1,034,630 1,034,630 7,480,000 2009 725,000 310,093 1,035,093 1,035,093 6,785,000 2010 755,000 279,280 1,034,280 1,034,280 6,060,000 2011 790,000 247,193 1,037,193 _ .1_,_037,~_!.9~ _ 5,305,000 2012 820,000 212,630 1,032,630 1,032,630 4,515,000 2013 860,000 175,730 1,035,730 1,035,730 3,695,000 2014 900,000 136,170 1,036,170 1,036,170 2,835,000 201~5 945,000 . 93,870_ 1,038,8_70_ 1_ ~,._8`70.- 1,935,000 2016 990,000 48,510 1,038,510 1,038,510 990,000 -14- 2002 $29.1 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This bond provides funding of $18.4 million for expansion of the Iowa City Public Library, including land acquisition; and $10.7 million for capital improvements including: acquisition of transit and fire apparatus; construction and or improvements to the intersection of First Avenue and Court Street, Fire Station #3, Eec Center HVAC, stormwater infrastructure including the Riverside Drive Arts ~_..mp,-s, Hickory Hi)) Park Tr~_i)_% Scott Boulevard from ACT Drive t~ R~che-~t~-r, the Skateboard Park, the South Soccer Complex, Iowa River Power Dam and Transit Intermodal Facility; and the extension of First Avenue. 2006 1,745_,_000 1,077,055 .2,822,055. 2~822,055 24,240,000~ 2007 1,795,_000 1,015,980 2,810,980 2,810,980 22,495,000 2008 1,865,000 944,180 2,809,180 2,80~,_~180 20,700,000 2009 1,940,000 869,580 2,809,580 2,809,580 18,835,000 2010 2,020,000 791,980 2,811,980 2,811,980 16,895,_000 2011 2,100,000 709,160 2,609,160 2,809,160 14,875,000 2012 2,195,0~00 620,960 2,815,960 2,815,960 12,775,000 2013 970,00p 526,575 1,496,575 1,49_6_,_575 10,580,000 2014 1,015,000 480,500 1,495,500 1,495~,500 9,610,000 2015 1,060,00~0 429,750 _ 1,489,750 1,4~9,750 8,595,000 2016 1,110,000 376,750 1,486,750 1,486,750 7,535,000 2017 1,165,~}0 321,250 1~486,250 1,486,250 6,425,000 20~8 1,220,000 263,000 1,483,000 1,48~,000 5,260,000 201 g 1,280,000 202,000 1,482!000 1,482,000 4,040,000 2020 1,345,000 138,.000 1,483,000 . 1,483,000 2,760_,000 2~021 ~1~415,000 70,750~ 1,485,750 1,485,750 1,415,000 2002 $10.6 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Refunding Issue: Principal payable 6-1; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1. This bond issue refunds 1992 Parking Loan Notes and 1994, 1995 and 1996 General Obligation bond issues. Abatements by Sewer, perking and Water were determined by abatements in the original bond issues. Bond covenants from the 1996 GO bond issue specify that these bonds may not be called until 06101105. Proceeds for this purpose will be held in escrow until that point in time. The original bond issues provided funding for Rec Center building improvements, construction and design of the Chauncey Swan Parking Facility, construction and design of new water treatment facilities, improvement and equipping of wastewater treatment facilities, construction of soccer complex facilities and other capital improvements projects. 2006 1,380~00(~ 188,613 1,568,613 325,076 177,193 - 3'~0,900 755,444 5,960,00~ 2007 ~1_,~95,~00 154,113 1,549,113 299,273 172,984 318,525 758,331 4,580,000 2008 360,000 115,750 475,750 124,682 351,068 3,185,000 2009 355,000 104,950 459,950 116,734 343,216 2,825,000 2010 3801000 93,413 473,413 120,007 -- 353,406 2,470,000 2011 390,000 80,113 470,113 107,826 362,287 2,090,000 2012 410,000 66,463 476,463 105,949 370,514 1,700,000 2013 435,000 51,600 486,600 108,911 377,689 1,290,000 2014 425,000 34,200 459,200 94,973 364,227 855,000 2015 430,000 17,200 447,200 77,738 369,462 430,000 -16- $7.305 Million General Obligation (GO) Taxable Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1 beginning June 1, 2008; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-1 beginning December 1, 2004. bond provides $7.035 million for the purpose of financing those costs associate with aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out of urban renewal projects associated the Plaza Towers located on parcel 64-1a in Iowa City. 2006 - 354,353 354,353 354,353 7,305,000 2007 - 35~353 354,353 354,353 2008 315,000 354,353 669,353 669,353 7,305,000 2009 330,000 341,753 671,753 671,753 6,990,000 2010 340,000 328,553 668,553 668,553 6,660,000 2011 35~,000 314,953 669,953 669,953 6,320,000 2012 370,000 298,978 668,978 668,978 5,965,000 2013 385,000 281,403 __66_6,403 666,403 5,595,000 2014 405,000 263,115 668,115 668,115 5,210,000 2015 425,000 243,878 668,878 668,878 4,805,000 2016 450,000 223,690 673,690 673,690 4,380,000 2017 475,000 202,090 677,090 677,090 3,930,000 2018 500,000 178,934 67~,93~4 678,934 3,455,000 2019 525,000 154,434 ~ 67~9,434 679,434 2,955,000 2020 555,000 128,184 683,184 683,184 2,430,000 2021 590,000 99,740 689,740 689,740 1,875,000 2022 625,000 68,765 693,765 693,765 1,285,000 2023 660,000 35,640 695,640 695,640 6~60__,00~) -17- 2003 $5.57 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: .- Principal payable 6-1 beginning June 1, 2005; Interest payable 12-1 and 6-I beginning June 1, 2004. This bond prov,aes Tuna,ng of $5.57 miiiion for the City's 2003 Capitai improvement Program, including the construction, repair and maintenance of public right of ways, bridges, sewers and parks; equiping of the fire, police and street departments; ~mprovement of targeted area housing rehabilitation, improvement of city buildings and offices including recreation centers and Fire Station #4; and the acquisition and construction of a transit intermodal facility. 2006 I 565,'6(~)-'"- 156,970 7~970I 721,970 2007 ! 570,00~ 142,845 - ~12~'845 I 712,845 4,450,000 -2008- I 580,000 128,025 708,0_2§._~ 708,025 3,880,000 2009 .-1 ...... 590,000 110,625 700,625 ~___ 700,625 3,300,000 20'10_ ! 505,000 91,450 596,450 ! 596,450 2,710,000 201! ! 525,000 74,785 ~ ~9~78~'/ 599,785 2,205,000 2012 ! 540,000 57,460 597,460 ! 597,460 1,680,000 --2013 / 560,000 39,~40 _599,640 / 599,640 ,140,000 ~014t 580,000 ~,880 600,~,~8_0_ / 600,880 580,000 -18- 2005 $7.020 Million General Obligation (GO) Bond Issue: Principal payable 6-1 beginning June 1, 2006; Interest payable 12-1 and6-1 beginning June 1, 2004. This bond provides funding of $7.020 million for the City's 2005 Capital Improvement Program, including land acquisition costs for Fire Station #4; Iowa City's portion of the Grant Wood gymnasium's construction costs; targeted area housii~g rehabilitation improvements; art acquisition for public buildings and areas; acquisition of Iow income housing facilities; construction of a transit intermodal facility; construction, repair and maintenance of streets, bridges and the municipal airport; rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of city parks; and equipping of the fire and police departments. - 2006 570,000 290,960 §60,960 860,960 7,020,000 2007 630,000 231,113 861,113 861,113 6,450,000 2008 645,000 212,213 857,213 857,213 5,820,000 2009 670,000 191,250 861,250 861,250 5~,_t 75,000 2010 685,000 169,475 854,475 854,475 4,505,000 2011 710,00_0 145,500 855,500 ..... 855,500 3,820,000 2012 735,000 120,650 855,650 855,650 3,110,000 2013 765,000 93,088 858,088 858,088 2,375,000 2014 790,000 64,400 854,400 854,400 1,610,000 2015 820,000 32,80~0~ ~ 852,800 852,§~00 820,000 -19- This page intentionally left blank. - 20 - Sewer Revenue Bonds Outstanding This page intentionally left blank. Sewer Revenue Bond Outstanding Debt Obligation at June 30, 2005 - summary by individual issue - Fiscal Year Principal & Outstanding June 30, 2005 Interest Debt Paid Issue I Use of Funds Amount of in Full Payments Total Issue FY2006 Principal Interest Obligation 1996/Sewer System Improvements 18,300,000 2022 1,380,088 15,050,000 8,408,119 23,458,119 1997 / Sewer System Improvements 10,600,000 2023 773,825 8,875,000 5,118,325 13,993,325 1999 / Sewer System Improvements 7,000,000 2020 536,980 5,750,000 2;244,270 7,994,270 2000 / Sewer System Improvements 12,000,000 2026 865,964 10,845,000 7,275,279 18,120,279 2001 / Sewer System Improvements & South Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction 10,250,000 2020 478,815 10,250,000 5,907,083 16,157,083 2002 / Refunding 1993 Revenue Bonds 25,785,000 2012 3,169,118 21,530,000 3,552,595 25,082,595 Total Sewer Revenue Bonds: 7,204,789 72,300,000 32,505,671 104,805,671 Sewer user fees are scheduled to pay $7,204,789 in sewer revenue bonds during fiscal year 2006. An additional $350,176 in sewer revenue is designated for abatement of the 2002 General Obligation Refunding issue. Total receipts from sewer user fees were 12.2 million during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. - 21 - Annual Cost per Utility Customer of Sewer-related Debt (includes G.O. abatement & revenue bond issues) $48O $460 $440 $420 $400 $380 $360 $34O $320 $3OO 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year(FY) Improvements to the City's sanitary sewer may be funded through the issuance of sewer revenue and/or general obligation bonds, which are then payable by sewer user fees. While sewer revenue bonds were issued in excess of $29 million between 1999 and 2001, a number of advanced refundings took place in 2002 which resulted in significant savings on interest payable. The effect of these transactions is illustrated in the above graph. - 22 - Sewer Revenue Bonds - Summary Debt Repayment Schedule - by Fiscal Year - 2006 3,8_15,000 3,389,789 7,204,789 7,204,789 ~ 72,300,000 2007 3,905,000 3,233,686 7,138,686 7,138,686 68,485,000 2008 4,105,000 3,071,052 7,176,052 7,176,052 64,580,000 2009 4,260,0002,896,949 7,156,949 7,156,949 60,475,000 2010 4,445,000 2,708,083 7,153,083 _ ~1_53,083 56,215,000 2011 4,700,000 2,505,109 7,205,109 7,205,109 51,770,000 2012 4,940,000 2,289,772 7,229,772 7,229,772 47,070,000 2013 4,995,000 2,064,487 7,059,487 7,059,487 42,130,~00~ 2014 3,200,000 1_,~8~;768 5,068,768 5,068,768 37,135,000 2015 3,375,000 1,701,744 5,076,744 5,076,744 33,935,000 2016 3,570,000 1,524,890 5,094,890 5,094,890 30,560,000 2017 3,750,000 1,337,734 5,087,734 5,087,734 26,990,000 2018 3,960,000 1,138,893 5,098,893 5,098,893 23,240,000 2019 4,155,000 927,558 5,082,558 5 ,~0~8.2~ ~ 5_ ~_8~ _19,280,000 2020 4,405,000 703,288 5,108,288 5,108,288 15,12_5,000` 2021 4,105,070 477,400 4,582,400 4,582,400 10,720,000 2022 2,725,000 290,544 3,015,544 3,015,544 6,615,00_0 2023 1,490,000 172,97--5 1,662,975 1,662,975 3,890,000 2024 7. ~5,`000 111,238 866,238 866,238 2,400,000 2025 800,000 68,475 868,475 868,47_5 1 ,~6_~5,_0~00 2026 845,000 23,238 868,238 868,238 845,000 - 23 - 1996 $18.3 Million Sewer Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1. This bond issue is used to construct improvements to the City's sewer system. _Debt servic_e is rej~aid from wastewater revenues. 2006 550,000 830,088 1,380,088 1,380,088 15,050,000 2007 575,000 801,400 1,376,400 1,376,400 14,500,000 2008 625,000 770,488 1,395,488 1,395,488 13,925,000 2009 650,000 737,013 1,387,013 1,387,013 13,300,000 2010 675,000 701,563 1,376,563 1,376,563 12,650,000 2011 725,000 663,400 1,388,400 1,388,400 11,975,000 2012 775,000 621,763 1,396,763 1,396,763 11,250,000 2013 800,000 577,263 1,377,263 1,377,263 10,475,000 2014 850,000 530,238 1,380,238 1,380,238 9,675,000 2015 900,000 480,363 1,380,363 1,380,363 8,825,000 2016 950,000 427,638 1,377,638 1,377,638 7,925,000 2017 1,000,000 372,063 1,372,063 1,372,063 6,975,000 ~18 ~ ~1,--07_5.,000_ 312_,_65.6 1,387,656 1,387,656 5,975,000 2019 1,125,000 249,406 1,374,406 1,3_74,406 4,900,000 202? 1,2-00_,000~ 182,_563 1,_3_82_,56_3 ._ 1_,38~2_,5_63 3,775,000 2021 1,250,000 112,125 1,362,125 1,362,125 2,575,000 2022 1,325,000 38,094 1,363,094 1,363,094 1,325,000 - 24 - 1997 $10.6 Million Sewer Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1. This bond issue is used to construct improvements to the City's sewer system. :Debt service is repaid from wastewater revenues. 2006 300,000 4_7~_,.825 773,825 773,825 8,875,000 2007 300,00~0 458~375 758,375 758,375 8,575,000 2008 325,000 442,281 767,281 767,281 8,275,000 2009 350,000 ~ 424,9~0~0 _ ~ ~.4_ ,~ 9_0_0 .... 774,900 7,950,000 2010 375,000 406,044 781,044 781,044 7,600,000 2011 375,000 386,169 761,.169 761,169 7,225,000 2012 400,000 365,338 765,338 765,338 6,850,000 2013 425,000 342,956 767,956 767,956 6,450,000 2014 450,000 319,000 769,000 769,000 6,025,000 2015 475,000 293,563 768,563 768,563 5,575,000 2016 525,000 266,063 791,063 791,063 5,100,000 2017 550,000 236,500 786,500 786,500 4,575,000 2018 575,000 205,563 780,563 780,563 4,025,000 2019 600,000 173,250 773,250 773,250 3,450,000 2020 650,000 138,875 788,875 788,875 2,850,000 2021 700,000 101,750 801,750 801,750 2,200,000 2022 725,000 62,563 787,563 787,563 1,500,000 2023 775,000 21,313 796,313 796,313 775,000 - 25- 1999 $7.0 Million Sewer Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1. This bond issue is used to construct iml~rovements to the City's sewer system. Debt service is repaid from wastewater revenues. 2006 280,000 256,980 536,980 536,980 5,750,000 2007 290,000 244,868 534,868 534,868 5,470,000 2008 305,000 232,224 537,224 ~537,224 5,180,000 2009 315,000 219,049 534,049 534,049 4,875,000 2010 ~3-30,000 205,343 535,343 535,343 4,560,__00~ 2011 ~ _ 345,000 190,913 5_35,913 535,913 4,230,000 2012 360,000 175,575 535,575 535,575 3,885,000 2013 375,000 159,218 534,218 534,218 3,525,000 2014 390,000 141,810 531,810 531,810 3,150,000 2015 4_10,000 123,205 53_3~2_.0_5 533,205 2,760~0_00 2016 430,000 103,358 533,358 533,358 2,3~50,000 2017 450,000 82,345 532,345 532,345 1,920,000 2018 470,000 60,146 530,148 530,148 1,470,000 2019 490,000 36,806 526,806 _5~6,806 1,000,000 2020 510,000 12,431 522,431 522,431 510,000 - 26 - / 2000 $12.0 Million Sewer Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1. This bond issue is used to construct improvements i~ tls iity's sewer system. 2006 295,000 570,964 865,964 865,964 10,845,0~ 2007 310,000 555,461 865,461, -865,461 10,550,0_0~ 2008 325,000 539,189 8-~4,189 864"189 10,240,~0~_0 2009 340,000 522,149 862,149 8~149 2010 355,000 504,339 859,339 859,3~ 2011 375,000 485,633 860,6~33 860,6~3 2012 395,000 46~,902 860,902 860,902 8,_8~ 2013 415~000 445,146 860,146 860,146 8,-4~ ' 2014 43510-00 423,09:~ 858,093 858,093 8,0;~5_,~00~ 20i5 460,00~ 399,599 859,599 859,599 7,600-~00~ 2016 485,000 374,793 859,793 859,793 7,140,000I 2017 510,000 348,546 858,546 858,54~ 2018 540,000 ~-20,519 860,519 860,519 2019 570,000 290,~88 860,688 860,688 2020 605,000 259,109 864,109 864,109 2021 640,000 22~,650 865,650 865,650 4~ 2022 675,000 189,888 864,888 864,888 3~ 2023 7~15,000 151,663 866,663 866,663 3, 2024 755,000 111,238 866;238 866,238 2,4~ 2025 80010~)0 68,4_75 868,475 868,475 1,645,000 2026 845,000 23,238 868,238 868,238 845,000 - 27 - 2001 $10.250 Million Sewer Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1 starting in 2013. Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1 beginning July 1, 2002. This bond issue is used to construct improvements to the City's sewer system Trunk Sewer and system improvements on Iowa Avenue. Debt service is repaid from wastewater revenues. 2006 - 478,815 478,815 478,815 10,250,000 2007 - 478,815 478,815 478,815 10,250,000 2008 - 478,815 478,815 478,815 10,250,000 2009 478,815 478,815 478,815 10,250,000 2010 478,815 478,81 478,815 10,250,000 2011 478,815 478,81 478,815 10,250,000 2012 478,815 478,81 478,815 10,250,000 2013 478,815 478,815 478,815 10,250,000 2014 1,075,000 454,628 1,529,628 1,529,628 10,250,000 2015 1,130,000 405,015 1,535,015 1,535,015 9,175,000 2016 1,180,000 353,040 1,533,040 1,533,040 8,045,000 2017 1,240,000 298,280 1,538,280 1,538,280 6,865,000 2018 1,300,000 240,008 1,540,008 1,540,008 5,625,000 2019 1,370,000 177,408 1,547,408 1,547,408 4,325,000 2020 1,440,000 110,310 1,550,310 1,550,310 2,955,000 2021 1,515,000 37,875 1,552,875 1,515,000 - 28 - 2002 $25,785,000 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bond Issue: PrinciDal payable 7-1; Intera~t ,n~y~hl~ 7-1 a~d 1-1. This bond issue refunds the callable portion of the 1993 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds. These had, in turn, refunded the callable portion of the 1986 Sewer Revenue bonds. The 1986 bonds were issued to construct a new wastewater facility. Debt service is repaid from wastewater revenues. 2006 2,390~000 7~9,118 3,169,118 3,169;118 2;I,530,000 2007 2,430,000 694,768 3,124,768 3,124,768 19,140,000 2008 2,525,000 608,055 3,133,05~ 3,1313,055 16,710,000 2009 2,605,000 515,024 3,120,0:~4 3,120,024 14,185,00(~ 2010 2,710,000 411~980 3,121,980 3,121,980 11,580,000 2011 2,880,000 300,180 3,180,180 3,180,180 8; 8~0,000 2012 3,010,000 182,380 3,192,380 3,192,~380 5,990,000 2013 2,98~,000 61,090 3,041,09(~ 3,04_1,090 2,980,000 - 29 - This page intentionally left blank. - 30 - Water Revenue Bonds Outstanding This page intentionally left blank. Outstanding Debt Obligation at June 30, 2005 - summary by individual issue - Fiscal Year Principal & Outstanding June 30, 2005 Interest Debt Paid Amount of Payments Total Issue / Use of Funds Issue in Full FY2006 Principal Interest Obligation 1999 / Water System Improvs. & 9,200,000 2025 647,069 8,140,000 4,638,820 12,778,820 Water Treatment Plant Construction 2000 / Water System Improvs. & 13,000,000 2026 932,174 11,640,000 7,927,879 19,567,879 Water Treatment Plant Construction 2002 / Water System Improvs. & 8,500,000 2023 606,073 7,805,000 3,259,559 11,064,559 Water Treatment Plant Construction Total - Water Revenue Bonds: 2,185,315 27,585,000 15,826,258 43,411,258 - 31 - Annual Cost Per Utility Customer of Water-related Debt (includes G.O. abatement & revenue bond issues) $190 $170 $150 $130 $11o $90 $70 e" $50 .... 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year (FY) Bonds that are issued for water-related improvements are repaid by water user fees. This includes both General Obligation and Water revenue Bonds. The above graph illustrates the annual cost of water, related debt issued thru June 30, 2005. Principal and interest payments declined significantly in FY2003 due to interest savings on the 2002 G.O. Refunding issue. Payment began on the 2002 Water Revenue Bonds in FY2004. - 32 - Water Revenue Bonds - Summary Debt Repayment Schedule - by Fiscal Year - 2006 880,000 1,305,315 2,185,315 2,185,31~5__ 27,585,000 2007 _.915,000 1,268,515 2,183!515 2,~183,515 26,705,000 2008 955,000 1,229,246 2,1~84.~,~46 2,184,246 25,790,000 2009__ 995,000 1,187,519 2_,_182,519 2,182,519 24,835,000 2010 1,040,000 1,143,160 2,183,160 2,183,160 23,840,000 2011 1~, ~0.~85,000 1,096,358 2,181,358 2~.8~1,358 22,800,000 2012 1,135,000 1,047,483 2,182,483 2,182,483 21,715,000 2013 . 1,1901000 996,007 2,186,007 2,18610-0~ 20,580,000 2014 1,245,000 941,359 2,186,359 2,186,359 19,390,000 2015 1,305,000 683,155 2,188,155 2,188,155 18,145,000 2016 1,365,000 821,045 2,186,045 2,186,045 16,840,000 2017 1,430,000 754,623 2,184,623 2,184,623 15,475,000 2018 1,505,000 _6~83,534 2,188,534 2,188,534 1~,__045,000 2019 1,580,000. 607,820 2,187,820 2,187,820 12,540,000 2020 1,660,000 527,456 2,187,456 2,187,456_ 10,960,000 2021 1,745,000 _ 442,271 2,187,271 2,187,271 9,300,000 2022 1,835,000 3_5_1,624 2,186,624 2,186,624 7,55~5~,000 2023 1,930,000 _ ~55,207 2,185,207 2,185,207 5,720,000 2024 1,400,000___ 168,094 1,568,094 1,568,09_4 3,790,000 2025 1,480,000 90,875 1,570,875 1,570,875 2,390,000 2026 . _ 910,000 25,594 935,59.4. 935,594 910,000 - 33 - 1999 $9.2 Million Water Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1. This bond issue is used to construct improvements to the City's water system. Debt service is repaid from water revenues. 2006 255,000 392,069 647,069 64 ~7!~_6.~ 8,140,000 2007 270,000 379,600 649,600 __6~49 ,~.6_~. 7,885,000 2008 280,000 366,538 646,538 646,538 7,615,000 2009 290,000 353,000 643,000 643,000 7,335,000 2010 305,000 i 338,869 643,869 643,869 7,045,000 2011 320,000 324,025 644,025 644,025 6,740,000 2012 330,000 308,588 638,588 638,588 6,420,000 2013 345,000 292,556 637,556 637,556 6,090,000 2014 365,000 275,694 640,694 640,694 5,745,000 2015 380,000 257,905 637,905 637,905 5,380,000 2016 400,000 2_39,185 639,185 639,185 5,000,000 2017 415,000 219,418 634,418 634,418 4,600,000 2018 440,000 198,250 (~_:38,250 638,250 4,185,000 2019 460,000 175,750 635,750 635,750 3,745,000 2020 480,000 152,250 632,250 632,250 3,285,000 2021 505,000 127,625 632,625 632,625 2,805,000 2022 - 530,000 101,750 631,750 . .~1_,750 2,300,000 2023 560,0~0 74,500 634,500 634,500 1,770,000 2024 590,000 45,750 635,750 635,750 1,210,__0~00 2025 620,000 15,500 635,500 635,500 620,000 - 34 - 2000 $13 Million Water Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1. This bond issue is used to construct improvements to the City's water system. Debt service is repaid from water revenues. 2006 315,000 617,174 932,174 315,0(30 11,640,000 2007 330,000 601,049 931,049 330,000 11,325,000 2008 350,000 584,049 934,049 350,000 10,995,000 2009 365,000 566,174 931,1 74 365,000 10,64__5,000 2010 385,000 547,424 932,424 385,000 10,280,~00 2011 400,000 527,799 927,799 400,000 9,895,000 2012 42~,0~0 507,299 927,299 42010_0? 9,495,000 2013 445,000 485,396 930,396 445,000 . 9,075,000 2014 470,000 461,890 931,890 470,000 8,630,000 ~0'1~ 495,000 436,918 931,918 495,000 8,160,000 2016 520,000 4i~,268 930,268 520,000 7,66~5.;000 2017 550,000 381,706 931,706 550,000 7,145,000 2018 580,000 351,265 931,265 580,000 6,595,000 2019 615,000 3i $,846 933,8,46 615,000 6,015,000 2020 645,000 284,350 929,350 645,000 5,400,000 2021 685,000 247,775 932,775 685,000 4,755,000 2022 725,000 208,547 933,547 725,0~0_0 4,070,000 ~023 765,000 166,641 931~,641 765,000 _ 3,345,000 202,4 810,000 122,344 932,344 810,000 2,580,000 2025 860,000 75,375 935,375 860,000 1,770,000 2026 910,000 25,594 935,594 910,000 910,.0__0~0 - 35 - 2002 $8.5 Million Water Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 7-1 and 1-1. This bond issue is used to construct improvements to the City's water system. Debt service is repaid from water revenues. 