The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-07-13 Info Packet CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET ,_J~,ne 1-1, 1999 JULY 12 WORK SESSION ITEMS IP1 Memorandum from City Manager: Yard Waste Drop Site IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 IP9 IP10 IPll IP12 IP13 IP14 IP15 IP16 IP17 IP18 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Memorandum from City Manager: Tour of CDBG Sites Memorandum from City Manager: Geographic Information System (GIS) Update Memorandum from City Manager: Pending Development Issues Memorandum from City Manager: Parking Lot Adjacent to City Plaza Hotel Memorandum from City Manager: Water Plant Project - Public Art Memorandum from City Manager: Savings from New Cellular Contract Letter from City Manager to Jason-Thomas Eppeh Commercial Parking on Dubuque Street Letter from Ann Riley (Handicare) to City Manager: Park Rides Memorandum from City Clerk: Rescheduling of Joint Meeting of July 22 Memorandum from City Clerk to Census 2000 Committee: Committee Meeting of 6/14/99 Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Director: Peninsula Project Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Assistant Director to Business Owners and Property Owners on Clinton Street between Burlington Street and Iowa Avenue: Installation of Angle Parking on Clinton Street Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Assistant Director to Coralville and Iowa City City Councils: Status of Oakdale Boulevard Corridor Preservation Agreement Memorandum from JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner: Traffic Calming on Highland Avenue Memorandum from JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner to City Manager: Improvement to Iowa City High Traffic Collision Locations Memorandum from Economic Development Coordinator: Workforce Investment Act Memorandum from JCCOG Human Services Coordinator to Finance Director and Parking & Transit Director: Free Bus Ticket Program July 9, 1999 Information Packet (continued) 2 IP19 IP20 IP21 IP22 IP23 IP24 IP25 IP26 IP27 Memorandum from Ron Knoche to Rick Fosse: Iowa River Corridor Trail - Burlington Street to Napoleon park The Politics of Sprawl and Land Management/Condemnation/How Rural Subdivisions Impact Cities [Lehman] Letter from Jim McGinley (JC Emergency Management}: Evacuation Walk-Through Training Memorandum from Dianna Furman: Utility Discount Program Statistics by Month - January 1998 and Fiscal Year 1999 Building Permit Information -June 1999 Minutes: May 27 East Central Iowa Council of Governments May 27 East Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortlure Agenda: July 6 Council on Disability Rights and Education Agendas: July 1, 6, and 8 JC Board of Supervisors Agenda for the 7/13 Informal meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Summary of Findings from the Library regarding survey of local option sales tax and general election voters. Agenda for the 7/14 Informal meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Memo from City Manager regarding being out of town,. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 8, 1999 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Yard Waste Drop Site The landfill has accepted yard waste for some time as a part of its program of service. We would like to propose that residential customers choosing to dispose of yard waste at the landfill would do so free of charge. This program would give residents another alternative for the disposal of yard waste. Commercial businesses would continue to pay the $24 a ton waste fee. Commercial yard waste currently makes up over 70% of the fees collected for yard waste at the landfill. The City would continue its curbside bag pickup at a $1 per bag charge. If this proposal is acceptable we believe it would be beneficial to Iowa City residents as they are not permitted under our open burning regulations to dispose of yard waste in that fashion. To our knowledge all other communities in Johnson County permit open burning on either a limited basis or year-round. The Iowa City streets crews will continue their annual fall curbside vacuuming of leaves. The yard waste accepted at the landfill will continue to be composted as it currently is and used at the landfill and on other City properties in need of topsoil. The new program should have little effect on the current composting operation and hopefully may alleviate some of the illegal dumping of yard waste in parks and along roadways. This matter has been scheduled for your discussion at your work session of July 12. jw/mem/sa-ydwst.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO.' City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: July 1, 1999 RE: Tour of CDBG Sites The Housing & Community Development Commission will tour CDBG sites and projects on Thursday, August 19, at 6:30 p.m. They will gather in the Civic Center Parking lot at 6:20 p.m. If you are interested in joining them, please let Marian know. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 2, 1999 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Geographic Information System (GIS) Update Our in-house GIS Committee has begun to formulate a long term plan for implementation of a Geographic Information System for Iowa City. We expect this plan to evolve as we learn more about the technology and our specific needs and priorities. We hope to provide revised budget estimates in time for the next budget process. We anticipate compliance with EPA stormwater quality regulations to be one of the first significant applications of the GIS. Likewise, we consider GIS a critical tool in effectively complying with the regulations. We have hundreds of independent storm sewer systems throughout the city in our many watersheds and sub-watersheds. Storm sewers are the weak link in our infrastructure mapping. We have no comprehensive map of our storm sewers and poor or nonexistent records of storm sewers constructed prior to the early 1970's. We anticipated this problem when budgeting for compliance with the EPA stormwater regulations. Because of this you can expect that the EPA Stormwater Permitting budget will be contributing to the GIS budget. Specifically, we see Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying technology and topographic information as common needs to both. Rick Fosse serves as chair of our in-house committee. indexbc\memos\5-3sa .doc City of Iowa City1 MEMORANDUM 07-09-99 IP4 Date: July 6, 1999 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Pending Development Issues 1. An application submitted by Arlington, L.C. for final plats of Windsor Ridge, Parts 10-14, a 62.25 acre, 72-1ot residential and commercial subdivision located south of Court Street, West of Taft Avenue. (45-day limitation period: July 26, 1999) An application submitted by Maxwell Development for a final plat of ABCO First Addition, an 8.81 acre, 5-lot commercial subdivision located on the east side of Naples Avenue at Sierra Court. An application submitted by DAV-ED Limited c/o Dave Cahill for a preliminary plat of Galway Hills Part 6, a 4.82-acre, 13-1ot, residential subdivision located at Melrose Avenue West and the south side of Kearney Lane. tp2-1 cm.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 6, 1999 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Parking Lot Adjacent to City Plaza Hotel I spoke with Rob Gauthier of the MeriStar Corporation about their plans for the City Plaza (formerly Holiday Inn) Hotel. Most of their efforts are directed at the improvements of the existing property. They do not see an immediate need at this point for an expansion onto the adjacent City-owned parking lot, and therefore we should proceed with project development assuming the library is interested in the use of the parking lot. I did inform him that it would likely be several months before we might have something specific. He felt that was satisfactory just in case there was the possibility for the need for expansion. What I did was I left the door slightly open. cc: Susan Craig City Council Karin Franklin Joe Fowler Rob Gauthier, MeriStar Im\mem\sa7-6.