2006 310,000 296,073 606,073 ~60_6,073 7,805,000 2007 315,000 287,866 602,866 602,866 7,495,000 2008 325,000 278,660 603,660 603,660 7,180,000 2009 340,000 268,345 608,345 608,345 6,855,0_0~ 2010 350,000 256,868 606,868 606,868 6,515,~_0_0 2011 365,00~0 244,534 609,534 609,534 6,165,000_ 2012 385,000 231,596 616,596 616,596 5,800,000. 2013 . 400,000 218,055 618,055 618,_~55 5,415,000 2014 410,000 203,775 613,775 613,775 _ 5,015,000 2015 430,000 188,333 618,333 618,333 4,605,000 2016 445,000 171,593 616,593 616,5~3_ 4,175,000 2017 465,000 153,4_99 618,499 618,499 3,730,000 2018 485,000 134,~19 619,019 619,~19 3,265,000 2019 505,000 113,224 618,224 618,224 2,780,000 2020 535,000 g0~85~ 625,856 625~856 2,275,000 2021 555,000 66,871 621,871 621,871 1,740,000 2022 580,000 41,328 621,328 621,328 1,185,000 2023 605,000 14,0~ 619,066 __ 619,066 605,000_ - 36 - Parking Revenue Bonds Outstanding This page intentionally left blank. Parking Revenue Bond Outstanding Debt Obligation at June 30, 2005 Fiscal Year Principal & Outstanding June 30, 2005 Interest Debt Paid Amount of Payments Total Issue / Use of Funds Issue in Full FY2006 Principal Interest Obligation 1999 / Construction of Tower Place 1,550,000 2025 965,104 11,045,000 7,742,486 18,787,486 Parking Facility Total Parking Revenue Bonds: 965,104 11,045,000 7,742,486 18,787,486 - 37 - Annual Cost per Parking Ramp Space of Parking-related Debt $800.00 $700.00 .............................................. :.: .:.:.:.~.('~):.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:::: A $600.00 ~ $500.00 E $400.00 0 ,"', $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year (FY) (1) interest payments on the 1999 Parking Revenue bond issue began in fiscal year 2001. (2) Payment on the 1992 and 1995 Parking Revenue bonds were completed in fiscal years 2002 and 2004. Bond proceeds which are used for parking-related improvements must be repaid from Parking revenue. The following graph illustrates the annual revenue requirement per parking ramp space for principal and interest payments. - 38 - 1999 $11.35 Million Parking Revenue Bond Issue: Principal payable 7-1; Interest payable 1-1 and 7-1. This bond issue is used to pay for the construction of the Tower Place parking facility located on Iowa Avenue. Debt service is repaid from parking revenues. 2006 320,000 645,104 965,104 965,104 11,045,000 2007 335,000 625,863 960,863 960,863 10,725,000 2008 355,000 605,594 960,594 960,594 10,390,000 2009 370,000 584,298 954,298 954,298 10,035,000 2010 390,000 561,973 951,973 951,973 9,665,000 2011 410,000 538,473 948,473 948,473 9,275,000 2012 430,000 513,798 943,798 943,798 8,865,000 2013 455,000 487,801 942,801 942,801 8,435,000 2014 480,000 460,335 940,335 940,335 7,980,00(] 2015 505,000 431,401 936,401 936,401 7,500,000 2016 535,000 400,851 935,851 935,851 6,995,000 2017 565,000 368,468 933,468 933,468 6,460,000 2018 600,000 334,100 934,100 934,100 5,895,000 2019 630,000 297,815 927,815 927,815 5,295,000 2020 670,000 259,465 929,465 929,465 4,665,000 2021 710,000 218,400 928,400 928,400 3,995,000 2022 750,000 174,600 924,600 924,600 3,285,000 2023 795,000 128,250 923,250 923,250 2,535,00~ 2024 845,000 79,050 924,050 924,050 1,740,000 2025 895,00{3 26,850 921,850 921,850 895,00~ This page intentionally left blank. - 40 - IP6 TO: City Council ~~ .~~.~ FROM: Parks and Recreation Director RE: Angel statue in City Park ~ DATE: July 29, 2005 As you may have read in the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission, a local citizen (Bruce Titus) approached us about the possibility of donating a bronze angel statue, often called the "Angel of Hope." The purpose of this statue is to help with the healing process that comes with the loss of a child, and the intent is to hold a candlelight ceremony every December 6th, which is recognized in many parts of the world as Children's Day. A copy of his initial letter is attached. Mr. Titus appeared before the Commission in May, and again in July. At their May meeting, following extensive discussion, the Commission voted 7 to 1 with one abstention to support the concept of placing the angel statue in a city park subject to approval of size, script, location and a legal opinion. At their July meeting, having received a legal opinion from the City Attorney (copy attached), the Commission voted 6 to 1 with one abstention to approve the placement of the Angel of Hope statue in City Park located north of the main parking lot, that the text of the inscription be approved as submitted, and that the size not exceed 6'9" including the base (the angel itself is 4'3" tall, and has a wingspan of 5'2"). City Park was determined to be a good location due to its high visibility, its aesthetic appeal, and the fact that ample parking is nearby to accommodate the December 6th ceremony. As noted in the attached legal opinion, our City Attorney has determined that, "Placement of the proposed angel in a city park would not violate the Establishment Clause." She is also recommending that the Commission develop a policy that "governs the placement of permanent structures, such as monuments and memorials in a park." We are now in the initial stages of developing such a policy. There are a number of memorials and "monuments" in a variety of city parks for which we have not sought Council approval over the years. These include memorial trees and park benches, large engraved rocks, artwork, Hospice memorial, Kiwanis memorial and shelter, etc. The angel statue, however, is a rather unique situation and we felt it advisable that you be informed in a more precise manner than simply reading about it in the Commission minutes. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. October 5, 2004 Dear Mr. Trueblood, At this year's memorial service at Ground Zero in New York City it was not the children or the spouses, but the parents that read the names of their lost children from that awful day in September. It is the inexpressible grief of losing a child that Governor George Pataki talked about when he quoted President Dwight Eisenhower: "There's no tragedy in life like the death ora child. Things never get back to the way they were." It was New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that said "A man who loses his wife is a widower, a woman who loses her husband is a widow. There is no name for a parent who loses a child, for there are no words to describe this pain." It was just over two and one half years ago that I was in a serious car accident that took the life ora young daughter from Clinton, Iowa. I can never imagine the grief that her family felt finding out that their daughter had been taken away from them. Her dad recounted the last words that his daughter said to him....."I love you dad and you are so nice to me. Thank you always." Her dad went on m say that his daughter looked so beautiful laying in the church at her funeral and he had always imagined that she would look that beautiful in a church on the day that she got married. That would never happen and his heart was tom. He will probably never remember what I said, but I am trying to make good on my words to him: "Even though this was not my fault, I want something good to come out of this U'agedy." One of the good things I would like to see come out of this tragedy would be.to put an angel statue in Iowa. ntO help people with the healing process that comes with the loss of a child. Whether that child is an infant, has stillborn or is a teenager, people need a place to come and leave part of their grief. The idea for the statue comes from the book The Christmas Box, where a mother weeps at the base of the statue trying to deal with her grief. Them are now 45 statues across the US, with many more in the works where people can go to heal. The angel statue described m The Christmas 13ox nas become a place of hope and healing for thousands. Every year on December 6t~, which is Child's Day, a candlelight ceremony is held at the statues. After a few remarks, a moment of silence, and the lullaby of a children's choir, the attendees are invited to leave a white flower at the base of the angel statue. As you can see from the picture below this is a very beautiful bronze statue. On the base is inscribed the words "Our Little Angel". I would like to place this statue in a park in Iowa Ci~. I have some favorite parks but am looking for a recommendation from you on what you would think would be a great location for such a nice statue. With the necessary approval and private funding I would hope to have the dedication ceremony on December 6~ of 2005. Please call me at your convenience with any questions and how I need to proceed in making this dream a reality. Bruce Titus 337-6096 428 5~ Ave Iowa City, Iowa 52245 "The most important thing you can do is to give your sorrow meaning."-- Richard Paul Evans R A N D 1.1 M DATE: 7/13/2005 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: ELEANNOR M. DILKES, CITY ATTORNEY~I~I J~' RE: CHRISTMAS BOX ANGEL ISSUE Would placement of the "Christmes Box Angel" (hereinafter "the angel") in a City perk violete the Establishment Cleuse of the First Amendment? ANSWER Based on my understanding of the facts, placing a "Christmas Box Angel" in a City park would not be unconstitutional. However, I have some reservations based on my understanding that there is no policy regarding the placement of permanent structures donated by private individuals in a City park, and it is unclear to me what criteria guides the Commission in making these decisions. DISCUSSION Facts In determining whether the angel is constitutional, one must apply the facts to the law. My understanding of the facts is that the angel will be a gift from a private person who would purchase it from an entity called The Christmas Box House International. The web site for the organization, www.thechristmasboxhouse.or.q, provides background information including that the angel is a place for parents and others to grieve and heal over the loss of a child and is based on the book The Christmas Box by Richard Paul Evans about a woman who mourns the loss of her child. The proposed inscription on the angel will be: "For all who are grieving from the loss of a child this angel of hope is dedicated on December 6th, 2005. Annual candle light vigil December 6th 7:00 p.m." I do not know the following facts, the significance of which is discussed below: Where will the angel be placed? Will the City have any costs in the placement? Will the City have any regular maintenance expenses? What other memorials/monuments are already in a City park, and where within the park are they located? Law Items, such as cr6ches, of a religious nature that are placed on public property are often the subject of lawsuits based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion...." The United States Supreme Court's most recent opinions on the Establishment Clause arose from constitutional challenges to the placement of the 10 Commandments on government property. On June 27, 2005, the Court found the monuments on the Texas State Capitol grounds to be constitutional in Van Orden v. Perry, 2005 WL 1500276 (the "Texas Case") and ruled that the framed copies of the Commandments in two Kentucky county court houses were unconstitutional in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 2005 WL 1498988 (the "Kentucky" case). Park and Rec. Comm. July 13, 2005 Page 2 Most notably for our purpose, the Court in the Kentucky case refused to abandon the "Lemon Test." In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the United States Supreme Court set out what has been subsequently referred to as the "Lemon Test" to evaluate whether an action by a governmental entity violates the Establishment Clause. The action by the government is constitutional if it meets the following three-part test: (1) The law or activity "must have a secular legislative purpose;" (2) The "principal or primary effect" of the law or activity "must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;" and (3) The law or activity "must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.'" Analysis-Application of the Lemon Test to the An.qel Based on my understanding of the facts, I believe that the angel would meet the Lemon Test and hence be constitutional. Prong 1: Purpose. The first prong of the Lemon Test asks whether placement of the angel has a secular purpose. Based on the facts as I understand them, it does. The purpose is to have a place set aside in a park for people to reflect on the loss of a child. The proposed inscription provides that it is dedicated to people who are grieving for a child and that there will be an annual vigil on December 6 for people who have lost a child. From my review of the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings in which the angel was discussed and the information on the angel in the Christmas Box House International web site, I found nothing that would indicate a non-secular purpose. Prong 2: Effect/Perception of Intent. The next issue is what a reasonable observer would perceive that the City is intending by allowing the angel in a City park. In other words, is the City intending to endorse religion by placing the angel in a park? In answering this inquiry, one must view the context or the setting of the religious symbol. For example, both Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for the plurality and Justice Breyer in his concurring opinion in the Texas case found that the setting of the 10 Commandments was not religious. The park around the state capitol contains 16 other monuments and 21 historical markers all designed to reflect the state's history and ideals. The state did not purchase the monuments; they were a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The Commandments had been there for 40 years with no record of complaints. Additionally, the plaintiff walked by the monuments occasionally for 6 years before he filed a lawsuit. These facts led the Court to conclude that a reasonable observer would not conclude that the State of Texas was endorsing a religion. The proposed inscription on the angel is helpful in undermining any perception that the City is endorsing religion. However, without knowing the setting of the angel (i.e., where the angel will be placed and what other monuments are already in City parks), it is difficult to form an opinion on this prong. For instance, if the angel is placed at the entrance of City Park, a reasonable observer would more likely conclude that the City is endorsing religion than if it is placed in a secluded area under shade trees in Happy Hollow Park. Additionally, having a consistent POlicy for placement of structures Park and Rec. Comm. July 13, 2005 Page 3 that addresses the setting of such structures would more likely lead a reasonable observer to perceive that the City is not endorsing a religion by allowing placement of the angel. Prong 3: Entanglement. The third element is whether placement of the angel results in an excessive entanglement between the angel and the City. Again, there are some facts I know and others I do not. Those facts that I do know argue against entanglement. For example, the C!ty will not be purchasing the angel. Also, the City is dealing with a person, not a church or religious institution. But on the other hand---Will the City pay to install it, and if so, what is the cost? Will the City maintain it? Will the City pay and install a park bench? Will the City pay and plant a tree for shade? Even if the answer is in the affirmative to all those questions, it still does not seem that there will be an excessive entanglement because, there is no "comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance" as in Lemon. As the Court said in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 684 (1984), "[i]n many respects the [angel will] require[] far less ongoing, day-to-day interaction between church and state than religious paintings in public galleries." CONCLUSION Placement of the proposed angel in a City park would not violate the Establishment Clause. With that said, the City has no written policy that governs the placement of permanent structures, such as monuments and memorials, in a park. I urge the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop such a policy so that it is clear what criteria govern its decisions regarding the placement of such structures in City parks. Presumably, it is not the Commission's intention to open up the parks as a forum for the placement of all memorials and monuments, and therefore, there should be clear written criteria that govern these decisions. Copy to: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager Terry Trueblood, Director of Parks and Recreation BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION July 2005 ~,~ ?0 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS · Type of Improvement · ADD - Addition ALT- Alteration REP- Repair FND - Foundation Only NEW- New OTH - Other type of construction Type of Use · RSF- Residential Single Family RDF - Residential Duplex RMF - Three or more residential RAC- Residential Accessory BuiMing MIX- Mixed NON- Non-residential OTH- Other Page: 2 City of Iowa City r)ate: 8/~/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 7/1/2005 Census Bureau ,x 1, .t~'e-o~ From: 7/31/2005 Type Type Permit Number Name Address lmpr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00505 LOPAREX INC 2000 INDUSTRiAL PARK R ADD NON I 0 $600,000 7508sf Addition BLD05-00538 THE JOHN R ALBERHASKY 401 E MARKET ST ADD NON I 1 $28,000 COOLER ADDITION TO GROCERY STORE Total ADD/NON permits: 2 Total Valuation: $628,000 ~ BLD05-00499 THOMAS & ELIZABETH VIN 2019 R1DGEWAY DR ADD RSF 2 0 $300,000 Addition and interior remodeling BLD05-00534 TOM BAER & SUSAN WHIT[ 262 BLACK SPRINGS CIR ADD RSF 2 1 $200,000 ADDITION FOR SFD BLD05-00511 LYNN MARIE BRENNEMAN 821 EASTMOOR DR ADD RSF I 0 $71,000 Room Addition BLD05-00427 STILLE, DALE 649 SCOTT PARK DR ADD RSF 2 1 $50,000 2 STORY ADDITION TO SFD BLD05-00486 GERALD A & SUSAN S PIKE 61 GALWAY CIR ADD RSF 2 0 $50,000 Enclose area under screen porch and convert screen porch to habitable space BLD05-00488 MICHAEL J LENSING 411 FAIRCHILD ST ADD RSF I 0 $33,602 18' x 27' Addition BLD05-00409 GERALD CAMPION 732 MANOR DR ADD RSF 1 1 $27,825 GARAGE/SCREEN PORCH ADDITION FOR SFD BLD05-00460 SARAH YODER & JAMES PA 1908 B ST ADD RSF 2 I $27,000 ADDITION FOR SFD BLD05-00545 SAM & SUE MULLINS 1207 MARCY ST ADD RSF I 1 $12,000 PERGOLA ADDITION FOR SFD BLD05-00503 WILLIAM RAY BARNES 3 PARTRIDGE CT ADD RSF I 0 $5,000 Install 36' ramp BLD05-00387 CRAIG FARLINGER 1101 YEWELL ST ADD RSF 1 1 $2,000 DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD05-00496 JASON L ALLAN & DEBRA I 1703 GLEASON AVE ADD RSF 1 0 $2,000 14' x 20' uncovered deck BLD05-00533 STEVE & KAREN SCHUETT[ 1218 SUNSET ST ADD RSF 2 I $2,000 DECK AND POOL ADDITION FOR SFD BLD05-00418 JASON LOUGHRAN 1023 ARLINGTON DR ADD RSF I 1 $1,500 DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD05-00512 SHONDA J HITCHCOCK 1512 CROSBY LN ADD RSF I 0 $1,500 Uncovered two level deck BLD05-00513 PHILIP A & JUDITH S LEVIT 900 ARLINGTON DR ADD RSF 1 0 $800 Landing and stairs BLD05-00474 JOHN W & BARBARA K SPE! 905 N GILBERT ST ADD RSF I 0 $600 11' x 14' uncovered wood deck Total ADD/RSF permits: 17 Total Valuation: $786,827 / 1 BLD05-00430 HOUSE OF AROMAS 118 S CLINTON ST ALT NON 2 0 $75,000 ALTERATION TO COFFEE HOUSE Page: 3 City of Iowa City Date: 8/1/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 7/1/2005 Census Bureau Report From: 7/31/2005 Type Type Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00399 FALBO BROS PIZZA 230 E BENTON ST ALT NON 2 16 $15,000 TAKE OUT PIZZA STORE BLD05-00492 U OF l HOSPITALS 2346 MORMON TREK BLV ALT NON 1 0 $10,677 Interior remodel BLD05-00514 MERCY HOSPITAL 500 E MARKET ST ALT NON 1 0 $5,800 Add door between blood lab and storage BLD05-00462 DC GROUP LC 201 S CLINTON ST 116 ALT NON 2 0 $5,310 lnterior Remodel "Glassando" Italian Jewelry BLD05-00549 ADVANCE AMERICA 1705 S 1ST SUITE O ALT NON 1 4 $4,500 TENANT CHANGE IN STRIP MALL BLD05-00521 IOWA CITY CMNTY SCH DI,~ 1930 LAKESIDE DR ALT NON 1 0 $4,000 Remodel a bathroom into a class room BLD04-00954 RUTH V SWISHER REVOCAI 121 COLLEGE ST ALT NON 2 0 $1,000 STAGE PLATFORM SEPARATION FROM BAR I Total ALT/NON permits :8 Total Valuation: $121,287 BLD05-00306 FRANTZ CONSTRUCTION C~ 74 LANCESTER PL ALT RDF I I $15,852 BASEMENT FIN1SH OF RDF UNIT BLD05-00495 GARY D HUGHES 415 BOWERY ST ALT RDF 2 0 $5,000 Install bathroom on first floor [ Total ALT/RDF permits: 2 Total Valuation: $20,852 BLD05-00524 ROFFMAN, MARK J 516 E COLLEGE ST ALT RMF 3 0 $13,800 Replace stairs to unit#6, remove ceiling and replace #7, install roof over #,6, add decks per plan BLD05-00502 MIKE & BARB RECKER 221 S LUCAS ST ALT RMF 3 0 $8,000 Add bathroom to first floor Total ALT/RMF permits: 2 Total Valuation: $21,800 BLD05-00487 CHRISTOPHER J CLARK 3735 ELGIN DR ALT RSF 2 0 $13,000 Basement remodel BLD05-00467 HYUNG & KYONGHUI KlM 1964 JEFFREY ST ALT RSF 2 0 $10,387 Install windows in existing screen porch BLD05-00475 STEVEN A & SARA B MlTCk 3776 ELGIN DR ALT RSF ! 0 $9,785 Basement finish BLD05-00429 SABINE lRENE GOLZ 423 S 7TH AVE ALT RSF 2 0 $9,000 Attic dormer with window. Attic nonhabitable BLD05-00199 JEREMY R KNEPPER 57 LINDEMANN DR ALT RSF 1 I $8,000 BASEMENT FINISH OF SFD BLD05-00500 DOUGLAS D & SANDY VOLI 1821 WINSTON DR ALT RSF 2 0 $5,998 lnstall bathroom in the basement BLD05-00480 JAMES K & ANN E ELMBOR, 728 PARK RD ALT RSF 1 0 $3,000 Basement finish Page :' 4 City of Iowa City r)at¢: 8/ /2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 7/1/2005 Census Bureau Report From: 7/31/2005 Type Type Permit Number Name Address lmpr Use .Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00493 DUANE A & MARY TERESE 68 ARBURY DR ALT RSF I 0 $2,500 Install new exterior wall and fireplace BLD05-00454 CYNTHIA LEONARD 1416 PLUM ST ALT RSF 2 I $1,500 BEDROOM EGRESS WINDOWS BLD05-00507 HARRY HINCKLEY 326 FAIRCHILD ST ALT RSF 1 0 $1,000 Restoration/Remodel BLD05-00517 DANIEL A & JENNIFER J BA 1310 YEWELL ST ALT RSF 1 0 $1,000 Remove old entrance located at 1310 1/2 converted to S.F.D. BLD05-00522 WALTER I & CAMILLEA SE, 426 GRANT ST ALT RSF I 0 $1,000 Install railings BLD05-00464 SUSAN J SUROM 108 AMHURST ST ALT RSF 2 0 $976 lnstall egress window in bedroom BLD05-00477 JEREMY KNAPP 1518 CRESCENT ST ALT RSF 1 0 $891 Replace three bedroom windows with egress windows Total ALT/RSF permits: 14 Total Valuation: $68,037 I BLD05-00406 REGENCY HOMES 814 MACKINAW DR NEW MIX 2 I $197,407 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE MODEL HOME WITH SALES OFFICE lN GARAGE Total NEW/MIX permits: I Total Valuation: $197,407 I BLD05-00535 TERRY ELDER 2870 COMMERCE DR NEW NON 1 I $765,000 COMMERCIAL STORAGE UNITS BLD05-00536 KLlNE & CO 2474 FREEDOM CT NEW NON 1 1 $72,000 60 x 80 CONTRACTORS SHOPS I Total NEW/NON permits: 2 Total Valuation: $837,000 BLD05-00523 DOUG PAUL 1650 N SCOTT BLVD NEW RAC I 0 $45,000 Machine shed [ Total NEW/RAC permits: 1 Total Valuation: $45,000 BLD05-00393 REGENCY HOMES 1702 ALGONQUIN RD NEW RMF 2 16 $1,899,133 16 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ATTACHED GARAGES BLD05-00546 B & H BUILDERS 12 TREVOSE PL NEW RMF 2 4 $685,427 4 UNIT TOWNHOUSES 12-14-16-18 TREVOSE PLACE BLD05-00525 REGENCY HOMES 700 FOSTER RD NEW RMF 2 4 $514,223 4 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING WITH ATTACHED GARAGES 700, 704, 708,712 FOSTER RD. Total NEW/RMF permits: 3 Total Valuation: $3,098,783 BLD05-00062 CUSTOM CRAFTED HOMES 921 TAMARACK TRL NEW RSF 1 I $325,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE Page: 5 City of Iowa City Date: 8/1/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 7/1/2005 Census Bureau Report From: 7/31/2005 Type Type .Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00491 DOUG AND MARY RUMMEI 2887 HICKORY TR NEW RSF I I $267,000 S.F.D. with three car garage BLD05-00482 ARTISAN CUSTOM HOMES 1077 PRAIRIE GRASS NEW RSF 2 1 $250,000 S.F.D. with three car garage BLD05-00484 EL-JAY LLC 3459 IRELAND DR. NEW RSF 2 I $250,000 S.F.D. with three car garage BLD05-00439 SOUTHGATE 947 OXEN LANE NEW RSF 2 1 $212,800 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00438 SOUTHGATE 962 OXEN LANE NEW RSF 2 1 $200,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00509 WALDEN WOOD ASSOCIATi 10 KENNETH DR NEW RSF I 1 $185,500 S.F.D. with three car garage BLD05-00498 SGA CONSTRUCTION 1017 LANGENBERG NEW RSF 2 1 $185,000 S.F.D. with two car garage BLD05-00481 DONALD E & LOIS W LAUGI 835 CHURCH ST NEW RSF I I $163,908 S.F.D. with two car garage BLD05-00457 PRODIGY BUILDERS LC 2369 RUSSELL DR NEW RSF 2 1 $156,361 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00529 STEVE KOHLI CONST. 2991 KEEL BOAT LOOP NEW RSF 2 I $100,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00530 STEVE KOHLI CONST. 2977 KEEL BOAT LOOP NEW RSF 2 I $100,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE Total NEW/RSF permits: 12 Total Valuation: $2,395,569 BLD05-00510 SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMEN 901 HOLLYWOOD BLVD REP NON I I $297,809 Tear off and replace west roof BLD05-00527 CRAIG HAESEMEYER 223 WASHINGTON ST REP NON 3 4 $34,800 REPAIR ONE-HOUR TENANT/DWELLING SEPARATION FOR FUTURE TENANT BLD05-00497 KEN ALBRECHT 911 N GOVERNOR ST REP NON 1 0 $17,800 Reroof BLD05-00539 ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH 3 l0 N JOHNSON ST REP NON 2 I $8,300 CEILING REPAIR FOR CHURCH Total REP/NON permits: 4 Total Valuation: BLD05-00540 DAN CHRYSYTAL 606 KEOKUK CT REp RAC I I $900 Resheath Garage Total REP/RAC permits '. I Total Valuation: $900 I BLD05-00470 DEBRA J GENZ 705B EASTMOOR DR REP RDF 2 0 $65,000 Fire repair to one half duplex BLD05-00466 WAYNE & DOLORES M KEN 604 LARCH LN REP RDF 2 0 $3,832 Roof Repair Total REP/RDF permits: 2 Total Valuation: $68,832I · Page: 6 City of Iowa City Date: 8/1/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 7/1/2005 Census Bureau Report From: 7/31/2005 Type Type Permit Number Name Address lmpr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00506 HARVEY P & KATHLEEN M 840 MAGGARD ST REP RMF I 0 $19,380 Reroof Apratment BLD05-00194 DAN L W1LLIS 330 S LUCAS ST REP RMF 1 1 $18,000 RESIDING RMF lN CONSERVATION ZONE BLD05-00479 ROCHESTER HILLS CONDO 656 LARCH LN REP RMF 1 0 $3,650 Roof Repair Total REP/RMF permits: 3 Total Valuation: $41,030I 1 BLD05-00490 NORVAL & JOAN TUCKER 1600 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN R REP RSF I 0 $7,500 Porch Repair BLD05-00489 LISA R WILCOX 224 RICHARDS ST REP RSF 1 0 $5,000 Garage repair BLD04-00990 JAN1CE SWEET 931 6TH AVE REP RSF 2 0 $4,000 PORCH REPAIR OF SFD BLD05-00494 JOHN S & DARLYNE K NEFl~ 2305 MACBRIDE DR REP RSF 1 0 $2,000 Deck replacement BLD05-00515 VICTOR & BARBARA CAMII l 111 SHERIDAN AVE REP RSF I 0 $700 Replace front steps at porch BLD05-00501 WILLIAM NOWYSZ 431 E MARKET ST REP RSF 2 0 $500 Repair front steps Total REP/RSF permits: 6 Total Valuation: $19,700 GRAND TOTALS: PERMITS: 80 VALUATION: $8,709,733 AGENDA City of Iowa City City Council Economic Development Committee Monday, August 15, 2005 8:00 a.m. City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 East Washington Street 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - July 19, 2005 3. Introduction - Meredith Hay, VP for Research at the University of Iowa 4. Presentation on Information Technology - Eric Higgins-Freese, Iowa City IT Dept. 5. Business Visit Update and Discussion of Future Issues 6. Set Next Meeting Date 7. Adjournment MINUTES PRELIMINARY CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Emie Lehman, Bob Elliot, Regenia Bailey Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: NONE CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 21, 2005 Motion: Elliot moved to approve the minutes from June 21, 2005 meeting as written. Bailey seconded. Motion passed 3:0. BUSINESS VISIT UPDATE Nasby said that he only had one additional council member interested in participating in the business visits. He asked whether the committee would like him to make another offer to the council members. Regina said that the best way of informing them about participating would be to discuss with each council member individually. Lehman asked for a list of visits that are still available so that he could pass it around at the Council meeting this evening. He added that the committee would make sure all the visits were completed. Nasby said that he gave each of the committee's members a copy of the introductory letter, which presents a summary of the committee's purpose. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE ISSUES Nasby said that at the last meeting the committee discussed the possibilities of wi-fi technology. He mentioned that he talked with Gary Cohn, City IT coordinator, and Gary would be available to come and present more about the available technologies and possible applications for the City and Economic Development. Nasby said that he has started collecting information regarding the City's T1F projects. He said that the projects funded by TIF could be divided into industrial and commercial categories. He said that both types increase the tax base, but the commercial projects tend to be focused more on 2 redeveloping an area of the community and the investment in industrial activities provide more quality jobs. Nasby added that the City's investment in TIF funded projects typically follow a historical pattern and that this may be an issue the committee wants to review. Elliot said that this TIF information would make a great report for the Council to present what has evolved from the TIF investment, what were the gains and the lessons learned. Bailey asked if the method Iowa City uses for reviewing and using TIF is typical for other communities. Nasby said that they had not gathered that information, but certainly could. Bailey said that she was expecting to see a higher investment in the industrial projects which provide higher benefits in the long run. Lehman said that he considers the committee and Council to be very judicious in the way they have used TIF. He added that there was more money in invested in non-TIF redevelopment projects because of the City's actions. He mentioned that them is assistance available, but would certainly like to see firms making it on their own. Nasby said that there is the example of Iowa State Bank and Trust on Keokuk who redeveloped on their own near Pepperwood Plaza because of the TIF investment made in that area. Bailey said that this was a direct benefit from TIF. Nasby mentioned that there were also a couple of TIF projects that were anticipated to provide a certain number of jobs, but ended up providing more, far exceeding the original expectations. Lehman said that they should be proud of the way they utilized TIF, and would be great to have a report in the Council's packet along with a presentation made by Nasby to summarize all this information. He mentioned that the public needs to find out about their actions. He noted that the Southgate project at Pepperwood Plaza has brought a lot of positive reaction from the public. Elliot said that the positive public reaction is also present in the Sycamore Mall redevelopment area. He mentioned that it is great to also see the peripheral businesses spreading. Lehman asked if the sales tax information is available for Sycamore Mall. He said that it would be interesting to compare the sales tax numbers from the past couple of years. He noted that there would be obvious changes. He added that the peripheral benefits of the Sycamore Mall are also really consistent. Elliot said that he considers that Iowa City had used TIF funds very judiciously and effectively, and that the story needs to be told. Bailey said that there are visible benefits, but the more they could be quantified, the more positive response would be received. Bailey said that if the TIF money was funded in the two sectors Nasby mentioned, she wondered if there were other sectors that could be funded and have the same positive results. Nasby said that some communities use TIF funds to stimulate housing growth, but this has not been an issue in our community. Bailey asked if they also use the funds for affordable housing. Nasby said that TIF had been used for affordable housing in Iowa City. However, he said that there had been a change with the way that the affordable housing produced with the Low Income Housing Tax Credits is assessed. He said that his understanding is that they are not assessed on the actual value of the building and land, but on a percentage of cash flow. He mentioned that they submit their financial record to the assessors' office, and the assessors' office looks at the 3 states' formula. Due to this new assessment method, TIF probably would not be an effective tool. Lehman said that he would like to have this as an agenda item and Nasby would make a public presentation to the City Council. Bailey said that it would be very informative and would help the public understand the usc of TIF funds and Economic Development efforts. Nasby said that he will put together a presentation for August or September. Bailey said that the concept incubator had started to proliferate. She mentioned that Cedar Rapids has a downtown incubator for retail, and would be interested to see what their objectives are. She said that it is a new concept and should be investigated to determine if it could be useful in our community. Elliot said that he read that Integrated DNA Technologies started in the University of Iowa's incubator at Oakdale. Nasby noted that the University of Iowa opened the Bell center as a type of incubator. Bailey said that she does not consider that center accessible to everyone in the community. Elliot said that one of the things that should be achieved is to provide employment opportunities. He asked if there is anything that the City could do in addition to the State job service to help people who want to come back in town. Bailey asked what follow-up is made to businesses funded with CDBG to help them continue to operate efficiently. Nasby said that after funding there is the initial monitoring to determine if they've complied, and after that there is not much more contact. Bailey asked if these organizations could be added to the business visit list. Lehman said that he would like to set up a meeting at one of those places such as Deluxe Bakery. Nasby said that the meeting space needs to be accessible. Elliot said that it needs to be clear that just providing money to someone, helping them, and then forgetting them is not the goal of the committee. Bailey said that she would like to see a full time position in the Economic Development office. Lehman said that he would like to encourage new businesses, but in the same time grow the existing businesses. Elliott added that there should be a bank of information regarding the available positions in the community to make the job searching easier. Nasby said that Workfome Development and a website through the Technology Corridor provide that type of job listings. Bailey said that it is easier to look for a job than to look for information about how to start your own small business. Lehman said that in order to have a full time person approved by the Council there would need to have a good job description of what the person is expected to do. Bailey said that she would like to see the City being "strategically proactive" in the future. She added that an economic development person could explore feasibility. She asked if that could be added to the August agenda. She said that they would have to figure out what the goals are and what are the priorities. Lehman said that they would need to have a great description of the position, of the benefits of having the proposed position. He said that they would also have to determine how to fund the 4 position partially from the committee's own funds. Bailey said that she would also like to see partnership with other organizations. Lehman said that the University of Iowa would partner with the City. STAFF UPDATE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Nasby said that at the last meeting Elliott had asked about a database for consultants. Nasby said that there is a consultant database online through the International Economic Development Council (IEDC). He said that this could be a model to be followed if wanted. Nasby said that on July 23ra there is the ribbon cutting ceremony at the Lodge and everyone is invited. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting had been tentatively scheduled for August 16, 2005. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:57 AM. Council Economic Development Committee Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 02/01 02/17 3/17 3/31 06121 07/19 00/00 Regenia Bailey 01/02/08 x x x x X X Bob Elliott 01/02/08 x x x x × Ernest Lehman 01/02/06 x x x x X × Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member board agenda ~~M Board Agenda AGENDA PATV BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Thursday, August 18th, 2005 7:00 pm PATV - 206 Lafayette Street 1. Call meeting to order 2. Consent agenda 3. Approval of June minutes 4. Old business 5. Short public announcements 6. New business 7. Reports A, TCTC B, Committees i, Building & Grounds ii. Outreach & Fundraising iii. Technology C. Treasurer D. Hanagement - Iowa Shares 8. Board announcements 9. Adjournment If you have additional agenda items or cannot attend the meeting, please contact Josh at 338-7035., http://www.patv.tv/BOD.html Page I of AGENDA PATV BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Thursday, July 2t, 2005 7:00 pm PATV - 206 Lafayette Street 1. Call meeting to order 2. Consent agenda 3. Approval of May minutes 4. Old business 5. Short public announcements 6. New business 7. Reports · ICTC · Committees i. Building & Grounds ii. Outreach & Fundraising iii. Refi'anchising · Treasurer · Management- Iowa Sharos, Annual Meeting 8. Board announcements 9. Adjournment If you have additional agenda items or cannot attend the meeting, please contact Josh at 338-7035. PATV Board of Directors' Meeting - FINAL Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:00 PM PATV - 206 Lafayette Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 1. Called meeting to order: Jack Fuller called meeting to order at 7:09 PM with second. Present were Holly Berkowitz (11104-11/07), John Carhoff (11/02 - 11/05), Jack Fuller (12/01-11/07), Brett Gordon (11/04-11/07), Ross Meyer (11/04-11/07), Phil Phillips (11/03-11/06), and Director Josh Goding. Tom Nothnagle (11/98-11/04) present. Steve Newell (11/01-11107) arrived later. Hannah Weston (11/04-11/07) called. Brett Lord-Castillo, ICTC. 2. Consent to agenda: Jack F. with second. 3. Approval of April Minutes: Approved April minutes. Holly B with second of Ross M.: Change "Draft" to "Final" please. 4. Old business Discussion: a. 'rom N: Discussion of streaming and copyright. b. Holly B: Will print list of dates with minutes. c. Discussion of condenser mic and stand. 5. Short public announcements: none 6. New business: a. Holly B: Would like PATV to help archive recordings of concerts in [owa City. Discussion. b. Holly B asked about PATV radio. Discussion. 7. Reports i. ICTC: Brett Lord-Castillo: The ICTC deferred voting for franchise until next meeting on June 6, 2005 when Bryce Williams will be there. And then iowa City Council on June 7, 2005. Discussion included May 16, 2005 editorial in Iowa City Press-Citizen, rules for cities, megahertz, competition, funding, extension, expenses, annexation, history of legislation. Can write letters to the editor regarding editoria~ on role of PA'rV and maintenance of funding. Can apply to ICTC online. ii. Committees: 1. Building & Grounds: John C: Thanks to those who helped work on landscaping, trimming. 2. Outreach & Funding: a. Ross M: Benefit at the Mill raised $100. Videotaped. Suggested events several times per year. Thanked Jamal. b. Thanked Bob Jett for fundraiser. c. Discussed Bike-in Film Festival in parking lot. 3. Refranchising: See ICTC notes. iii. Treasurer: Steve N: Discussed Western Assets market and expenses are up in April [taxes, fund, withholding tax, insurance, video service (analog decks & edit control room old), dub, insurance, tax equity, TIPS, port]. iv. Management Josh G: a. Thanks, Jamal and Bob Jett. b. Dates: · Open Channel. on Wednesday, May 25 @ 8:00- 9:00 pm; Call for talent at 7:30 pm · PATV closed Saturday, May 28, 2005 · Producer Forum on June 2 @ 7:30 pm: Critique by peers · Bike-in theater on June 8 at sunset · Iowa Shares Chisholm event on Sunday, May 22, 2005, 1:00-4:00 pm in Cedar Rapids African- American Museum · Board Retreat: Scheduled for June 6, 2005 at the Atlas (cancelled, to reschedule) for discussion and committee meetings. Bring ideas for agenda. · Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 c. Discussion: May need another channel. 8. Board Announcements: none 9. Adjournment at 8:44 pm. Final 5/19/05 PATV BOD minutes respectfully submitted by Holly Berkowitz, BOD Secretary on 7/19/05 RANDUM DATE: August 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Tentative Schedule Of 2005 Council Meetings (Open Monday Tuesday Dates September-December) Council Member Vanderhoefrequested the following information be provided for discussion purposes. Monday, September 5 - HOLDAY Tuesday, September 6 - Special Work Session (TBA) Formal Monday, September 12 Tuesday, September 13 Wednesday, Sept. 14-16 Iowa League of Cities Monday, September 19 - Work Session Tuesday, September 20 - Formal Monday, September 26 Tuesday, September 27 Monday, October 3 - Work Session Tuesday, October 4 - Formal Monday, October 10 Tuesday, October 11 PRIMARY, if necessary Monday, October 17 - Work Session Tuesday, October 18 - Formal Monday, October 24 Tuesday, October 25 Open Dates Schedule August 16, 2005 Page 2 Monday, October 31 - Work Session Tuesday, November 1 - Formal Monday, November 7 Tuesday, November 8 ELECTION DAY Monday, November 14 - Work Session Tuesday, November 15 - Formal Monday, November 21 Tuesday, November 22 Monday, November 28 Tuesday, November 29 Monday, December 5 - Work Session Tuesday, December 6 - Formal Monday, December 12 Tuesday, December 13 Monday, December 19 - Work Session Tuesday, December 20 - Formal S:opendates.doc IPIO Minutes Draft Iowa City/Coralville Animal Care and Adoption Center Advisory Board May 25, 2005 Attended by: John Lundell, Maryann Dennis, Kathy Magarrell, Tammara Meester Staff Present: Misha Goodman, Mia Bartles, Tom Widmer Absent: Shane Kron Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m. (Coralville City Hall) Old Business 1) Minutes of January 2005 approved. 2) Resolution for Fees - the Board supports the proposed increase in fees (trap rental and permit fees do not pertain to Coralville). Goodman will send final draft of fee document, Board will give final approval, and document will be sent to Iowa City City Council in early June. 3) Adoptathon/Paws in the Park - Adoptathon will be held on June 18 at the shelter. This year's event will be a western theme; Girl Scouts are going to help with the event. Paws in the Park will take place on Sept. 18 at City Park. 4) Drainage System (outdoor dog runs) - Engineering Division working on putting in drainage for outdoor dog runs; gutters are being repaired. Building will need to be painted this year. New Business 1) 28 E Agreement Evaluation - Coralville is terminating its present agreement, but is not dissolving their relationship with IC. They would like to renegotiate a new contract. 