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 1999 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Water Plant Project - Public Art The Public Art Advisory Committee is reviewing the various issues associated the art component of the Water Plant Project. As I recollect our discussions we fel{ that some type of art component, fountain, etc. would be incorporated into the overall plant design. The Advisory Committee is proceeding with the assumption that the budget for such an artistic feature is to be financed from the Water Plant Project (water revenues). Concern has been raised as to the appropriateness of using the water fund to finance this component of the water project. As you know we have $100,000 set aside annually from general revenues for public art. I will need your clarification in that the Advisory Committee understands that the water fund will fund this particular artistic project and that the general revenues appropriated for other art projects will remain so. cc: Chuck Schmadeke Karin Franklin Im\mem\sa7-7.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: July 8, 1999 City Council City Manager Savings from New Cellular Contract An expanded "bulk contract" with ALLTEL Cellular has been negotiated by our Finance staff and is expected to save the City of Iowa City over $7,500 per year in usage fees. Approximately $2,300 in phones and accessories were purchased as part of the contract, at discounts of 35% to 50%, replacing equipment up to 7 years old. The City is expected to recoup the equipment cost in less than 4 months due to lower usage rates on 75 cellular phones. In addition to offering lower rates, ALLTEL has provided excellent customer service. Their electronic billing facilitates chargeback to assigned phone users. ALLTEL also provides call detail printouts, which are sent monthly to division heads to audit usage. These billing practices enable the City to ensure that wireless telecommunications equipment and services are used only for official City business, preventing unnecessary costs. cc: Don Yucuis Cathy Eisenhofer jw/mem/sa-cell.doc June 25, 1999 Mr. Jason-Thomas Eppel PO Box 2721 Iowa City, IA 52244 Dear Mr. Eppel: This note is to respond to your concern regarding supply truck parking on Dubuque Street. Unfortunately, at this time, there are no alternatives to the middle-of-the- street commercial loading and unloading on the portion of Dubuque Street between Washington Street and Iowa Avenue. Businesses may not use the alleys for this purpose, as alleys must be kept open at all times for emergency vehicle access. Removing an adequate number of meters to provide for commercial loading zones along that stretch would severely impact the available parking for shoppers. I sent the attached letter to owners/managers of Washington Street businesses to alert them of the City's intent to actively enforce the 15- minute parking limit. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call my office or Parking and Transit Director, Joe Fowler (356-5156). Sincerely yours, City Manager Attachment c: Parking and Transit Police Department 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 , (319) 356-5000 , FAX (319) 356-5009 June 21, 1999 Dear Dubuque Street Business Owner/Manager: It has been brought to our attention that some businesses along Dubuque Street between Iowa Avenue and Washington Street that utilize the center of Dubuque Street as a commercial loading zone, are far exceeding the 15- minute maximum time limit for such activity. For reasons such as public safety and flow of traffic, the time limit must be observed, This note is to inform you that our Parking Division will begin enhanced enforcement of the regulation. We are requesting your assistance in monitoring delivery drivers and encouraging them not to abuse the time limits. Sincerely yours, City Manager c: City Attorney Parking Division Police Department 410 EAST %~,ASIIlNGTON STREET · IOWA ('ITY, IOWA -~2240-1826 · (319) 3S6-S000 · FAX (319I 3S6-S009 Dulcinea 2 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 University Camera 4 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Linardo Cafe 5 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dublin Underground 5 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 BJ Compact Discs 6 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Deadwood 6 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Catherine's 7 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Masala Indian Vegetarian Cuisine 9 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Sports Column 10 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Mickey's Irish Pub 11 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Sports Column 12 S, Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Sports Column 14 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Prairie Lights 15 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Computer Store 17 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Josephson's Jewelers 19 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Willlares Co. 19 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Macht, Inc. 19 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Sub Shop 19 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Hands Jewelers 19 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Discount Records 21 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Hills Bank & Trust Co. 23 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 3~JL 0 6 ~999 Steve Atkins Iowa City Manager 410 E Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 2220 Ninth Streal Comivtlle, IA 52241 TEl. 31 g-354~7641 FAX 31 9-354-8~125 Dear Steve: I recently read the article in the Press Citizen about Drolingers asking the City of Iowa City to purchase the amusement rides at City Park. I realize the potential for making a profit is very limited when the cost of personnel to run it is part of the general running costs. I would like to propose a creative method to keep the tides in City Park and raise funds for programs in our Community. I would suggest the City and County work together to purchase the rides and maintain them, plus purchase the liability insurance for them. Then ask Community Non-profit Programs and Service Clubs to provide the personnel needed to run the rides. Cost of maintenance and insurance could be deducted from the income generated and the group that ran the tides each weekday or weekend would receive the profit from that time period. Handicare would be very interested in becoming one of the groups that would have an assigned time to run the rides. Evenings or weekends would be the times that we could find people to run the tides, day hours would be more difficult for us to cover. Possibly groups such as Elderly Services, AARP or SCORE would be available for opening the rides 11 AM to 5PM in the spring when many school children take field trips to the park during their school hours. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request and I hope you will be able to reach a solution that keeps the rides as a part of our community. Sincerely, Ann Riley Executive Director A non-profit organlzeki;n and a member' of of Johnmort County Handleare does not dlecrlrnlnate with reepeGt to clients/participants and employees on the basis of race, o01or, national origin, age, and disability. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: July 7, 1999 City of Coralville City of North Liberty Johnson County Board of Supervisors Iowa City Community Schools Marian K. Karr, City Clerk, Iowa City Re-Scheduling of Joint Meeting of July 22 The next joint meeting of the City Councils of the cities of Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, and the Iowa City School Board is scheduled for July 22. We'd like to postpone and re-schedule that meeting to sometime in September. In the past we have scheduled these joint meeting on Thursdays. Possible Thursday meeting dates in September could be 9, 16, 23, or 30. Please check your calendars and let me know your preference. If these September dates do not work for you please provide altemate dates and we'll do the best to accommodate your request. My phone number is 356-5041 and our fax 356- 5009. Thank you for your cooperation. Cc: City Council of Iowa City City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM' DATE: TO: FROM: RE: July 9, 1999 Iowa City Census 2000 Committee Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ld,-~ Committee Meeting of 6/14/99, 8:30 a.m., Lobby Conference Room Committee Members Present: Dottie Ray, Don Canfield, Bob Elliott, Maeve Clark, Paul Maske, Dale Bentz Committee Members Absent: Bob Roelf, Ann Rhodes Staff: Marian K. Karr Others: Chris Nolte, Census Government Partnership Specialist Mary Byers, Noah Liberty City Clerk Karr reviewed materials distributed and suggested discussion of the population groups to be identified in the Census 2000 publicity in Iowa City. It was hoped that after the groups are identified that Committee members could be assigned. The following items were discussed: · Including "homeless" in an existing group · Utilize Public Service Announcements (PSA's) · Request information on non-response groups from 1990 Census · Research locations for Census Aid site within Iowa City · Explore confidentiality for human service agencies to assist clients in completing forms · Utilizing Apartment Associations & Neighborhood Associations in educating process · Importance of University involvement (International Fair, sporting events) · Exposure at Chamber Business Fair in January/February · Utilizing Internet Chris Nolte, regional Census office, presented information on the upcoming Census. He pointed out the cost comparison of a citizen mailing back the Census questionnaire ($2- $3) versus the Bureau following up with an enumerator ($70). In response to questions, Mr. Nolte explained: Census Committee Meeting of 6/14 July 9, 1999 Page 2 1. He will follow up on the issue of confidentiality if an agency volunteer wanted to assist a client in completing the form 2. Long questionnaires will be sent to 1 out of 6 residences, while short questionnaires will be mailed to 5 of 6 3. Questionnaires are addressed "TO THE RESIDENT AT ADDRESS" 4. Displayed badges/identifications to be worn by enumerators 5. Distributed Census 2000 Talking Points At the Committee' s request, Karr reported that a booth has been reserved for Census 2000 at the 4-H Fair July 26-29. Karr will provide hours of operation and activities schedule at the next meeting. It was suggested that Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, City High Ambassadors, Senior Citizens, and other jurisdictions be approached to share the hours. The following group assignments were agreed to: Paul Maske- Bob Elliott- Dale Bentz- Don Canfield- Maeve Clark- Dottie Ray- Churches Schools (PTO's, Home Schools, Parent Organizations, etc.) Elderly (Medical Offices, Hospital Waiting Rooms, etc) Service Organizations Social Service Agencies Media Maeve Clark offered assistance in providing updated lists for Paul, Bob and Don from the Library database. Dottie will contact Ann Rhodes regarding University participation. Marian stated she would provide copies of past correspondence and supportive information to each committee member assigned a group and stated she would be attending the Coralville Census Committee meeting. The next Iowa City Census 2000 Committee meeting will be Monday, July 12, at 8:30 a.m. in the Lobby Conference Room of the Civic Center, 410 East Washington Street. Cc: Ben Arzu, KC Regional Office of the Census Chris Nolte, DM Census Office City Council Interested JC Entities CENSUS CONTACT IN VARIOUS CITIES OF JOHNSON COUNTY Lanny VanDaele City of Coralville 1512 7th Street P O Box 5127 Coralville IA 52241 Donna Ruth, City Clerk City of Hills P O Box 345 Hills IA 52235-0345 Carol Peters, Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S Dubuque Street P O Box 1350 Iowa City IA 52240 Merry Thomae, City Clerk City of Lone Tree 123 N DeVoe Street P O Box 337 Lone Tree IA 52755-0337 Joseph Zalesky City of Shueyville 1298 James Ave. NE Swisher IA 52338 Mary Kae Mitchell, City Clerk City of North Liberty P O Box 67 North Liberty IA 52317-0067 City Clerk City of Solon P O Box 267 301 S Iowa Street Solon IA 52333-0267 Pat~cia Tomash, City Clerk City of Oxford P O Box 481 Oxford IA 52332-0481 Virginia Svec, City Clerk City of Swisher 66 2nd Street SW Swisher IA 52338-0231 Margaret B. Reihman, City Clerk City of Tiffin 211 Main Street P O Box 259 Tiffin IA 52340-0259 Patricia Birk, City Clerk City of University Heights 305 Ridgeview Avenue Iowa City IA 52246-1626 1999 CENSUS 2000 COMMITTEE IOWA CITY (7/99) Don Canfield 46 S High Circle Drive Iowa City IA 52245 kdcpje@aol.com Dale Bentz 701 Oaknoll Drive #430 Iowa City IA 52246-5168 Bob Elliott 1108 Dover Street Iowa City IA 52240 elliottb53@aol.com Paul Maske 1111 Rochester Avenue Iowa City IA 52245 PJMaske@aol.com Bob Roelf 403 Elmira Street Iowa City IA 52245 Dottie Ray 1851 Melrose Avenue Iowa City IA 52246 dottiekray@.com Ann Rhodes University Relations 101JH University of Iowa Iowa City IA 52242 anna-rhodes@uiowa.edu Jane Hoshi University Relations University of Iowa Old Public Library Iowa City, IA 52242 Jane-Hoshi@uiowa. edu Ben Arzu Census Bureau 10015 N Executive Hills Blvd Kansas City MO 64153 Maeve Clark Library X5200 ext. 135 Mavclark@icpl.iowa-city.lib.ia.us REGIONAL CONTACTS Chris Nolte Federal Office Bldg. 210 Walnut; 9th Floor Des Moines IA 50309 Cnolte@pcparmer.net Mary McInroy Map Collections University of Iowa Library Iowa City IA 52242 mary-mcinroy@uiowa.edu City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM 1 ;;°;';I Date: To: From: Re: July 1, 1999 City Council Karin Franklin, Director, P Peninsula Project In light of the Council's discussion at your work session on June 28, 1999, we will be inviting additional developers to submit proposals for the Peninsula project. As indicated to you in my memo of June 24, we expect to send out that communication by mid-July with a response date of December 15. Between now and the time at which we send out these additional requests, we will continue to have conversations with the developer we have been working with from Boulder, Colorado. cc: City Manager Jeff Davidson Bob Miklo jw/mendkf-peninsula.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM 07-09-99 IP13 Date: July 2, 1999 To: and Iowa Avenue From: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Dept. of Planning & Community Development Re: Installation of angle parking on Clinton Street Business Owners and Property Owners on Clinton Street between Burlington Street The City Council has asked me to inform you of their recent decision to implement angle parking on Clinton Street between Burlington Street and Iowa Avenue. The reconfiguration to angle parking in these three downtown blocks will occur as part of the Phase III downtown streetscape reconstruction project, which is scheduled for next summer. Phase III will be similar to the first two phases of the downtown streetscape reconstruction which have occurred this summer and last summer. The angle parking on Clinton Street will be designed this fall and winter when the Phase III downtown streetscape reconstruction project is designed. The angle parking on Clinton Street will be configured as closely as possible to the sketch plan which is attached for your information. All of the trees shown are mature trees we will attempt to save as part of the project. The lights and streetscape furniture will be similar to what has been installed in Phases I and II. The installation of angle parking will reduce slightly the width of the sidewalk on the sides of the street being reconfigured with angle parking. We will not disrupt any underground vaults. Although traffic flow will be tightened up somewhat by the installation of angle parking, the positive aspect is that 28 angle parking spaces will be created in an area which currently has 5 metered parallel parking spaces. Some of the new angle parking spaces will be designated for loading and unloading, and the remainder will be metered. We hope you join us in looking forward to this significant enhancement of Clinton Street. CC: City Council Steve Atkins Joe Fowler jccogtp\rnmos\anglepk.doc Date: To: From: Re: i-'ii"i rn e m o July 6, 1999 Coralville City Council Iowa City City Council Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner '"~//~ Status of Oakdale Boulevard Corridor Preservation Agreement Recently the Coralville City Council and the Iowa City City Council approved the first amendment to the Oakdale Boulevard Corridor Preservation Agreement. This first amendment to the current agreement between Coralville, Iowa City, and Johnson County would add protection of the Oakdale Boulevard corridor between County Road W-66 (Dubuque Street) and Prairie du Chien Road. This was approved by Coralville on June 22 and by Iowa City on June 15. On June 29 this matter was considered by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The supervisors were not willing to consider the agreement without a recommendation from the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission. Since we just missed the deadline for the July agenda of the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission, they will not consider a recommendation until their meeting on August 9. I would hope to take the amendment back to the Board of Supervisors for consideration in mid-August. This will cause some delay of our consideration of a new agreement between Coralville and Iowa City regarding extraterritorial review of subdivisions in the overlapping two-mile area between Coralville and Iowa City. I now hope to bring that agreement to you for consideration in September. Let me know if you have any questions. CO: Coralville staff Iowa City staff jccogtp/rnem/oakdale2.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 9, 1999 To: City Council From: Doug Ripley, JCCOG Traffic Engineering PlannertJit/ Re: Traffic Calming on Highland Avenue As directed at your June 28, 1999 work session, the traffic calming devices on Highland Avenue between Carroll Street and Yewell Street have been removed, parking on both sides of the street was retained, and additional speed limit signs and "Check Your Speed" signs are being installed. I also understand police presence has been increased. You also asked that we review other available traffic calming options for Highland Avenue. Since Highland Avenue is a collector street carrying 2200 vehicles per day and traffic diversion is inappropriate per the approved traffic calming policy, the options beyond those listed above are limited. Speed humps would be effective, however, since Highland is an emergency response route and transit mute, this is not advised. Unwarranted stop signs for additional traffic control will not effectively reduce speeds or volumes, and will increase other safety concerns. Based on the lack of alternatives available, additional traffic calming options will not be pursued. We are currently trying to upgrade the traffic signal operations along Highway 6 which will help reduce cut-through traffic on Highland Avenue. Similarly, traffic control on Kirkwood Avenue could be improved to more efficiently move traffic, thus reducing the use of Highland as an alternate route. This was requested by the Highland Avenue Neighborhood. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Steve Atkins Karin Franklin Chuck Schmadeke Rick Fosse Eleanor Dilkes Jeff Davidson Pat Harney Marcia Klingaman Highland Neighborhood Residents bc\memos~4-1DR.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 8, 1999 To: Steve Atkins From: Doug Ripley ~ Re: Improvement to Iowa City High Traffic Collision Locations As proposed in the June 9, 1999 memo to the City Council, we will proceed with implementing improvements at the five identified high traffic collision locations. I have spoken with a representative of Project GREEN to discuss implementing the proposed modifications to the median on Washington Street to improve sight distance. I will meet with Project GREEN in early September to discuss alternatives. Work will proceed on the other remaining four locations. Please let me know if you have any questions. CC: Jeff Davidson Marcia Klingaman Karin Franklin tp4-1 dr.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 1999 To: City Manager & City Council . __?~~ From: David Schoon, Economic Development CoordinatOr ,,~I ~ ...... RE: Workforce Investment Act In August 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was signed into law. WIA replaces the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with block grants to states. The legislation is designed to provide states and localities with greater flexibility in using federal job training money to create market-driven workforce investment systems, and to improve the responsiveness of these systems to the needs of employers and job seekers. Prior to the adoption of the WIA, the State of Iowa began its own process of consolidating and coordinating workforce development programs within the state. The State and local jurisdictions are now in the process of bringing this recently new state reorganization of workforce development programs into compliance with the new federal regulations and programs. Under the new federal structure, a Regional Workforce Investment (RWI) Board and a Chief Elected Officials (CEO) Board will be established at the Region 10 level. In essence, these two boards are replacing existing boards involved with workforce development programs. In the next month or so, Councilor Vanderhoef will be presenting a 28E Agreement establishing the Chief Elected Officials (CEO) Board with other local jurisdictions within Region 10 (Benton, Cedar, Iowa, Johnson, Jones, Lynn and Washington Counties, and the Cities of Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, and Coraville). Under this Agreement, the City of Iowa City will provide a representative to serve on the CEO Board. The CEO Board will work with the local Regional Workforce Investment (RWI) Board on workforce development programs in the region. Funding for such programs will come from Workforce Investment Act federal funds and other funds that the CEO Board may apply for. When the 28E Agreement establishing the CEO Board comes before the Council, Councilor Vanderhoef and I will present additional information regarding the Workforce Investment Act, the RWI Board, and the CEO Board. Cc: Karin Franklin A:\wia.doc IP18 - CCO ~III1~ Date: July 2, 1999 To: Don Yucuis, Director of Finance Joe Fowler, Director of Parking & Transit From: Li n, Human Services Coordinator Re: Free Bus Ticket Program For the fourth quarter of FY99 (April, May, and June 1999) the City of Iowa City dispensed 2,745 tickets to human service agencies through its Free Bus Ticket Program. The totals, by agency, were: Fourth Year to Apr. May June Quarter Date Crisis Center 325 325 325 975 3,900 Department of Human Services 220 220 220 660 2,640 Domestic Violence Intervention Program 0 0 0 0 900 (DVIP) [Had a surplus of tickets and did not need any this quarter] Emergency Housing Project (EHP) 115 115 115 345 1,380 Work Force Center (formerly Job Service) 125 125 125 375 1,500 Neighborhood Centers: Broadway 40 40 40 120 480 Pheasant Ridge 40 40 40 120 480 Vocational Rehabilitation Services 50 50 50 150 600 TOTAL 915 915 915 2,745 11,880 The tickets dispensed in the third quarter were numbered 120591-1201020; 118511-118515; 54001-54500; 10411-10420; 64501-65415. We dispensed 22 free bus passes to the Department of Human Services through June 30, 1999. Please contact me at x5242 if you have any questions or concerns. cc: Jeff Davidson jccoghsVnem~ustix, doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM To: Rick Fosse From: Ron Knoche Date: June 30, 1999 Re: Iowa River Corridor Trail - Burlington St. to Napolean Park As of this date, the final trail surface from Benton St. to Napolean Park and from Burlinton St. to the current location of Master Muffler has been completed. The finish grading work along these portions of the trail has not been completed. Unfortunately, the high level of the Iowa River has not allowed the contractor to work on the portion of the trail from Master Muffler to Benton St. The remaining work in this segment includes a bridge with retaining walls under the Iowa Interstate Railroad bridge and a retaining wall along the river behind Linder Tire. The high level of the Iowa River is expected to continue for a number of weeks. The Coralville Reservoir is currently at elevation 703 (9 feet below the spillway). The normal pool level for this time of the year is 683. After the river drops to a level the contractor can work, it is estimated the remaining work will take the contractor 2 months. C:\WINWORD\PROJECTS\IRCTRAIL\MEMO\FOSSE\06 29 99.DOC I ntrod uction: As candidates set their sights on the 2000 elections, sprawl has emerged as a formidable issue for some contenders early in their campaigns. While-some-political aspirants and analysts have argued that suburban growth issues do not warrant significant attention on the campaign trail, others have made anti-sprawl an important component of their platforms. The concept of "livable communities" has been touted by Vice President AI Gore as an issue that resonates across suburban America. In his State of the Union address, President Clinton encouraged Americans to support planned development strategies and pledged to support legislation that would protect open spaces and improve the quality of life for suburbanites across the country. In early January, Gore announced the initiation of the White House Livability Agenda for the 21st Century, an effort to combat sprawl and reduce the negative effects associated with i- unplanned development such as traffic congestion and pollution and improve the overall quality of life. Encouraging smart growth and planned development has also become a central tenet of Gore's 2000 The Politics of Sprawl presidential bid. "Development has become something to be opposed instead of welcomed; people move out to the suburbs to make their lives, only to find they are playing leapfrog with bulldozers," Gore said in a January speech. Some observers dismiss Gore's anti-sprawl platform and criticize his campaign for failing to address more prominent issues. Encouraged by a healthy economy, Gore and other anti-sprawl candidates are able to appeal to the sensibilities of suburban American by overrating the actual scope of the problem, cdtics argue. "The politics of sprawl follows the economic cycle, rising to a crescendo when housing starts roach their peak late in booms and then disappearing dudng recessions. The last big controversy over urban growth started to peak at the end of the '80s boom, when states like California, Florida and Washington adopted growth-control measures," Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Institute opined in a recent op-ed. Despite Gore's critics, sprawl issues are becoming increasingly visible in campaigns across the country. And urban growth issues are not a necessarily partisan. Both Democrats and Republicans in states as diverse as New Jersey, Oregon and Utah have addressed sprawl and in the 1998 elections, anti-sprawl and smart-growth ballots were considered by 31 states, and nearly 75 percent were approved. The Campaign Against Urban Sprawl: Declaring War on the American Dream Adapted from the original by John Carlisle From the White House to Main Street, urban sprawl is said to be the latest environmental crisis vexing America. The Clinton Administration and environmentalists warn that urban sprawl, or unregulated ex-urban development, undermines our quality of life. They argue that urban sprawl exacerbates traffic congestion, scars the landscape with ungainly development and consumes the scenic open space that attracts people to the suburbs in the first place. Even moro alarming, Vice President Albert Gore says, if steps aren't taken now to curb sprawl, urbanization will consume so much farmland that the United States may run out of enough agricultural land to feed itself in the 21st century and, for the first time in the nation's history, become a net importer of food. So serious is the threat allegedly posed by sprawl that the Administration has proposed a $10 billion program aimed at combating its pernicious effects by funding more mass transit programs, increasing the purchase of land for parks and open space and funding other projects ostensibly aimed at improving the quality of suburban living. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation 3 A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership But the threat posed by sprawl to rustic open spaces and farmland is grossly overstated by the Clinton Administration. While the Administration plays upon people's understandable but misguided fears about the destruction of open space, the record frorrdhe U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service show that less than 5% of the United States is developed. Moreover, for several decades now, the amount of land that is dedicated to parks and other conservation uses has greatly exceeded the amount of land that has been urbanized. What is most disturbing about the crusade against urban sprawl is that anti-sprawl activists portray their agenda of "smart-growth" initiatives as "pro- suburban" to receptive voters concerned about improving the quality of life in their communities. In reality, anti-sprawl policies are profoundly anti- suburban. In cities such as Portland, Oregon, where aggressive anti-sprawl policies have been implemented, government 'planners have deliberately tried to increase traffic congestion, not diminish it, and have tried to force people to live in smaller houses in more crowded urban-like neighborhoods. To these activists, suburbs am the cause of sprawl, and the only way to stop sprawl is to dissuade people from moving to the suburbs. The campaign against urban sprawl is perilously close to a campaign against the American Dream. In this report you will find dramatic evidence that: + Urban Sprawl Poses No Threat to the Nation's Open Spaces - The Administration's assertion that the U.S. is in danger of running out of open space due to unbridled suburbanization is unfounded and needlessly exacerbates public anxiety over the issue. Only 4.8% of the nation's land is developed. That means that after more than 200 years of rapid industrial development and an explosion in population from 4 million to 265 million people, more than 95% of U.S. land area remains undeveloped. + Food Supply is Not Threatened by Urban Sprawl - Critics of development often argue that development is consuming so much farmland that the United States will lose its ability to feed itself in the next century. Even though there is little evidence to suggest that this kind of an agricultural cdsis will occur, many Americans now believe it is imminent. What is often overlooked in the farmland debate is that major technological advances in food production require less and less farmland to produce record crop yields. The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) index of national farm output shows that the United States increased its food production by nearly 48% since 1970, despite a reduction in agricultural acreage. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that total farm income increased by 63% between 1980 and 1994. The value of farm production is expected to grow nearly 26% even though the number of farms continues to decline and the number of farmworkers is expected to fall by 4.9%.23 + Urban Sprawl is Anti-Suburban The greatest irony of the urban sprawl debate is that the Clinton Administration has tailored its anti- sprawl proposals to appeal to suburban residents frustrated with congestion and concerned about the loss of scenic open space when, in fact, the anti-sprawl campaign is at its core anti-suburban. Environmentalists, urban planners, central city governments and a school of anti-suburban architects called New Urbanists are the primary advocates of initiatives to control urban sprawl and their common article of faith is that the source of sprawl is the very existence of suburbs themselves. To these anti-sprawl crusaders, the only way to combat urban sprawl is to force people to live in smaller homes or - even better - apartments and force them to reduce their use of automobiles. In other words, get rid of the suburbs. 4 Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership + The Portland Lesson - Portland, Oregon is the Mecca for anti-sprawl activists. Its highly restrictive growth limits that aim to stop further development and heavy investment into mass transit epitomize the kind of policies anti-sprawl activists would like _to see implemented everywhere. Let's hope not. A regional planning agency in Portland, called Metro, has been given the authority to regulate growth in 24 cities and three counties. In its 40-year plan to manage growth, http://www. mu Itnomah. lib. or. us/metro/index. html accommodate 700,000 to 1.1 ,." million new : residents within . -~. its existing Urban Growth ,., ")\"': · Boundary by radically increasing the residential ..... densities in existing neighborhoods. Metro's anti-sprawl campaign includes eight initiatives: . Establishing an Urban Growth Boundary beyond which little or no development will be allowed. · Imposing highly restrictive zoning within the Urban Growth Boundary which requires landowners who are allowed to build at all to only construct buildings with high residential densities that increase congestion. · Increasing highway capacity by no more than 13%, even as the region's population grows by 75%, in the 40-year period. · Spending most of the region's federal and local transportation money not on roads but on a light-rail mass transit system even though the system will carry no more than 2% of the area's daily commuters. · Requiring owners of shopping and office complexes to reduce parking space by 10% and eventually charge for parking. · Banning new shopping malls and stores like WaI-Mart. · Subsidizing small shops in mixed-use areas. · Instituting "traffic calming" measures, such as reducing the number of lanes on major streets, to reduce roadway capacities. To achieve higher living densities, Metro wants to shdnk the average lot size for a single-family home by almost a third, from 9,000 square feet to 6,700 square feet. In some neighborhoods, it plans to restrict lot sizes to as little as 2,900 square feet, Because of the anti-sprawl controls, housing prices have soared in Portland. The city went from being one of the nation's most affordable cities to one of the five or six least affordable. Proponents of Metro blame these rising costs on Portland's booming economy. This ignores the fact that other western cities, - including Phoenix, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City - have experienced even greater growth than Portland while keeping housing costs under control. The difference between Portland and these cities is that Portland has implemented onerous anti-sprawl controls while the other cities have not. Cdnclusion The Clinton Administration's campaign against urban sprawl is deeply flawed in that it purports to combat problems that don't exist (such as disappearing farmland), grossly exaggerates the amount of open space that is consumed by urbanization and, worst of all, encourages anti- sprawl policies that are anti-suburban. What is especially ironic about the Administration's crusade against sprawl is that the anti-sprawl program is also anti-environment The Clinton Administration's campaign against urban sprawl is not just another wasteful spending program to fight an environmental crisis that doesn't exist; it could very well create environmental problems that we don't yet have. John K. Carlisle is Director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. Comments may be sent to JCadisle(~nationalcenter.org. Read the complete study and report of Urban Growth in the US written by John Carlisle at: http://www.nationalcenter.inter.net/NPA239.html The National Center for Public Policy Research Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation 5 A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City BySamuel R. Staley, Ph.D. Executive Summary Urban sprawl has sparked a national debate over land-use policy. At least 19 states have established either state growth-management laws or task forces to protect farmland and open space. Dozens of cities and counties across the nation have adopted urban growth boundaries in order to contain development in existing areas and prevent the spread of suburbanization to outlying and rural areas. Despite widespread concern over sprawl, a clear definition remains illusive in public debate. The debate over sprawl is ddven primarily by general concerns that low-density residential development threatens farmland and open space, increases public-service costs, encourages people and wealth to leave central cities, and degrades the environment. Evidence on suburbanization and low-density development suggests suburbanization does not significantly threaten the quality of life for most people, and land development can be managed more effectively through real-estate markets than comprehensive land-use planning. An analysis of land-use trends at the national and state levels reveals: 1. Suburbanization and sprawl are local issues. Less than 5 percent of the nation's land is developed, and three-quarters of the nation's population lives on 3.5 percent of its land area. Over three-quarters of the states have more than 90 percent of their land in rural uses, including forests, cropland, pasture, wildlife reserves, and parks. Acreage in protected wildlife areas and rural parks exceed urbanized areas by 50 percent. 2. Urban development does not threaten the nation's food supply. About one-quarter of the farmland loss since 1945 is attributable to urbanization. More importantly, predictions of future farmland loss based on past trends are misleading because farmland loss has moderated significantly, falling from 6.2 percent per decade in the1960s to 2.7 percent per decade in the 1990s. 3. Cost-of-development studies exaggerate the effects of suburbanization on local- government costs. Most costs are recovered through on-site improvements made by developers. Local governments often choose not to recover the full costs of development, preferring to subsidize development through general revenues. Most studies also fail to recognize the interconnected nature of land development, ignore cheaper and alternative ways to provide services (e.g., through the private sector), and use a static snapshot of communities. 4. Declining cities suffer from many "push" factors. These push factors--low-quality public education, high crime, high tax rates, regulatory barriers, and fewer housing opportunities--must be addressed before they can compete for middle-income families and households. Suburbanization represents household choices based on these factors. 5. Air quality deteriorates as residential densities increase. The metropolitan areas with the worst smog ratings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have the highest population densities. 6. Open space is increasingly protected through the private sector. Real-estate markets are responding to household preferences for open space through cluster housing. Private land trusts and agreements among property owners are also preserving open space in fast-growing areas. Once considered a benign outgrowth of higher incomes and the search for the American DrearfF-homeownership, a private lot, and a car--suburbanization, or sprawl, has become a lightening rod for government activism. Complete study document available at: http://www.rppi.org/ps251 .html is Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership Rather than adopt comprehensive land-use planning--which circumvents real-estate markets--or urban growth boundaries that put some land off limits to development, this study recommends an alternative, market-oriented approach grounded in the following principles: 1. Economic Po~cy Neutrality where state and local policymakers avoid giving preferential treatment to particular industries, including the agricultural industry. 2. Price On-Site Public Services at their Full Costs. Cities and local governments should price on-site infrastructure costs so that all costs-- operating, capital, and debt--are included in the pdce for the service while also ensuring efficient design and service delivery options. 3. Reform Zoning to Accommodate Market Trends. Local governments should adopt flexible- zoning laws that allow for mixed-use and higher- density land development based on market trends. Performance zoning should be explored by local governments as an alternative to current zoning practices that further politicize the land- development process. 4. Use Flexible, Voluntary Programs to Protect Open Space. Public policy should facilitate the voluntary transfer and purchase of development rights on farmland and open space to private land trusts and other property owners. Tax-credit programs that reduce the tax burden on land ownership may also be useful ways to encourage property owners to preserve open' space. 5. Strengthen Private Property Rights. Private property rights should be protected, including the right to use and sell property as the owner sees fit. Restrictions on land use through countywide or regional planning run the risk of reducing the value of property without compensation for the loss. 6. Adopt Nuisance-based Standards for Land-use Regulation. Local governments should ground their land-use regulations in the common law concept of nuisance. Those objecting to land uses should be required to prove a tangible harm and receive compensation based on the severity of the harm or be assured a harm will be mitigated or eliminated. 7. Facilitate Change and Community Evolution. Local land-use regulations should recognize the open-ended and uncertain nature of community development. Local "land-use regulations should allow communities to evolve with their changing character and Values, and not become instruments of preservation. The dangers of giving into antigrowth sentiment are significant since, by 2010, the U.S. economy is expected to grow by 11.5 percent, population by 11 percent, and employment by 15 percent. Current residents and citizens will expect their quality of life to increase with their incomes. These trends require accommodating rather than restricting growth. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership Market-Oriented Planning: Principles and Tools for the 21st Century by _ Samuel R. Staley Lynn Scarlett ssta ley@com puse rye .com Reason Public Policy Institute 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, California 90034 PRINCIPLES OF MARKET-ORIENTED PLANNING (MOP) The following observations outline a few of the core principles of market-oriented planning (MOP). Observation #1: Communities are Open Systems Local planning policy and development regulations are often framed within a general wodd view that presumes communities can be designed or built as permanent features of society. This approach views whole communities as similar to its individual components - the buildings, bridges, parks, or other physical elements of a community. Planning, presumably, simply arranges the components together to fit some idealized community as determined by planners or other policymakers. This "closed-system" approach is implicit in many of the paradigms that have driven local planning in the United States, as well as Europe, beginning with the City Beautiful and Garden City movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and continuing into contemporary times through neotraditional town planning (or the New Urbanism). The closed system approach is evident as part of Florida's top-down, state- directed growth management policy. Planners and elected officials passed Florida's growth management law in an attempt to create higher density, compact cities, a policy at odds with the desires of most Floridians (Audirac, Shermyen & Smith 1990; Holcombe 1994). The closed-system approach is explicit in farmland preservation efforts in a number of states, including Colorado, Vermont, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio. Local economies are seen as a balance of commercial, industrial, residential and agricultural industries. VVhen one industry -- namely agriculture - becomes less prominent, the local economy is considered "unbalanced" and comprehensive land-use planning is advocated as a way to maintain the balance. State farmland preservation task forces have advanced a number of different planning-based strategies to preserve or restore this "balance" including purchase of development rights programs, agricultural zoning, Agricultural Security Areas, requirements that agriculture be included in local land-use plans, and "Right to Farm" legislation. In other cases, modern planning attempts to convert open systems to closed systems. Urban growth boundaries, or UGBs, attempt to create green belts (stdps of undeveloped property) around built-up areas such as cities. The concept underlying the UGB is that more densely populated cities are preferred to less dense suburbs, and regions that close off development in outlying areas will create a more desirable compact city. As investment is funneled into higher-density areas, communities can be designed to accommodate basic human needs outside a market framework. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership A core value driving these paradigms is that if cities, communities, and neighborhoods can be "designed" or engineered in the right way, they will function properly. In some cases, market- driven development and "livability" are considered conflicting goals. In other-cases, land markets are not even considered. Take, for example, neotraditional planning. Calthorpe (1993) provides 12 guiding principles for new urban planning and then provides detailed design specifications for nine core characteristics of communities: ecology and habitat, core commercial areas, residential areas, secondary areas, parks and plazas, streets, pedestrian movement, the transit system and parking requirements. Calthorpe's design criteria do not mention the potential of real-estate markets to allocate land efficiently (often in directions that complement or facilitate neotraditional design goals) based on what consumers and residents prefer. In contrast, Calthorpe' provides detailed design cdteria about what buildings should look like, how much space should be allocated to parks and at what scale, and where specific uses should be located in what density. Most general and master plans begin with a vision of what the community should look like after a period of time. As a result, most local general plans and zoning maps do not integrate uncertainty and/or spontaneous development as a fundamental element of the plan or planning process. In some cases, comprehensive plans are not updated. Columbus, Ohio, for example, adopted its first zoning code in 1923, did not comprehensively update it until the 1950s and did not update its comprehensive plan until 1992. In other cases, cities try to plan for growth and land- use changes that may be impossible to predict. Cary, North Carolina had a population of just 43,858 in 1990, almost doubled its size to 82,700 in 1997, and is expected to grow to 209,308 by 2010. In fact, few local planning processes can accommodate spontaneous market development: zoning maps are amended ad hoc through lengthy legislative processes, variances are often legally permissible only under very restrictive conditions, and the presumption is almost always against changes to the general plan. Under most zoning and local planning laws, property owners must ask for and receive permission to develop their property from a government agency or planning board before any investment in land redevelopment can take place. Major developments are almost always subjected to lengthy public deliberation through public meetings and hearings as a matter of process. MOP recognizes that communities, neighborhoods, and cities evolve over time in a dynamic, evolutionary way. Planning theory and tools must fully integrate the concepts of change and evolution into a framework that embraces evolving land uses as a fundamental building block of local planning and development regulation. Market-oriented planning strives to institutionalize mechanisms that facilitate community evolution through decentralized, voluntary processes. As a practical matter, economic markets serve this function more effectively than political markets because they are driven by consumers and, by necessity, are forward-looking. Principle #1: As a basic planning principle, growth management should incorporate a presumption in favor of market trends and dynamic evolution. Observation #2: Markets Allocate Most Resources Effectively and Efficiently Contemporary planning views markets with skepticism and suspicion. Market-driven development, many planners believe, is driven by the short-term (and narrow) interests of property owners and land developers. Thus, they believe, markets tend to maximize short-term private profits at the expense of the public interest. An implicit, underlying theme of much planning theory is that market behavior is uncoordinated or unordered. This view is again apparent in recent planning initiatives to encourage "compact" development sometimes referred to as "Smart Growth." In a recent study of Michigan communities by Rutgers University planners (SEMCOG 1997), community goals and development trends were assessed by consulting with public officials and planners, not developers, real estate agents, or even community attitude surveys. This is ironic, because developers and real estate agents are the only groups with a direct, obvious and clear stake - financial survival and profitability - in successfully matching consumer preferences with housing, neighborhood and land use choices. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership MOP recognizes that, under appropriate rules, markets are efficient and equitable mechanisms for allocating land uses. Under the right institutional conditions (where the property rights and responsibilities of all affected property owners are considered), markets_maximize public welfare. Long-term goals and the public interest are maximized because land development is by nature speculative: investments in land and property are based on expectations that consumers will be willing to purchase property in a desirable community and that businesses will want to locate in commercial and industrial centers. Market accountability is also swift. Developers often receive approval from local planning boards for certain types Of development and then seek a series of modifications as the market for their project is more clearly revealed. In one case, a developer proposed building a 26 unit housing development with average home pdces in the range of $300,000 to $500,000. After a two years, only ten lots had been' sold. The houses that had been built were on the market for unexpectedly (re: unprofitably) long periods. the developer changed the design of the development. The new lots and homes will be designed for the $150,000 to $250,000 range and targeted toward empty nesters. The market sent a clear message to the developer about what consumers wanted and were willing to pay for. The developer then used this information to redesign his project to meet what consumers wanted. The land market imposed "order'' on the desires of the developer-- and, in this case, the local planning board o- through the profit and loss system of the land market. Not surprisingly, urban economists have found consistent support for this approach to understanding how land markets facilitate community building and urban development (Henderson 1988). Principle #2: Planning theory should embrace this more realistic concept of markets in which markets are understood to incorporate long- term goals and dynamic consumer and commercial expectations. Observation #3: Political Processes are Inefficient Means with Which to Make Land- Use Decisions Planning theory implicitly assumes that voter involvement in specific land-use decisions is socially efficient and beneficial. This assumption is most clearly evident in recent trends toward "ballot box zoning," where planners have almost universally heralded this trend as another way of encouraging citizen participation in local planning issues and land development. See Caves (1992). Ballot-box decision-making, however, is also an unstable, uncertain, and slow approval mechanism. It can also be arbitrary and inequitable. When applied to economic decisions, political processes tend to generate significant inefficiencies as well as inequities. Some cities, for example, require community approval through referenda for all rezoning applications. Typically, referenda suffer from poor turnout, giving special-interest groups more weight at the ballot box than community sentiment may warrant. In addition, the delays and uncertainty associated with this procedure discourage property development generally, regardless of the scope or quality of the proposed project. A study of 63 Ohio cities found that cities that use the ballot box on zoning issues suffer a "growth penalty:" growth is lower in communities that place zoning decisions on the ballot (Staley 1998). In fact, the analysis found that communities with ballot-box referenda experienced lower growth irrespective of whether the decision favored or opposed the proposed change. Thus, the mere fact communities subjected land use decisions to the ballot box was sufficient to discourage investment. Communities run a very real risk of reducing the quality of property development and redevelopment because of the transaction costs implicit in this arrangement. Further, economic decision-making through collective voting severely constrains and weakens property rights that establish the spheres of autonomy critical to economic investment, private planning, development and growth. By subjecting property development to a legislative approval process, some property rights are effectively negated, since public approval is a prerequisite for Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership exercising those rights. Planning, as it is currently conceived and practiced, shifts the regulatory role of government from one of protecting individual spheres of autonomy, and mitigating specific harms and social impacts, to one that supersedes individual rights and replaces them with potentially unbounded majority rule or special-interest dominance. Consider the following paradox. Conventional wisdom considers planning to be an essential part of land development. Yet, in reality, planning boards and city councils approve the lion's share of rezoning applications. One study of Santa Barbara, for example, found that 95 percent of zoning requests were approved ~by the local coastal commission (Seigan 1990). In another study of twenty California cities, communities that were supportive of growth approved 95 percent of proposed zone changes and amendments to the general plan (Dalton 1989). Communities that were unsupportive of growth approved 72 percent of zone changes and amendments to the general plan. Thus, even "slow growth" communities altered their plans to conform to changing needs, most of which were market driven. Yet the planning process imposes additional costs on development, regardless of its appropriateness or the inefficiencies inherent in a legislative approval process. To the extent the results of land development with planning approval are the same as they would have been if land development were left to market processes, the costs of obtaining development permission from a local planning board represent a net loss to society--the process imposed higher costs than were necessary to reach the same goal. MOP recognizes that governments perform their most-important tasks when they set the rules of the game for market behavior rather than make the decisions themselves. By subjecting development projects to public review, local governments are forced into a case-by-case review of land development irrespective of its impact on the community .or neighborhood. Relatively minor and innocuous changes in use are subject to the same approval processes as large, integrated, mixed use developments. Ultimately, this lengthens the approval process, slows land redevelopment, and subjects development projects to an often arbitrary and unpredictable approval process. Principle #3: MOP attempts to limit the politically arbitrary nature of development approval by subjecting land development to administrative rather than legislative processes. Observation #,4: VVhen Spillover Impacts From Development Occur, Their Effects Can Be Mitigated Through Performance-Based Public- Sector Planning Governments are most effective when they protect clear and definable interests. Market spillover impacts--circumstances in which market activity imposes costs or benefits on third parties (for example, erosions, noise or air pollution)-may require government or third-party action. Also, cases in which market transactions fail to provide enough of a good or service (for example, open space and habitat protection) may warrant some government action to create incentives for the provision of non-market amenities. The original intent of zoning was to protect neighbors against development that could reduce property values by imposing harms. Zoning was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as an appropriate use of the "police powers" of government to protect the general welfare. However, before restrictive public interventions occur, the negative impacts of property development should be demonstrable, and developers should be given the opportunity to correct for these impacts. To a limited degree, the rezoning and plan-approval process in existing planning systems accomplishes this goal. Development approval is a result of bargaining between local officials (incorporating citizen concerns) and property developers. In order to obtain approval, developers must substantially satisfy citizen concerns and conditions required by staff and the local planning board. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation ]. ]. A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership The approval process creates a bargaining environment in which developers and property owners must meet all concerns, regardless of their actual impacts. Often, for example, proposed developments are scaled down to inefficient levels or are forced to adopL less-beneficial designs because developers must allay citizen opposition based on vaguely defined and unsubstantiated concerns over property values or "community impact." Thus, while the Santa Barbara coastal commission approved 95 percent of zoning requests, they only allowed 60 percent of the proposed housing units (Seigan 1990). In another case in the Midwest, vocal opposition from a grass roots slow-growth group led the local planning board to require that a 'new housing development hook up to a nearby city's sewer system even though using