2) Staff Shortages - Animal Control Officer Jim Williams is out until at least mid- July due to an injury; Gwen Williams is leaving June 18. There are 2 temporary employees under 10 hours a week; shelter got approval for one temp at 30 hours a week to cover for the time Jim is out. 3) Board Member Reports - No member reports. 4) Citizen comment - None. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Next meeting - IPll MINUTES D R A F T IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 13, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL-IOWA CITY CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, Ned Wood, Michael Wright (arrived at 5:07) MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Mitch Behr, Jeffrey Banks (planning intern) OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Kalb, Gayle King Zeithamel CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:03 pm. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 8, 2005 BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Leigh seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC05-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20-foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue. Miklo said that the discussion regarding this application was deferred at the last meeting and the applicant was required to submit a site plan and elevation drawings for the proposed changes. Miklo said that the site plan shows the area where the addition will further encroach into the required 20 foot rear yard. He mentioned that there are other additions to the property that do not need special exception. He presented photographs illustrating the current conditions. He also presented the proposed site plan and elevation drawings. Public Hearing Opened Paul Kalb, 1012 Hudson Avenue, said that he plans on pursuing an extensive renovation. He mentioned that he would like to put on a new roof and would like to add to the corner of his house, and this addition required the special exception. He said that he lived in the property for 12 years, and moved to Dubuque, and in the past 6 years rented the 1012 Hudson Avenue property. However, he said that he had unfortunate tenants, and that explains the condition of the property. He said that he would like to renovate it and make it more attractive with the goal of getting better tenants. Maurer asked what the estimated cost of the project would be. Kalb said that the budget is between $30,000 and $40,000. Wright asked if the entrance to the garage will be from the same driveway that currently exists. Kalb said that the same driveway will be used. However, he said that the garage will be facing south, so the garage door will not be facing the street. Wood asked if the planned roof will be for the entire structure. Kalb said that he plans on replacing the entire roof surface. Kalb said that the property had passed a rental inspection in 1996. He added that the last inspection was last spring, and at that point the roof was leaking due to the fact that there are too many valleys to the roof because of different additions made to the house at different points in time. Wood asked if the vinyl siding proposed in the site plan will be used for the entire house. Kalb said that the house currently has wood siding, and that he plans on replacing it with vinyl siding all over. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 15, 2005 Page 2 Gayle Zeithamel, 429 Douglass Court, said that last time she was in front of the commission she submitted pictures taken from her property to prove that her privacy will be invaded if the addition to the existing property at 1012 Hudson Avenue is approved. She mentioned that a 6-foot fence equals exactly 6 feet of privacy. Zeithamel added that the structure arises approximately 3 times higher than the fence due primarily to the proximity of the structure to the property line. She said that no one would like to live 5 feet from the property when the regulations require a setback of 20 feet from the fence. Zeithamel said that the existing situation of the roof does not exist entirely due to the valleys that exist in the roof, but to the fact that the entire structure of the roof had not beeh kept up. She said that there are pictures showing garbage bags hanging from the smoke stacks from previous leaks. She said that a great improvement would be to knock off the back of the structure and bring it up to code. She said that she does not believe that the extension of the building would be an improvement. She mentioned that she does not believe that the tenants are responsible for the general maintenance of the building. She said that she strongly objects to the application, and that its approval would be a violation, and that the application does not fulfill the criteria necessary for approval. She said that the approval would cause emotional, mental injury, as well as a loss of enjoyment of the quality of her property. She said that it would not be advantageous to any neighbor or neighborhood to give special treatment to a property owner that has not shown any consideration or concern for his neighbors or property. Kalb said that the house at 1012 Hudson Avenue was built in 1935, 21 years before the house at 429 Douglass Court was built, and 43 years before the current owner of 429 Douglass Court moved in. He said that to say to pick up the house and just move it would not be a feasible option for him. He said that in the long run, the changes made at the property would be an advantage to the entire neighborhood. Alexander asked if the Board would have to decide only regarding the addition to the back of the house. Miklo said that only the addition to the back is the object of discussion. He added that the portion that the proposed addition would be attached to is nonconforming to the current regulations, and the code does not allow expansion of a nonconformity. He said that the only way of making the attachment would be by special exception reducing the yard for the existing portions of the building that are located in the required rear yard, as well as the proposed addition. Alexander said that the Board's job is not making the existing non-conforming property conform. Miklo said that the Board could not tell someone to replace the portion that is non-conforming. However, he said that the regulations say that there should be nothing done to prolong the life of the existing non- conformity. He added that this would be a factor that the Board should consider. Zeithamel said that nobody asked the owner to pack up and move his house. She said that she sees enough of the property in the back, and would not like to see any additions to the back. Public Hearing Closed MOTION: Alexander made a motion that EXC05-00010 an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20-foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue be approved subject to conformance to the submitted site plan. Leigh seconded the motion. Alexander would vote in favor of the application. She said that it is a peculiar situation. She mentioned that the house sits in a very odd spot on the lot. She said there is some practical difficulty involved in terms of t.rying to make the proposed improvements. She said that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She said that the extensiveness of the renovations planned will improve the property. The proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. She said that she understands the concerns presented, but does believe that squaring the back of the house would make it a more enjoyable place. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2005 Page 3 development and improvement of the surrounding properties. She said that she hopes that the aesthetics of the home would improve, and increase the neighbors' enjoyment of the area. She mentioned that there is no change in egress or ingress. She said that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Maurer would vote in favor. He said that the application meets the general standards, and the improvements would make things better. Wood would also vote in favor. He said that it would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, and would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He said that he believes that the improvements would make the structure more sound, and it would be a vast improvement. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. He said that there would be no impact on ingress and egress and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Leigh would also vote in favor of the application for the reasons already mentioned. She stated the extent to which the structure is already in violation of the codes would not go away. She said that the addition would make the area much more enjoyable and attractive. Wright would vote in favor. He said that the corner being squared off would not encroach any further towards the fences. He said that this is a peculiar situation, and that the neighborhood is fully developed. He said that he would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Motion passed 5:0. Zeithamel said that she does not understand why a way of providing privacy for her property was not discussed. She mentioned that it is clear from her arguments and the picture presented that the 6-foot fence does not provide enough privacy, and wonders why the owner was not asked to do something about it, like plant some trees. Behr said that with the matter having been closed, and the applicant having left the room, the Board should not add anything to the discussion. EXC05-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street. Presenting the staff report Banks said that originally the applicant requested a 15-foot reduction in the set-back, but he changed it into the minimum reduction necessary to accommodate the parking lot. He presented images of the location, and revised drawings. He said that the parking lot would provide parking spaces for the surrounding businesses. Discussing the general standards Banks said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that initially the plan submitted had two curb cuts. Staff had recommended that the applicant revise the plan with only one curb cut along Orchard Street. Banks added that the new drawings present only one curb cut. Additionally, he said that the proposed use, while not conforming to the dimensional requirements for a 20-foot setback in the CC-2 zone, does provide sufficient landscaping with a row of arborvitae and shade trees to provide a buffer. Next he said that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Banks said that the landscaping with a row of arborvitae and shade trees will provide a buffer between parking and the street and residential area. Additionally, he said that the parking lot has the potential to reduce the spillover parking from commercial uses. Banks continued by saying that the establishment of the specific proposed exception should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. He said that staff does not believe that the proposed use would have a significant impact on the development of the surrounding properties. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2005 Page 4 He said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets, He noted that traffic is not expected to change. He added that the initial two curb points presented would have created some conflict, however that issue was corrected. He stated that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located. He mentioned that because the zoning boundary runs down the center of the right-of-way, the requested reduction in the front yard setback would place parking within 50 feet of the residential zone. He said that staff does not see alternate space for commercial parking which is needed in the area. The proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that the Southwest District Plan indicates the area as potential as a mixed use area. The proposed reduction, he said, would benefit the existing commercial uses in the area and therefore appears to be conforming to the Comprehensive Plan. Banks said that pedestrian access is one priority not addressed in the proposed parking lot and staff recommends that the applicant make provisions for a continuation of the sidewalk which runs north/south along the west side of the Orchard Street and currently terminates at the property in question. Staff recommends that EXC05-00013 an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street be approved subject to the condition that they specify the variety of shade trees to be planted on the property. Public Hearin,q Opened NONE Public Hearing Closed MOTION: Wright moved that EXC05-00013 an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street be approved subject general conformance to the site plan, and that they specify the variety of shade trees to be planted on the property. Alexander seconded the motion. Maurer would vote in favor of the application. He said that the general standards have been met, and it would be an improvement. Wright would vote in favor. He said that it meets the general standards. He said that it should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, and should improve those factors. The proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The landscaping and the addition of the sidewalk will make the area more pleasant. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. He added that the area is fully developed and the effect should be minimal. He said that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that it is across the street from a residential neighborhood, but there is no place for parking in the area. The addition of the landscaping and sidewalk would offer a substantial buffer between the commercial and the residential area. Alexander would also vote in favor of the application for the reason stated. She said that the paving and the landscaping will be an improvement over the current conditions. Leigh would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Wood would vote in favor. He said that the pavement, the landscaping, and the fact that it would provide more parking space would be a great benefit to the area. He added that it will be consistent to the Comprehensive Plan. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2005 Page 5 OTHER NONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION NONE ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Leigh moved to adjourn. Alexander seconded the motion, The meeting adjourned at 5:55. s:lpcdlmlnuteslBOAJ2006107-13~)5.doc Board of Adjustment Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 01/12 02/09 03/09 04/13 05/11 06/08 07/13 08/10 09/14 10/12 11/09 12/14 Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X X X NM X X X Ned Wood 01/01/10 .... X X NM X X X Karen Leigh 01/01/07 X O/E X NM X X X Vincent Maurer 01/01/06 X O/E X NM X X X Michael Wright 01/01/09 X X X NM X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DRAFT JULY 21, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Don Anciaux, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Nila Houg, Dennis Nowotny, Greg Rockow, Stephen Trefz, John Logan, A. Pagliai, Debby Harapat, Sally Jablonski, Richard Vest RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB05-00011, a preliminary plat of Resubdivision of North Airport Development, a 40.79-acre, 11-1ot commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport along Ruppert Road. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB05-00016, a final plat of Olde Town Village, a 49-1ot, 33.3-acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Scott Boulevard and north of Lower West Branch Road subject to Staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to Council consideration. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, VAC05-00006, vacation of alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: Howard said a number of factors were considered by staff when trying to determine what would be the most appropriate zoning designations for the areas of the city currently zoned CB-2. In the proposed zoning code the CB-2 Zone is proposed to be eliminated which means that any areas currently zoned CB-2 will have to be rezoned to something else appropriate. The factors considered were: 1) the mix of land uses in that exist today in the CB-2 areas; 2) the zones and land uses that surround the CB-2 areas; 3) the intensity of development and mix of land uses allowed in each of the proposed zones; 4) the intensity of development in existence today and the mix and intensity of development that is envisioned in the future for these areas. Staff used the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan for guidance. The intent is to acknowledge the existing land uses in those areas today and try to establish appropriate zoning that would Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 2 of 18 accommodate the desired uses of property over time in a manner that would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Howard said there are a number of zoning districts proposed in the rezoning applications; staff has met with a number of the property owners since the initial information meeting that was held several months ago to explain what the various zones mean for future development or redevelopment of property in these areas. Howard gave a brief explanation of each zoning district being considered: Central Business Support Zone (CB-5): allows for the orderly expansion of the downtown Central Business District. Accommodates a mix of commercial mixes at a slightly lower intensity than what would be allowed downtown. The zoning code includes special building and site design standards due to the intensity of development allowed and the intended pedestrian orientation of the zone. Residential uses are only allowed on the upper floors of buildings, commercial uses required to be built on the ground level. CN-1 Zone, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Intended to promote small scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area conveniently located to nearby residential areas. Intended to promote pedestrian-oriented development at an intensity level that is compatible with residential uses. Uses allowed include retail office, restaurants, bars personal service uses, theatres, other small commercial recreational uses, daycares and schools. Mixed Use Zone (MU), which is renamed in the proposed code from Residential Office Zone. This zone has been revised in the proposed code to allow a wider variety of commercial uses and residential uses in a manner that is compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. This zone can be used to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. It is unique in that it allows residential or commercial uses On the ground floor of buildings, so is truly a mixed use zone. With a few exceptions, the uses allowed are similar to the CN-1 Zone. High-Density Multi-Family Zone (RM-44). Intended for high density apartments close to city services and employment centers. Planned High-Density Multi-Family Zone (PRM). Intended for high density apartments in proximity to the downtown and the University. Allows slightly higher level of residential density than the RM-44 zone. REZ05-0001~:, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. Smith recused himself stating a potential conflict of interest through his employment. Howard used an overhead map and power point presentation to identify the proposed zones within the CB-2 East area and Staff's rationale for each proposed zoning designation. CB-5 zoned areas would be contiguous to downtown and higher density/intensity public uses, was along major arterial streets, zoning would acknowledge and keep conforming the existing larger office uses such as the bank and allow New Pioneer Coop to expand in the future. Gas stations would be allowed in CB-5 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 3 of 18 Mixed Use zoned areas would be contiguous to a lower intensity residential area close to College Green Park. Current uses in this area are lower intensity office, mixed residential and retail. M/U Zone would acknowledge existing uses and keep them conforming. Regarding the property along Burlington Street where Hanson's Auto Body currently has their business. None of the proposed zones would allow auto repair so Hanson's would become a non-conforming use. The proposal is to rezone this property RM-44 similar to the surrounding zoning. Hanson's would be grandfathered in as a legal nonconforming use, and could continue as auto repair indefinitely or could be sold in the future to continue as an auto-body repair shop or to be redeveloped as a use allowed in the RM-44 Zone. If the property were ever re- developed, staff felt RM-44 zoning would be the best fit for that particular property as it is currently surrounded by RM-44 zoning. Howard stated that a number of property owners had discussed and were concerned about the potential change in the allowed density of residential development between the proposed zoning and the current density allowed in the CB-2 Zone. Staff has given consideration to this issue and feel it would be appropriate to increase the residential density from what was currently proposed in the draft Code (1 dwelling unit per 2725-square feet) to I dwelling unit per 1800- square feet which would be equivalent to what is allowed in the Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential zone. Public discussion was opened. Charles Eastham, President of the Board of the Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City, asked if the proposed changes would take effect whether or not the proposed Code revisions were adopted by Council or not? Miklo said Staff had contemplated them based on the CB-2 zone going away. In the event that the CB-2 zone was retained in the new code, Staff thought it would be on case-by-case basis that the Commission and Council would decide if some of the areas would be more appropriately zoned something else even if the CB-2 zone were not eliminated. Howard said these rezonings would be deferred until the draft of the Zoning Code was forwarded to the City Council, so they could be considered by Council at the same time. None of the rezonings would occur before the new Zoning Code was adopted. Eastham asked Staff to outline the effect of changing the zoning designation of the property at 10 South Gilbert Street from CB-2 to CB-5 if the Society were to decide to remodel or to rebuild on their current property. What would be the effect if the Society were to decide to sell their property. Howard said the CB-5 zone was a higher density zone and higher intensity commercial zone than a CB-2 zone. The CB-5 zone allowed religious institutions. The effect for their existing use would basically be the same as it was today. If the Society decided to sell their property the CB-5 zone would allow slightly more development. Factors such as the size of the property might constrain its value more than the zoning would. Miklo said given the size of the property it would be difficulty to achieve the maximum allowed by either the CB-2 or CB-5. Nila Hau,q, 517 E. Washington Street, owner properties in the 500 block of Washington Street. Houg said she was counting on selling her properties for her retirement after she was finished residing there. She had had a market analysis of the properties done, based on the present zoning and the potential use of the properties they were valued in excess of 2 million dollars. If the density of the units and the number of people allowed per unit was reduced per the proposed new zoning code, it would decrease the value of her properties by more than one-half. Haug said she felt that was unfair and it appeared to her that someone was trying to artificially control the supply and demand of available units in the downtown area for the benefit of a Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 4 of 18 wealthy developer at the expense of smaller people who would like to develop their properties. She did not like to have the possibilities taken away by the proposed rezoning. Howard said residential density was controlled not only by the densities in the Zoning Code but also by the size of the property and how much room there was for parking. There were a lot of factors that went into how much density could actually be achieved on a piece of property. Haug said she was within 300-feet of a parking ramp so her parking requirements could be reduced by one-half according to the current zoning code. Miklo said that would be possible only if it were approved by the Board of Adjustment, it was not a given. Dennis Novotny, 511 Washington Street, said he was taken aback by the staff memorandum regarding the allowed residential density in the MU zone. It appeared that Staff was attempting to look at some of the issues with respect to the lower density that they were proposing. He felt the densities should be looked at. Novotny said he felt there was a disjointed discussion in the memorandum between paragraph 3 compared to paragraph 4 with respect to the zones and allowed density in each zone. It would be a drastic reduction in density dropping the CB-2 properties to M/U and from the allowed 5 persons per unit to 3 persons per unit. He felt it should be at least as dense as the eastern half (RNC-20 zone) of Iowa City was, not 3 persons per unit. He felt the proposed graph of allowed densities was a disjointed curve and not a smooth transition and it needed to be straightened out more. Miklo said the density in the RNC-20 and RM-20 was the same as was being proposed for the Mixed Use zone of multi-family of one unit per 1800-square feet. For comparison, the RM-12 Zone was one unit per 2,725-square feet. Gre.q Rockow, said he drove these streets every day. When he had moved to Iowa City in 1975, downtown Iowa City had been Iowa Avenue on the north, Clinton Avenue on the west, Gilbert Street on the east and Burlington Street on the south. The proposed Zoning Code was grandfathering in certain uses and acknowledging uses. Rockow asked if anyone had ever considered just expanding the downtown all the way to Governor Street from Market Street and letting the people that had the money develop it. There were already existing properties with bedrooms above the commercial and offices uses there now. Expand the downtown. Rockow said he felt they would again be in the same situation in 3 or 4 years because someone wanted a different zoning or wanted to put commercial in a residential zone. Rockow asked if anyone had given any serious consideration to letting the town grow, to letting the central business district (CBD) grow. There were tons of people who wanted to get into the CBD in some way, shape or form. It was very restricted as to what could be done with a little piece of zoning here and a little piece of different zoning there. He suggested opening it up and letting the people with money come in and buy it up. Rockow said it would not happen overnight, it would be a long process. No one had ever talked about expanding. The discussions had always been about going piece by piece, lot by lot, block by block. Miklo said a number of years ago the Comprehensive Plan had included a study of the downtown and what was appropriate with regard to expanding the central business district. The area south of Burlington Street was studied as a suitable area for the expansion of the downtown in the future. The areas to the east and north were designated for more controlled growth because of the historic districts in those areas and the mix of existing residential in those areas. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 5 of 18 Stephen Trefz, representing three properties owners in the area of College and Van Buren Streets; also the Executive Director of the Community Mental Health Center (CMHC), a not-for - profit agency that owns 4 buildings on the corner of College and Van Buren Streets. Trefz read a letter from Mark Holtkamp, co-owner of a property at 506 E. College Street. In his letter Holtkamp said · He felt the rezoning would decrease the value of their property by limiting any possible redevelopment due to allowable density of the new code designation. · He did not understand the criteria used to determine which properties were selected to be "up zoned" to CB-5 instead of Mixed Use. · He requested the Commission to keep the CB-2 zone and consider rezoning areas further from downtown Mixed Use. · Alternatively, he requested to have their property rezoned to CB-5. Trefz also read a letter he had written. Main points of his letter included: · the CMHC opposed the rezoning as a property owner for a number of reasons · the CMHC was confused by the implementation of the new rezoning · felt they would be book-ended by properties proposed to be rezoned to CB-5 · the CMHC preferred to keep their properties zoned as CB-2, but if the change was to be made, to have all the properties along Van Buren rezoned to CB-5 zone Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00014, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. Koppes seconded the motion. Anciaux said he thought the citizens who had spoken were voicing their preference to be rezoned to CB-5. He requested Staff to provide some reasons why areas had been designated for rezoning to M/U instead of CB-5. Freerks said she felt it was pretty complicated. They were looking at transition, the neighbors all the way down the block had to be looked at as well as the historic properties which sometimes complicated matters in terms of redevelopment. She felt the Commission needed to look carefully at the rezonings. She agreed it was in pieces and parts, but did not feel that the rezoning could be done on a big scale. She didn't feel rezoning everything to CB-5 would fit with the Comprehensive Plan and what the Commission had in mind for the community. The Community had looked at the Comprehensive Plan carefully in creating it the current zoning. Brooks said he felt there had been some good input and rather broad statements. He was troubled by Holtcamp's statement regarding the number of allowed occupants would be decreased and therefore rental permits would become non-compliant after passing of the proposed Code. Howard said in the proposed zoning code, all existing rental permit occupancies would be grandfathered; the occupancy would be allowed that was on the rental permit now; no existing rental units would be affected by the decrease in the allowed occupancy in the new code. Brooks said he'd like to see the Commission take all the comments and put forth good detailed answers so there would be a good clear understanding of what was going on and why it was being proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 6 of 18 Shannon said he'd like the see the Commission work through the proposed rezoning(s) because he did not want to see the property owners lose their equity in their property. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00015, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Howard used an overhead map and power point presentation to identify the proposed zones within the North CB-2 area referred to in the Comprehensive Plan as the North Market Place and Staff's rationale for each proposed zoning designation. This area is a fairly well established small commercial area that contained a variety of restaurants, small retail shops, gift and antique shops, offices, a City public parking lot, and grocery store. Staff had proposed the CN-1 zoning because the area was currently functioning as a successful neighborhood commercial area. The CN-1 zone would allow all uses that were currently in existence to remain as conforming uses and would allow properties to redevelop in the future and change uses over time to a variety of commercial. The CN-1 zone would also allow residential above commercial uses. Howard again referred to the memo regarding allowed residential density and stated that staff feels it would be appropriate to change the allowed density in the proposed Zoning Code back to 1 unit per 1800-square feet in the CN- 1Zone. Howard stated that there has been some consternation on the part of property owners when they compared the maximum allowed intensity in the CB-2 Zone, with its 100-foot height limit and maximum residential density of 1 dwelling unit per 875 square feet, to the proposed rezoning to CN-1 or MU. She pointed out that these areas have been zoned CB-2 for many, many years. The constraining factor in many areas close to downtown was not necessarily the zoning but the nature of the properties themselves. The properties were platted and developed at a time before there were parking requirements in the Code, very few of the properties had any off-street parking, so they were grandfathered in at their current intensity of commercial use without any off-street parking provided. However, if someone were to tear down a building in the current CB-2 area, they would be required to put in the parking that was required. It would be the same parking that was required in all the commercial areas except the downtown area because the City provided the majority of short-term parking downtown. New buildings would have to have commercial on the ground floor with residential above with parking for both the commercial and residential uses. In other words the amount of parking required prevents a property owner from achieving the maximum density allowed in the CB-2 Zone. There are no 100-foot tall buildings in the CB-2 Zone even though the zoning allows it. The scale of the existing development, size of the buildings, and the mix of uses more closely matches what is allowed in the CN-1 Zone. The Mixed Use zone is similar to the CN-1 zoning in that it allowed similar types of uses. In addition, the M/U zone allows residential uses on the ground floor of buildings..The M/U zone would make the existing auto repair / gasoline station nonconforming, but it would be allowed to continue legally for as long as the property owner wished to operate the business. Smith asked if the auto repair / gasoline station was conforming under the current CB-2 zoning. Howard said she was not sure with regard to all the requirements that the City had for gasoline stations and fire codes, etc. because it had been developed so long ago. If the current owner Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 7 of 18 decided to make some changes to his property, he would have to meet all those codes as well. AS far as zoning, the CB-2 zone does allow auto repair shops and gas stations. A CN-1 zone would allow gasoline stations but not auto-repair shops. A CB-5 zone would allow gas stations in the proposed code but it does not allow them under the current code. The M/U zone acknowledges the existing residential uses while the CN-1 zone would only allow residential uses above commercial uses. With regard to a question about existing residential uses and whether they would become conforming with a rezoning to MU, Howard responded that it depends on the current number of apartments on the property. Because properties in the older parts of town have been rezoned a number of times over the years, there are a large number of properties that have more apartments in them than would be allowed under current zoning designations. These properties are legally nonconforming with regard to density and would remain so if rezoned to MU. Miklo said the M/U zoning also gives a property owner the option of redeveloping or building new residential on the ground floor. Howard explained that the properties proposed for CB-5 zoning at the corner of Dubuque Street and Market have a number of uses and are located at the corner of two major arterial streets. They are adjacent to a PRM zone, the City's highest density multi-family zone and to the south adjacent to an existing CB-5 zone. Staff felt that rezoning to CB-5 would keep the uses conforming, allow some redevelopment in the future even beyond what was there now provided that the required parking could be provided and would also acknowledge and keep conforming the existing uses. The existing office building located on Market Street is larger than what would be allowed in a neighborhood commercial zone, so CB-5 zoning would be more appropriate. These properties are also contiguous to an existing CB-5 zone so it would not be a spot zoning. Two multi-family buildings that are currently non-conforming due to density and to having residential on the first floor would remain legally non-conforming if rezoned to M/U, but would be closer to conformance because the M/U zoning allows residential uses on the ground level. As a public use, the City parking lot needs to be rezoned to P, public. Public discussion was opened. John Logan, owner of gas station located at 305 N. Gilbert Street. Logan said his concern was that if his property was zoned M/U, per Table 2C-1, permitted uses included detached single family dwellings, general office, medical/dental, the rest would be provisional or special exception. It had been said that the existing restaurant, gas station, etc would be grandfathered in, but the gas station had been there for over 60-years, Pagliai's Pizza had been there for over 30-years, the parking lot which prohibited commercial parking was also located there. He felt mixed use would throw the neighborhood mix off. His gas station would be non-conforming no matter what. Logan said to him, at the least, it would make more sense to rezone the area to CN-1 which would still be consistent with Staff's reasoning. Logan said he had a second concern in that he had a commitment to the community to perform services. Logan said under the M/U zoning he was worried about property values if someday he wished to do something different. Under M/U zoning he could not expand, upgrade his pumps, move things around, change the exterior of the building or square it off so it was not so obviously a mid-1960's vintage gas station so it would look more historical in the area. Logan said he had done a remediation last year and had taken out a lot of contaminated soil from 50-years ago. He didn't have to do that, but opted to do it to be a good member of the community. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 8 of 18 Freerks asked Howard to discuss what were allowed versus provisional uses and how the approval process worked. Howard said permitted uses and provisional uses were allowed by right as long as the applicant met the provisions of the Code. Provisional uses and permitted uses were very similar. Provisional uses had some extra provisions that had to be cross- referenced in a different part of the Code for ease of use of the Code. A provisional use does not require a special approval process or a public hearing. Special exceptions would require going to the Board of Adjustment, existing uses that were there now would not have to go to the Board of Adjustment. They would be grandfathered in as an existing use. In the future if they would expand or wish to do something different, the property owner might have to go to the Board of Adjustment for approval of an expansion. Koppes said if a property owner wished to remodel a building that was non-conforming could it be done if the footprint was not changed? Howard said yes, remodeling, interior remodeling, exterior cosmetic changes, changes to signs, updating the exterior appearance of a building would all be allowed. What was not allowed with a non-conforming use would be to expand the area of the non-conforming use. Koppes asked if a business owner wanted to square off a building, then they could not do so. Howard said if building area would increase the occupancy Icad of a building then "squaring it ofF' would not be allowed. If the desired changes did not increase the occupancy Icad of the building, then the changes might be allowed. Marvin Pagliai, owner of A&A Pagliai's Pizza and the parking lot immediately across the street. Pagliai said he felt the rezoning would handicap what they had been saving and working for for the last 30-years by going from CB-2 to a new zoning and altering the allowable square footages. Their future plans had been to build a restaurant with apartments above. He knew they would have to provide the parking, it would be expensive but feasible to place parking underground. Pagliai said he'd been paying on the lot for 35-years and $12,000 annually for property taxes. Before he even got the chance to develop it the City was going to take away approximately ~ of the area he could put apartments on. Dennis Nowotny, said he had an interest in a property that was adjacent to the west CB-5 area. He asked to have the logic explained. He felt those properties should be upzoned but it was adjacent to an RNC-12 area that he was in. Nowotny said the logic should be apparent someway or another. Why was it all of a sudden the City could upzone adjacent to a residential single-family zone area and then in other areas you could not. He would like to see some conformity and some logic as to why you could upzone in one area right next to an essentially Iow density area and why you could not at least maintain in another area such as the CB-2 area that had been discussed earlier. Nowotny said a second issue was the public parking lot area. He felt some issues were clouding other issues and that the public parking area should make some of the M/U areas as a CB-2 area conforming to some extent. Since they were within 300 feet of the M/U area, they should be able to take some credit for some of the parking requirements. Miklo said the reference to being within 300 feet of a city parking facility would guarantee some waiver of the parking requirements had been mentioned several times. There wasa special exception that would allow that to be considered however it was based on whether there was capacity in those lots or not. At this point there was not capacity in those city facilities (the city parking lot in the area contains only 50 spaces) and it is in an area where there were parking problems and parking issues. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 9 of 18 Anciaux asked if there was excess capacity in a lot, could a land owner rent spaces? He thought James Clark had rented space in the Burlington Street ramp to make up his parking deficit in that area. Miklo said they could apply for a special exception and the space had to be available. Howard said it depended on the parking ramp, the location and what those parking spaces had been allotted for. It was a case-by-case basis. Each property owner would need to talk with the City Parking Manager to find out what the capacity was and whether there was space available to meet part of their parking requirement. Howard said the parking facilities were metered lots, the user would pay the fee to use the parking facility. Smith asked what the zoning of the area immediately to the north of the area they were discussing. Howard said it was RNC-12, a single-family residential zone. The area had been up-zoned and subsequently down-zoned over the years so there is currently quite a mix of lower scale residential in that area. Freerks asked if the M/U zoning would not create as many non-conformities in terms of the residential structures that the other zones would have the potential to create. Howard said it would have to be examined on a property-by-property basis looking at the rental permits to see how many units were are currently granfathered on the property. Many of the properties have not redeveloped over the years because they have already developed at a level higher than what the current zoning would allow. There was no incentive to redevelop. Howard said the point raised by Mr. Logan was true. There was some transition going on in this area, Mercy Hospital had already purchased one of the properties and the owner of an existing single family property had submitted a letter stating that his preference would be a rezoning to CN-1 or CB-5. If persons in this area had existing residential properties and wished to speculate on CN-1 redevelopment over time rather than the MU Zone, staff felt that would be reasonable to consider. What Staff had looked at was bringing the properties closer to conformance, but if property owners were not concerned about that, it could be the case that CN-1 could be acceptable in the north part of this rezoning area along Bloomington Street as well. Howard said with respect to the question raised by Mr. Pagliai and the idea of provisional versus permitted, the provisions for a restaurant in a CN-1, M/U and the CO-1 zone allow restaurants - the provision was the occupancy load could not exceed 100. Miklo said the Board of Adjustment could approve a higher occupancy, up to 125 by special exception. The biggest factor again is whether a property has enough land to provide space for the required parking if it was expanded. Restaurants generate a high demand for parking and therefore have a higher parking requirements than many other uses. Pagliai compared his property to the three lots combined that contained the law office, the Laundromat, the Dairy Queen and the Handi-Mart that were proposed for CB-5 Zoning. He has a large undeveloped lot proposed for M/U. He felt the rezoning would have the biggest effect on his property rather than any other property in the area that was already developed. The law offices were located on an arterial street and proposed to be rezoned to CB-5. When he compared the size of his lot to that lot, he felt they were being handicapped on what they could put above a potential future restaurant. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00015, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 10 of 18 property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Freerks seconded the motion. Anciaux said as Staff and the Commission discussed each proposed rezoning, he was sure that previously un-raised questions were being brought up to the members of the public in attendance. He encouraged the citizens to talk to City Staff and to bring any concerns to them and to establish good communications with them. Anciaux suggested also having discussions with their neighbors regarding what zoning they wanted as well as persons way down the block. Freerks said it was important for the citizens to thoroughly understand the changes. Sometimes there was misinformation floating around; she encouraged everyone to talk with Staff and to look carefully over the information that they had. Sometimes what it appeared to a property owner that they could do and what could actually be done were very different. Smith requested Staff to provide a tool which contrasted what existed in the Code today with the current CB-2 zoning versus the 3 new proposed zones with all the specifics laid out so all the impacts or change would be. Howard said the biggest controlling factor would be the parking and how much space would be needed for required parking. Brooks said he felt parking and density issues would be the two key issues which would influence the future of said properties. Also what people had invested in them and what they were expecting. Koppes said she would also like to see the occupancy for the restaurant - what they currently could do and what they do in each of the 3 proposed zones. Howard said there was no limit in the CB-2 other than the constraints of the site with regard to the ability to provide the required parking. CB-5 also has no limit on the size of a restaurant. In the CB-2 Zone, for a restaurant one parking space was required for every 150-square feet of floor area. The motion to defer was passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ05-00016, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for ail property currently zoned CB- 2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Howard used an overhead map and power point presentation to identify the proposed zones within the South CB-2 area and Staff's rationale for each proposed zoning designation. These are remnant pieces of CB-2 zoning located in the area south of downtown. There have been a number of rezonings over the last few years mainly to multi-family residential, primarily to PRM zoning. These properties represented the left-over remaining CB-2 zoned properties in the area. The Comprehensive Plan addresses this area extensively. This area is intended to be for the expansion of the downtown to provide areas for high density multi-family to support the University in the downtown area. There were also a number of government properties and City owned property in the area. The gasoline station at the corner of Madison and Burlington would remain conforming with CB- 5 zoning; the auto repair shop would become non-conforming but would be grandfathered as a legal use. A PRM zone for properties along Capitol and Clinton Streets would allow additional redevelopment in the future for higher density multi-family as specified in the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 11 of 18 Plan. The CB-5 zoning for the property on S. Dubuque Street would acknowledge a fairly new office building that would become non-conforming if it were rezoned to something else. Public discussion was opened. Debby Harapat, 316 S. Madison Street, asked why the Kum & Go store on the corner of Madison and Burlington Streets would remain conforming and their auto repair service would become non-confirming. A gasoline station and an auto repair service were basically the same. Harapat asked if their business wished to expand such as putting an area out front for an office, would that require a special exception but if the Kum & Go store wished to build on they could do so because they were a conforming use. Howard said any expansion would have to meet the requirements of the Code. If a use was non-conforming there would be some restrictions in the Code as to what changes could be made. Harapat asked why the decision had been made that the Kum & Go store was conforming and their business was not. The businesses were almost located right beside each other. Howard and Miklo said there was a distinction in the Zoning Code between auto repair shops and gasoline stations. Gas stations were considered quick vehicle servicing in that vehicles came and went very quickly, they did not remain on the site. An auto repair shop tended to need more parking and vehicle storage areas, more outdoor work areas. Smith asked if auto repair was a conforming use in a CB-2 zone today. Howard said yes. Novotny said he'd like to continue the discussion as to why two businesses, one where the cars stopped for repair for a length of time and the others didn't stop long enough so that the uses were considered conforming or non-conforming. Gas stations in the past used to be repair shops. Novotny said there was way too much control over a minuscule aspect of whether or not one business was one type of stopping or not or whether vehicles were there long enough or not. They were retail businesses, they should be considered the same with no type of distinction between the two. It was cutting hairs. Novotny urged the Commission to consider those types of hair splitting instances which seemed to be occurring in all sorts of places. Novotny said they were all local residents and wished to have their businesses treated equally and fairly. They didn't like to see hair splitting decisions made here, there and everywhere. He'd heard of instances when a business had been out of business for 6 months and then they had to get a re-use permit. Novotny said he didn't like to see those types of things being spouted by persons who were supposed making policy decisions. It was not the type of thing they should have to be guarding their backs against all the time, wondering if you were going to be stabbed in the back by the City. That was not the sort of thing property and business owners wanted to hear from their city. Miklo said auto service, such as purchasing gasoline, was a fairly quick process. Auto repair could be mechanical repair or auto body repair where there was a need for storage on the site, possibly noise associated with the activity of auto body repair and the need for storage for tires and/or damaged vehicles. There was a difference in appearance and how it might relate to the surrounding neighborhood. That was why there was a distinction in the zoning code. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00016, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 12 of 18 property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Freerks seconded the motion. Koppes asked what would a gas station that had a repair shop attached to it be classified as. Miklo said auto repair. Howard said a use such as Mr. Logan's would be considered two different uses on the site. The requirements for both would have to be met. For example, a gas station that had a convenience store, auto repair and gasoline station on the site - each would have their own impact on the site and the surrounding properties and may have different requirements depending on the zone and the location of the property. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ05-00017, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, BomAire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Michael F Camp Properties and Thatcher Mobile Home Parks. Miklo said there was a mistake on the map that had been included in the information packet. The property on Prairie Du Chien Road was not owned by Michael F. Camp, it was owned by someone else. Miklo said currently the Zoning Ordinance required that manufactured housing parks be zoned RFBH. It also required that any development in that zone submit a site plan for approval by the Commission and the Council similar to a subdivision plan. The density would be approximately the same as an RS-12 zone, high density single-family zone. Staff had been asked to eliminate redundant zones in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff felt the RFBH zone could be eliminated as it was very similar in density to the RS-12 zone and very similar in process to the OPDH, the overlay planned development housing zone. Combining the planned development housing with the RS-12 zone and applying it to the existing RFBH zones, would treat them similar to what they were under the existing RFBH zone. Miklo said Staff saw this as a lateral move as it would not affect the existing mobile home parks in any great way. If an addition or additional land was proposed to be added to these manu- factured housing parks it would require an OPDH rezoning. To reconfigure the lots in a great way and more units would also require a review by the Commission and the Council. Currently other than some vacant land associated with Saddlebrook Mobile Home Park, any of the others parks would also require rezoning to expand. They were pretty much fully developed. Anciaux asked if a property owner could currently take an OPDH-12 zoned property and construct a manufactured home park there. Miklo said no, in order to do that there would have to be an approved OPDH-12 plan showing manufactured housing. Koppes asked if a person wished to construct condominiums on a currently zoned OPDH-12 parcel that had been approved for manufactured homes, would there also have to be a Commission and Council approved OPDH-12 plan. Miklo said that was correct. Public discussion was opened. Rockow asked for a clarification regarding if a new mobile home park was proposed would each lot have to be delineated as if it were a condominium unit? He thought the Code had compared leased lots to condominiums. Condominium units had air rights and through the association also had vested rights in the land. Miklo said the Code had indicated that it was a similar Planning and Zoning Commission July21,2005 Page 13 of 18 process in that a development would be broken down into smaller units. In the case of a manufactured home park they could be either condominium lots or leased lots. Rockow said the Code said in this zone the size of the lots could be reduced if the home had access to an alley. He couldn't imagine a manufactured home lot, especially with double wide units having alleys in it. He also said that the Code requires a common parking area for Manufactured Housing Parks, and he did not think that was a good idea. Miklo said there was no reference to alleys in the manufactured home section. In terms of parking, 2 spaces would be required for each unit, one had to be on the leased lot and for the other the developer had the option of providing a common lot somewhere else within the park. Both parking spaces could also be located on the leased lot. Howard said the Planned Development was a process. In the new planned development chapter there was a number of things a person could go through a planned development to achieve. One of those things was to achieve a manufactured housing park. To achieve a manufactured housing park you'd go through the planned development process. In a manufactured housing park today the density was similar to a single family zone that would allow 12-units per acre. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ05-00017, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Michael F Camp Properties and Thatcher Mobile Home Parks. Anciaux seconded the motion. Koppes asked if there were any current RFBH's that were more than the RS-12 type density. Miklo said he was not sure, some of the older ones might be and were grandfathered in. Koppes asked if a lot renter could pull their old manufactured home out and replace it with a new one. Miklo said that would be permissible. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Chairperson Brooks, on behalf of the Commission, requested to have Staff Report and Public Comment on items REZ05-00010 through REZ05- 00013 combined. REZ05-00010, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Miklo said currently the RS-8 zone was a medium density single-family residential zone that allowed single-family homes and duplexes on lots that were 8700-square feet or larger. The proposed amendment to the Code would allow duplexes on corner lots in the RS-8 zone but not on interior lots. A few recent subdivisions had been approved that were designed for zero-lot lines or duplexes on some of the interior lots. These proposals were to rezone those areas to RS-12 so that the few vacant lots within those subdivisions could continue to be developed with duplexes. For the Longfellow Manor area the lots were configured with one unit facing the public street and one unit facing the alley, the change to RS-12 would still not accommodate duplexes on those remaining lots. Therefore Staff recommended that those lots be zoned OPDH-8 which would allow that configuration to occur. In the Longfellow Manor area it would be a lateral move, it would not change what was built there in terms of density or configuration. There were also several southern lots that could potentially be joined together and slightly increase the Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 14 of 18 density by building townhouses which were allowed in the RS-12 zone. The OPDH-8 designation would restrict the ability to increase the density with a townhouse development without going back before the Commission. REZ05-00011, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning :[rom Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. This area, developed in the early 1990's, had a total of seven lots. All except two had been developed with duplexes. Staff proposed rezoning to RS-12 to allow development with duplexes. REZ05-00012, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. This area was platted in the early to mid 1990's with 36 lots. All but two of them had been developed with duplexes. In order to allow the last two vacant lots to be developed with duplexes Staff proposed to rezone the East Hill Subdivision to RS-12, a high-density single family zone. The properties directly to the east on Dover Street were already zoned RS-12 so this would be compatible with adjacent existing zoning. REZ05-00013, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. This area had been platted for zero-lot lines where the dwelling units would be joined at the lot line. The proposed RS-12 zoning would acknowledge those vacant lots and allow them to be developed with zero-lot line units. Koppes asked if they had all been developed under RS-8 originally and why would they not be rezoned to OPDH-8. Miklo said that would be a possibility but the OPDH zone generally required a specific plan. These areas were already mostly developed areas. Public discussion was opened. Charles Eastham, president of the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. The Fellowship owned approximately 10 lots in the Longfellow Manor. Eastham said during staff report the one apartment-type building located on Longfellow Place had not been mentioned. Miklo said it had been approved by special exception. By arrangement, if all the occupants were older than age 55 they could live as a community with more units than typical. Eastham said there were some vacant lots interspersed with existing housing that was still vacant, but they were owned both by the Housing Fellowship and the Housing Authority. Miklo said if there was one lot intervening they would propose zoning it to OPDH-8. Sally Jablonski, owned the middle lot of the 5 lots, there were 4 undeveloped lots left. She asked if the zoning were changed, would it be correct that still nothing could be built there but zero-lot line duplex structures. Miklo said that was correct. Jablonski asked if it could be an apartment building. Miklo said it could not. Public discussion was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 15 of 18 Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer items: REZ05-00010, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. REZ05-00011, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. REZ05-00012, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. REZ05-00013, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB05-00011, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a preliminary plat of Resubdivision of North Airport Development and North Airport Development Part Two, a 40.79 acre, 1 l-lot commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of this preliminary plat. He distributed a copy of the site plan for Wal-Mart which was still subject to change. Public discussion was opened. Richard Vest, 2050 Holiday Road, asked if the property was part of the city. Miklo said that was correct. Vest asked what were the building height restrictions for that area. Miklo said FAA restrictions would apply but he believed it was 35-feet. Vest asked which lots were proposed for WaIMart. Miklo said lots 1 and 2; the road would be removed from lot 1. For the remainder of Ruppert Road, which would be renamed to Westport, there was an option of leaving it as a cul- de-sac or having it go to the north. There was also a possibility that one or two owners would purchase a grouping of lots and then the road could be abandoned. Vest asked if the remaining lots would still be owned by the Airport. Miklo said that was correct, but that they were for sale. Brooks asked for updates on a traffic study or changes that might take place along Riverside Drive. Miklo said there was a considerable amount of work associated with the adjacent streets. Behr said most of the attention right now was on the Ruppert Road / Highway intersection. There was discussion regarding Riverside Drive, but that was not considered imminent yet. A traffic study was being done, 'they' had committed to doing a turn lane at that intersection, to contributing $100,000 toward what ever off-site improvements were deemed necessary and to paying for the reconstruction of Ruppert Road. Public hearing was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion or approve SUB05-00011. Smith seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 16 of 18 The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB05-00016, discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls, LLC, for a final plat of Olde Towne Village, a 49-1ot, 33.3-acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Scott Boulevard and north of Lower West Branch Road. Miklo said the plat was in order, Staff recommended approval of the final plat subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. A copy of the concept plan for the commercial development was distributed. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux moved to approve SUB05-00016. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. VACATION ITEM: Smith recused himself stating a possible conflict of interest through his employment. VAC05-00006, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for vacation of alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the vacation. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve VAC05-00006. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 27, 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER ITEMS: Anciuax said he would be absent from the August 4, 2005 meeting. It was noted that Plahutnik would also be absent ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 17 of 18 The meeting was adjourned at 9:41 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s/pcd/min utes/p&z/2005/07-21-05.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2005 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/6 1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 6/16 6/27 7/6 7/21 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X B. Chair 05/06 X O X X O ................................ A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X J. Hansen 05/05 X X X X X X O/E O .................... E. Koppes 05/07 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 ................................ X X X X O/E D. Shannon 05/08 X X X O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X T. Smith 05/06 ............................ X X X X X INFORMAl.. MEETING Term Name Expires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/4 4/18 5/2 6/13 7/18 D. Aneiaux 05/06 CW X X O/E X X X X X B. Brooks 05/10 CW X X X X X X X X B. Chair 05/06 CW X O ........................ A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X X O/E X O/E X X J. Hansen 05/05 CW X X O/E X O ............ E. Koppes 05/07 CW X X X O/E X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 CW .................... O/E X O/E D. Shannon 05/08 CW O/E 0/[3 X X X X X X T. Smith 05/06 ............................. X X I I I I I Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting MINUTES DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 2005 CiViC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Terry Stumpf, Richard Wayne Because not enough members were in attendance to constitute a quorum, Chairperson Weitzel stated that the Commission would hold a work session. DISCUSSION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 800 North Van Buren Street. Stumpf said he is the contractor for this project. He said the barn on this property is going down, and the owner would like to save it. Stumpf said the foundation on the front south side that faces Brown Street is pushing in severely. He said the stone foundation failed years ago and is slowly going down, letting all the timbers come down, and the roof is coming down as well. Stumpf said he proposes to excavate the front perimeter and around both the west and east ends back to the service doors, where the foundation stops and goes to ground level. He said he would like to put in a poured concrete foundation to take the pressure in the front. Stumpf said the grade is pretty high out front, so he would like to put a reinforced poured concrete wall in. He stated that the back wall has pushed a little bit; it is a stone wall that he will repair back there. Stumpf said that inside he would replace footings where the vertical timbers that carry the floor are located. He said that once the foundation is in, he would have to replace the front timber that runs east- west. Stumpf said he would then jack the barn timbers vertically back up where the dormer is settling. Stumpf said that the barn is also spreading. He said he would like to use the eight by eight timbers that run through there at about the dormer level and plate them on each end and hold them right into the vertical timbers in the front wall. Stumpf said that when everything is straightened up, he plans to put a new, simulated architectural shake roof on the barn. He said he would strip the roof down to the space sheeting and put ~-inch roof sheeting on it and then the 30-year architectural shake shingles, probably of a slate color. Stumpf said that he would repair the wood shingles that are missing on the dormer. He stated that the existing barn doors will be rehung. Stumpf said he would want to put gutter on the front. He said that when he does the foundation, he will put in vertical tiles to grade that will all go down to a footing tile. Stumpf said he would not guarantee a stone foundation here and did not think anyone could. He said his goal is to save the barn. Weitzel said that this is a landmark property. He said the barn has a nice, original stone foundation wall, but that is no longer recommended as structurally sound construction. Weitzel said there is also a massive hill and drainage problems. Weitzel said the barn in the front and back is kicked off the existing foundation. He said there is no front footing around the base of the barn. Weitzel said the Commission generally recommends the least invasive method of preservation possible, but at the same time, the Commission doesn't want to see something done that will fall down in ten years and have to be redone, possibly ruining the entire structure. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 2, 2005 Page 2 Weitzel said the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) looked at different possibilities for the barn. He said the DRS talked about trying to repair the foundation, cutting out parts of the wall and putting in piers, and a reinforced concrete wall. Strumpf said he would be afraid of anything other than what his proposal is, even concrete block. Weitzel said the DRS did not really consider the concrete block to be a good substitute for limestone anyway. He said in that case, if it can't be made to look proper, the Commission might fall back to not creating a false historic appearance and just accept the concrete. Stumpf said that it has been all faced with masonry, and the stone has been covered to try to hold it in over the years. He added that this is not a house either, so if this cannot be done, the owner will probably let it go down. Maharry asked how much of the foundation would be visible. Stumpf said that on the front, very little would be visible. Maharry said that it would be simple for someone who really doesn't like that look to cover it up with vegetation. Weitzel said the Commission would recommend correction of any water and drainage problems. Stumpf said he would suggest to the owner to also gutter the back of the barn, since she is already spending money to save it. Terdalkar asked if regrading were done if the foundation could be built back. Stumpf said the stone and mortar is all so deteriorated, it would have to be completely taken apart. He said he did not think there was any mason who would guarantee the work. McCallum said that he would support this project. He said that salvaging the building as well as possible is important. He said the foundation is not visible from the street, but the profile of the barn is visible from the street, and that is what is important to maintain. Weitzel said he could also vote for this. He said that because there is not a quorum, the Commission cannot vote, but the Commission would vote as soon as it has a quorum. 533 South Summit Street. Stumpf said the windows on this house are in poor shape. He said the owners asked him to prepare a quote for vinyl windows and Pella clad windows. Weitzel said the Commission disallows vinyl for a number of reasons. Stumpf said the house has aluminum siding on it, and he believed that the original siding was under the aluminum. He said that the windows seem to be original to the house. He said the sashes are dry rotted, and some of the sills are rotted. Stumpf said, however, that the rot was not a result of the aluminum siding. Weitzel said the DRS had hoped the sashes would be in good shape. Stumpf said the sashes cannot be restored. Weitzel said the Commission's view is that the windows have lasted a long time, and if there is any way to save them, the Commission asks people to look at that. He said, however, if the windows are rotten, the Commission has an obligation to work with the owner to remove them. Stumpf said that almost every window is rotten. He said that the only thing to be left is the picture unit on the south side and possibly the two windows in the stairway that faces Summit Street, although they are not in good shape either. Maharry said that the shutters would be another issue, but the Commission doesn't have any control over the design of the shutters. He said that because a building permit is not needed to remove or replace shutters, the Commission does not review them. Stumpf said that the shutters don't look right on the house. Weitzel said the Commission could give its strongest recommendation that the shutters not be replaced with vinyl, whether they are removed or not. Maharry said that having no shutters would be more historically accurate. Maharry said that if there is no alternative to repairing the windows, then replacement is the next option, in something that is approvable. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 2, 2005 Page 3 Stumpf said that the front door on the Summit Street side is in pretty bad shape, but he will be restoring the door. 422 Brown Street. Wayne, the owner of the property, said that he wanted to follow staff's recommendation with respect to installing two egress windows on the front porch. He said he would like to take one of each pair of the non-opening windows on the front and transform them from non-opening windows to egress windows. Wayne said he would like to use the existing casing. Weitzel said the openings that are presently on the house are not windows but are actually set sashes. Wayne said he wanted to preserve the trim that is already there. Weitzel said the DRS was concerned that the windows will not look the same width-wise, next to each other. Wayne agreed but said there would be some symmetry around the center. He said he would like to use the least invasive method. Weitzel said the DRS would like to see four egress windows to match across the front so that they would all look the same. He said that would maintain the appearance and sense of proportion. Wayne said he would like to be governed by staff's suggestions of a few weeks ago. He said he is overwhelmed right now with the project, and he would like to stick to Terdalkar's original recommendation, which was to convert one of each of the front openings to an egress window. Terdalkar said his recommendation originally was to open up the enclosed porch to make it look like an enclosed porch, which it does not now. Weitzel said the original approved certificate was consistent with staff's recommendation. Regarding the side opening, Weitz. el said it could be used for an air conditioner, could be left as it is, or could be enlarged for an egress window. Wayne said he misunderstood staffs recommendation. Miklo stated that this is kind of an oddity in that a porch was so severely enclosed that it doesn't look like a porch any more. He said the direction the Commission seems to be going is that the ideal solution would be openings in the two end walls to give this the appearance of a porch or sunroom. Maharry said the staff report says that here is the plan, and he recommends approval of that plan, which was the change to the front openings. Miklo said another solution is to take the existing openings and make them look like double hung windows, but if just one is changed, it will just make it even more odd, which will further detract from the historic fabric. Wayne said that this is a huge, chaotic building. Miklo pointed out that the part to be altered is the most visible to the public in terms of the street fa(;ade. Wayne said that the brick fagade is the upper part of a kind of faux fireplace built into an enormous window well for a basement apartment. He said that if the egress window is put on the west side, there will have to be a ladder or a platform or a fire escape that will have to be close enough to the window to be usable. Maharry said that situation eliminates the option of putting the egress windows on the sides. Weitzel said that Wayne needs to have egress windows here, and the Commission wants them to look proper. Wayne said that what he is requesting would still look symmetrical around the center and would look as if some planning was done. Terdalkar stated that there would be three different kinds of openings on one fa~;ade. McCallum said that would be consistent for Gaslight Village. Weitzel asked if the three windows under the gable are fixed panes. Wayne said they are fixed panes. Weitzel asked if they were the same size and shape as those on the front of the house. Wayne responded that they sort of are, but they are very high. Weitzel said they provide some unity to the rest of the building. Maharry asked Carlson if he had any suggestions for how this could be turned into an egress window with a thick horizontal bar, since the side opening won't work. Carlson said his recommendation would be to replace all four openings with four double hung windows to make it look more unified. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 2, 2005 Page 4 Wayne said he believes that the asymmetry on one side will be duplicated by an identical asymmetry on the other side. He said that taking the whole fa(;ade into consideration will show that there is some planning. Terdalkar said that when he visited the site earlier in the day, he noticed that the soffits are being replaced with aluminum soffits all over. Wayne said that the painter is doing any repair work required, such as siding, soffits, fascia, etc. He said he did not inquire about a permit for replacing soffit. Terdalkar stated that, for a multi-family structure, a permit is required to replace soffit. He said that when he was at the site, half of the work had already been done. Wayne said he was not making alterations but was repairing the soffit. Weitzel said it is a replacement, not a repair. Wayne said he knew that there was a problem with vinyl. Weitzel said the guidelines disallow replacement of soffit with a synthetic material. Maharry said that the definition of a repair is to use the same material to repair, not to replace it with a different material. He said that aluminum is a non-historic material for that structure. Miklo suggested that Wayne contact the Building Department regarding the soffit replacement. Wayne replied that he would contact them in the morning. Weitzel said that anything done on the exterior of a multi-family dwelling will probably need a permit. He suggested contacting the Building Department, Housing Inspection Services, before any work is started. Weitzel said he would recommend replacement of all four openings. Carlson said that of all the options, he believed that was the least bad one. Ponto said that by putting in four double hungs, there would be the same sense of symmetry that is there now with the individual panes, rather than creating a new, different symmetry. Maharry said that sometime in the future, this room might be transformed back to a porch. He said that, in that case, either option would be fine. He said that as it is, with either four double hungs or two double hungs, this porch is not what it originally was, because the center window destroys any semblance of a porch anyway. McCallum said that he appreciated the work done on the house by Wayne. He said that if tenants cannot have air conditioning, the additional ventilation would be an added benefit for the tenants, in addition to the egress. McCallum said he would prefer to see four similar windows on the facade. Ponto agreed that this could potentially be a porch in the future but said he did not see it happening any time soon. He said that because this facade faces Brown Street, he would rather have it look a little nicer. Weitzel thanked Wayne for his input. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED NEW ZONING CODE (CITY TITLE 14): Miklo said he and Howard read the Commission's last few sets of minutes and wanted to respond to the questions and confusion raised by those minutes regarding the drafting of the Zoning Code, the Commission's role, and the outcome in terms of the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. Miklo stated that the Commission's role in this began in 2001, when Gunn worked with Shelley McCafferty to ensure that changes in the overlay zone were in concert with the handbook that was being developed at the same time. Miklo said Gunn and whoever else on the Commission was involved were guided by the Historic Preservation Plan, which includes an analysis done in 1992 of the overlay zone. Miklo said that pointed out some things the Commission wanted in terms of a wish list, such as an economic hardship clause, a demolition by neglect clause, etc. Miklo said that over the years that was being worked on. He said that a draft was prepared, and it was reviewed by legal and other staff. Miklo said the draft was sent back to the Commission in August 2004 for the Commission's review. Miklo said the public review draft of the entire Zoning Code, including the preservation overlay zone, was released in March of 2005. He said there was then a series of meetings, public workshops to which citizens were invited to meet with staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to identify concerns and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 2, 2005 Page 5 make suggestions. Miklo said there was also a special public meeting requested by Friends of Historic Preservation regarding the sections of the Code that would address preservation. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission then held two public hearings to gather public input on the Zoning Code. Miklo said this has been a six-month long process. He said that staff is a little concerned that there are issues coming up at this point. Miklo said that, if possible, staff would like to address those. He said if there are items that the Commission feels need to be changed in the overlay zone or preservation-related items in the other parts of the Code that can be done in a relatively quick manner, staff would like to do that. Miklo said that if there are bigger, broader issues, staff would suggest that they be revisited after adoption of the Code. Miklo said that staff feels there are a lot of pro-preservation elements to the Code, not only in the overlay zone but in how zoning is approached City-wide. He said that some of the things proposed for the Code were requested by the Neighborhood Council, and there was a task force that addressed housing, zoning, occupancy, etc. Miklo said that reducing the number of allowed roomers in specific zones could go a long way towards, not necessarily preserving individual houses, but preserving neighborhoods. Miklo said the special exceptions have been broadened to allow historic properties to apply for relief from the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. He said this means that if one has a property in a historic district and one of the dimensional requirements, such as setbacks or height requirements, hinders the reuse of that property, the owner could bring a case to the Board of Adjustment to ask for relief from the zoning ordinance. Howard said another example would be the carriage houses that exceed the current height limit for accessory buildings. She said that if someone wanted to improve those or expand them for an accessory apartment or home occupation, he would be allowed to do that to keep that structure. McCallum agreed that all those things did occur. He said that he is now pushing forward some ideas, a different vision, than what the planning staff has, although he believes the goals are the same. Regarding the Commission's role, McCallum said that in prior meetings, the Commission was looking for different ideas and opportunities, and when the proposals were presented, he always had the impression that there would be more of a formal presentation. He said he appreciated staff coming to the meeting for interaction. McCallum said he is probably the only person on the Commission advocating incentive zoning changes. He said he presented his ideas in writing to the Commission to get attention and feedback. McCallum said he is comfortable in knowing that the Commission has digested his ideas and rejected them. He said he is working in other venues at this point. McCallum said his only argument is that he thinks the Commission should be more aggressive. Regarding the Des Moines example submitted by McCallum, Miklo said that Des Moines has two historic districts. He said that the Sherman Hill District is right downtown and has always been a mixed use, higher density, residential/commercial area. Miklo said it is an area that for years was pretty blighted, and the City was encouraging any investment in that neighborhood that it could get, which may explain the reason that the City allows many of the uses it allows. Miklo said that Des Moines has a second historic district that is a single-family neighborhood. He said those same types of incentives are not included in that district. Miklo said that the Planning and Zoning Commission did explore the ideas of allowing more commercial type uses in the RM-12 and RM-20 zones in the late 1990s. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission decided against that because: 1) commercial traffic tends to cause issues in a residential area and 2) the City has a downtown core and also some smaller commercial areas with some vitality. Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that if the City started allowing these commercial uses all over the City, it would detract from the commercial areas. McCallum said his only argument was that those types of people would not be attracted to the downtown area in the first place. He said his argument to that is that it would just be displacing rooming houses and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 2, 2005 Page 6 high-density, multi-family. McCallum said he is not against that but would like to see a balance to the neighborhoods. McCallum said he looked to the Peninsula Model and looked to the east side of downtown as sort of a little village zone. Miklo said that commercial is not allowed everywhere in the Peninsula but is restricted to live/work units and the main square. McCallum asked if staff had considered "retrozoning," which would allow buildings with a prior use to go back to that use. Howard responded that there is something in the new Zoning Code for that. She said that the non-conforming provisions were loosened up to allow the re-use of buildings that no longer fit with the uses. McCallum asked if lateral moves in multi-family housing are allowed under the current zoning. Howard said there is a provision added to the non-conforming section that would allow a property to go from one use to another use that is less intense. She said there are provisions that are intended to help older buildings to be able to adapt over time. McCallum said he didn't know if the Code communicates to incoming citizens what can or cannot be done. He said his idea was to create incentives. McCallum said that most of the people opposing the new historic districts were landlords, who stated that the designation would hurt the value of their properties. He said he wanted to change that perception. Howard said that Iowa City allows home occupations everywhere in the City. She said that as far as creating an incentive to preserve a building, the Des Moines ordinance doesn't seem to be much different than what Iowa City has now. Howard said that in Iowa City, one doesn't even have to own the building with the home business, as long as the person lives in the building. Maharry said it might be beneficial to have the specific language in the Code that says that these types of activities are allowed. Howard said that there is an entire section on home occupations that lists all of them in the Zoning Code. McCallum said the number of employees is limited. Howard said that limit is one way to signify that the business is getting beyond a home occupation. Miklo said one of the goals of the rewrite was to make the Code less open to interpretation, to make it clearer. Howard said there is a balance between having a Code that is flexible enough for interpretation to allow people to do things in a way that seems reasonable and having things clear enough to show what is allowed and what is not allowed. Maharry said that two years ago on Iowa Avenue, a small bungalow was demolished to be replaced by a two-unit, ten-bedroom structure. He asked if the Code rewrite would have addressed that type of situation. Miklo said indirectly. He said the proposal is to allow a maximum of four unrelated persons in a housing unit. He said there are also provisions regarding how the building sits on the lot that would make it difficult to do what was done on Iowa Avenue. Miklo added that there are also changes to when the moratorium status goes into effect. He said that under the new Zoning Code, the moratorium would have applied. Howard said that occupancy is a big issue. She said that people are coming out against the reduction in the number of unrelated renters. Howard stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council also need to hear from pro-neighborhood and pro-preservation people about the things, such as the reduction in unrelated renters, that they support. Miklo said that the last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing would be held August 18th. Maharry said that one of the reasons the Commission didn't recall discussion on the specific changes was that it occurred last August. He said that at that time, the Commission was working on the Gilbert-Linn and Jefferson Street Districts and was holding its own public hearings. Miklo said it is important at this point that the Commission has had time to digest and consider the proposal and that the Commission believes it is going in the right direction, most specifically with regard to the overlay zone. Weitzel said he thinks it looks good. He said it may take a certain amount of time to watch it work and to see how things go. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 2, 2005 Page 7 Weitzel said that some of the things the Commission is interested in for the future would require much more investigation and time spent on the part of staff and the Commission. He said the Commission wants to make certain that people aren't tearing down buildings as an incentive to grow the community. Weitzel said it appears that is being addressed in the new Code. Maharry thanked Miklo and Howard for coming to the meeting and said he appreciated the amount of work that went into the new Code. Miklo said he expects a vote from the Planning and Zoning Commission, possibly on the 18th. He said that then there will be a couple of work sessions at which the Planning and Zoning Commission presents the draft to the City Council. Miklo said that City Council would then set a public hearing, at the earliest in late September or October. He said he believed the City Council wanted to wrap this up before the end of the year. Weitzel said there are some other things the Commission is looking at, but they are very sketchy right now. Howard said it seems that there are a lot of incentives the Commission is considering that are not related to zoning. Weitzel said the Commission does want to look at financial incentives and tax abatements, which are not zoning issues. He thanked Miklo and Howard for coming to the meeting. OTHER: Maharry said that the Preservation Awards would be held Wednesday at 5:30 in the Library's meeting room. 922 East College Street. Weitzel said that this item was deferred. 404 South Summit Street. Weitzel said that he and Carlson are doing research on this pending application. Maharry proposed that the Commission allow the sleeping porches to be demolished if the owner would like to do so. Weitzel said that the Commission wouldn't want to approve demolition until a final plan is in place. Weitzel said that if the Commission can get the owner the funding by virtue of the fact that this would be a substantial renovation, the owner may be able to defer some of the expense through a State tax abatement program. Maharry said that evidently there is specific money set aside for the cultural district. Weitzel said that refers to the Old Capitol and the Gilbert-Linn Areas. Maharry said that all of the residential properties in the Gilbert-Linn National Historic District are eligible for cultural district State tax credits. Weitzel pointed out that the Jefferson Street Area is also a national historic district. Weitzel stated that the DRS needs another person to serve on it. He said that Pardekooper is frequently too busy to make it to the meetings. Maharry said that Carlson, Weitz. el, and Gunn are also on the DRS. Weitzel suggested having a regular time for the meetings, perhaps before the regular Thursday night Commission meetings. He said another option is to change the by-laws to have only two members on the DRS. Carlson suggested having four people on the DRS, perhaps three people plus an alternate member. McCalium stated that he received an e-mail regarding a TV show producer who is looking for conversions of schoolhouses and that type of thing into residential homes. Weitzel suggested the Mennonite Church in the Longfellow Neighborhood. Maharry suggested the old schoolhouse on North Dodge. Burford said there is also or~e on Kirkwood Avenue and a house on Fairchild that was once an old church. Burford presented a slide show of the projects involved in the Preservation Awards. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte. s:lpcdlminuteslHPCI2OO51hpcOS-O2-O5 doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/30 7/14 08/02 M. Brennan 3/29/08 .................... X X X X X X O O O R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X X X X X O/E X X 0 X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X 0 0 X X 0 0 0 O/E O/E O/E O/E M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X O/E X X O/E M. Maharry 3/29/08 X X X X X X X .................... X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X X X 0 X X X X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 O/E X X O O O/E O O O O O X X O/E J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X X .................................... ,l. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E X X X O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/08 O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O - Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES DRAFT Iowa City Airport Commission August 8, 2005 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 7:30 AM Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; Greg Farris; Howard Horan, John Staley, Carl Williams Members Absent: Dan Clay (advisory member) Staff Present: Sue Dulek Others Present: None DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 7:31 AM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: 1. Runway 7/25 Project-Box Culvert a. Public Hearing-Hartwig opened the public hearing. No public comment. Hartwig closed the public hearing. b. Williams moved the resolution approving plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase I Project" within the Runway 7/25 Runway Extension Project to construct a box culvert and for Willow Creek improvements upstream of the box culvert, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing city clerk to publish advertisement for bids, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Seconded by Staley. Resolution A-05-14 passed on a roll call vote, 5/0. 2. Runway 7/25 Project-Earth Work a. Public Hearing-Hartwig opened the public hearing. No public comment. Hartwig closed the public heating. b. Williams moved the resolution approving plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate on cost for the construction of "Phase 2 Project" within the Runway 7/25 Runway Extension Project to construct earthwork necessary for the construction of the runway extension including limited clearing and grubbing establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing city clerk to publish advertisement for bids, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Seconded by Farris. Resolution A-0-15 passed on a roll call vote, 5/0. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:38 AM. MiNUTES DRAFI' IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 25 2005 5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Hagen, Michael Christians, Bebe Ballantyne, Saul Mekies, MEMBERS ABSENT: James Ehrmann STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Dale Helling OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Beth Fisher, Michael McBride, Susan Rogusky, Rick Kames RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Kames reported Mediacom has been working to get high definition carriage agreements with the local broadcasters. Agreements have been reached with KWWL, IPTV, and FOX. Negotiations are still taking place with KCRG and KGAN. Goding reported that PATV recently held a video camp for six United Action for Youth students. A similar workshop is being planned for students from the alternative high school. The school district has just issued a purchase order for new microphones for the Board Room. Hagen suggested that the Commission may wish to set up a meeting with Superintendent Plugge to discuss the education channel. Mekies said that the concerns previously expressed by the Commission have been relayed by Hoyland and a memo prepared by Hardy outlining some technical steps for improvement. Mekies suggested that the Commission relay their concerns directly to Plugge in writing in September if it appears no steps are being taken by the school district. Fisher reported that the library would be cablecasting many of the events associated with Irving Webber Week. Also to be cablecast are the weekly International Writers Workshop seminars, which begin in August. Several City Council forums and Public Power Initiative forums are planned for September. Shaffer reported that he has been working on a script for a program on cable TV in Iowa City covering areas of frequently asked questions. The City's consultants reviewed Mediacom's latest rate filing and determined that they are within the maximum permitted rate. The next Avatar program will be August 22nd. The program will be on Social Security. Subject experts and a six-person focus group are being taped. Politicians have also been invited to participate. Shaffer said that over the past two years the Commission has discussed the subsidy the franchise fee has paid the City's general fund. The Cable TV Division budget was first reduced by $100,000 in the wake of a budget crisis created by the Iowa Legislature. The subsidy was continued in fiscal year 2005 and again for 2006. Helling said that since the beginning of cable TV in Iowa City it had been City Council policy that franchise fees would be used for cable TV related purposes. Mekies noted that while all department budgets were cut, the percentage of the cuts to the cable TV budget was most likely the largest in the City. The recent article in the Daily Iowan quoted Steve Atkins as saying the cuts to the cable TV budget were "not fair". Hagen said that he is concerned that the cuts will not be restored and that additional subsidies to the general fund by the franchise fee fund may be requested in the future. Helling said that most communities put franchise fees in the general fund but that a letter requesting a phased in restoration of the cuts is not unreasonable. Mekies said that the spirit of the policy to use franchise fees for cable related uses indicated the franchise fee was properly considered a user fee at the time rather than a general tax. APPROVALOF MINUTES Hagen moved and Ballantyne seconded a motion to approve the June 27, 2005 minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Mekies introduced new Commissioner Michael Christians. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer reported receiving 6 complaints. All that could be resolved have been. There was one complaint regarding placement of a cable in one's home, one about intermittent cable modem outages, one about frequent cable TV outages, one about not being able to reach Mediacom by phone, one about City Channel 4 program listings not being correct in the Press Citizen, and one about Mediacom's technical staff being sent to Florida to repair hurricane damage and as a result not leaving enough local technicians to service Iowa City. MEDIACOM REPORT Kames reported Mediacom has been working to get high definition carriage agreements with the local broadcasters. Agreements have been reached with KWWL, IPTV, and FOX. Negotiations are still taking place with KCRG and KGAN. REFRANCHISING UPDATE Shaffer reported that the City Council passed the franchise agreement and that it has been sent to Mediacom for a signature. Mediacom has 60 days from Council passage to sign the franchise agreement. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT Mike McBride reported that July has been a slower month for U of I television productions. Live programs from Prairie Lights bookstore and the Java House continue to be produced. Productions will be up in the fall, including the sports news conferences. PATVREPORT Goding reported that PATV recently held a video camp for six United Action for Youth students. A similar workshop is being planned for students from the alternative high school. The next Open Channel program will be held Wednesday August 27 from 8-9 p.m. The next Bike in Theater events will be held August 3 and 17th around 8 p.m. The next Board meeting will be August 18 at 7 p.m. at the Everett Conner Center. The next producer's forum will be August 25. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Rogusky distributed the Senior Center TV (SCTV) schedule. A new volunteer has joined SCTV. Jean Lloyd Jones has been working on a documentary on the New Horizons Band, which just celebrated its 10th anniversary. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT Shaffer reported that Hoyland was unable to attend the meeting but emailed a report. The school district has just issued a purchase order for new microphones for the Board Room. Hagen suggested that the Commission may wish to set up a meeting with Superintendent Plugge to discuss the education channel. Mekies said that the concerns previously expressed by the Commission have been relayed by Hoyland and a memo prepared by Hardy outlining some technical steps for improvement. Mekies suggested that the Commission relay their concerns directly to Plugge in writing in September if it appears no steps are being taken by the school district. LEGAL REPORT No representative was present. Helling said that interviews for a new assistant city attorney are taking place and an attorney will be assigned to the Commission by September. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher reported that the library would be cablecasting many of the events associated with Irving Webber Week. Also being taped and cablecast will be the Johnson County Historical Preservations Awards, Lance Brown performing as Will Rogers, a celebration of Hawkeye athletics, and a program on the dangers of vinyl siding. Also to be cablecast are the weekly International Writers Workshop seminars, which begin in August. Several City Council forums and Public Power Initiative forums are planned for September. KIRKWOOD REPORT No representative was present. MEDIA UNIT Shaffer reported that the Media Unit has been busy with the Friday Night Concert Series and the Farmer's Market concerts. A new web browser will be installed on InfoVision in August. A complete re-design of the City Channel 4 web site is underway. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Shaffer reported that he has been working on a script for a program on cable TV in Iowa City covering areas of subscriber's frequently asked questions. Among those topics are rates, competition, a la carte programming, customer service, and the access channels. Mekies asked if Shaffer would prepare a short history of the access channels. Shaffer reported the City's consultants reviewed Mediacom's latest rate filing and determined that they are within the maximum permitted rate. The next Avatar program will be August 22nd. The program will be on Social Security. Subject experts and a six- person focus group are being taped. Politicians have also been invited to participate. CABLE TV BUDGET Shaffer said that over the past two years the Commission has discussed the subsidy the franchise fee has paid the City's general fund. The Cable TV Division budget was first reduced by $100,000 in the wake of a budget crisis created by the Iowa Legislature. The subsidy was continued in fiscal year 2005 and again for 2006. Helling said that since the beginning of cable TV in Iowa City it had been City Council policy that franchise fees would be used for cable TV related purposes. That policy was modified for the first time during the fiscal year 2004 budget period. Hagan asked what impact the budget cuts had. Shaffer said that hiring for part-time production assistants was reduced and that equipment purchases were scaled back. Hagen said there is an issue of fairness. Mekies noted that while all department budgets were cut, the percentage of the cuts to the cable TV budget was most likely the largest in the City. The recent article in the Daily Iowan quoted Steve Atkins as saying the cuts to the cable TV budget were "not fair". Hagen said that he is concerned that the cuts will not be restored and that additional subsidies to the general fund by the franchise fee fund may be requested in the future. Helling said that most communities put franchise fees in the general fund but a letter requesting a phased in restoration of the cuts is not unreasonable. Mekies said that the spirit of the policy to use franchise fees for cable related uses indicated the franchise fee was properly considered a user fee at the time rather than a general tax. ADJOURNMENT Hagen moved and Christians seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD 01/01/03 to CURRENT Meeting Date Kimberly Saul Meikes Brett Castillo Terry Smith Jim Pusack Thrower 6/2/03 x x x x x 7/28/03 x x x x x 8/25/03 x x x x o/c 9/22/03 x x x x o/c 10/27/03 x x x x o/c 11/24/03 x x o/c x x 12/15/03 o/c o/c x x x 1/2/04 x o/c x x x 1/26/04 x x x x x 2/23/04 x o/c x o/c x 3/22/04 x x x x x 4/26/04 x x x x O/C 5/24/04 x x O/C x x 6/28/04 x x x o/c x 7/26/04 o/c x x x x 8/26/04 did not meet did not meet did not meet did not meet did not meet 9/27/04 X X X X X 10/25/04 X X 11/04 Did not meet Did not meet Did not meet Did not meet Did not meet X X X X X 12/20/04 1/24/05 X X X X X 2/28/05 X X X X Gary Hagen 3/8/05 X X X X × 3/25/05 X O X X X 4/25/05 x o/c X X × 5/23/05 X o x vacancy X James X x Bebe x Ehrmann Balantyne 6/27/05 X x X X X x Michael Chritians 7/25/05 O X X X x (X) = Present (O) = Absent (O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused)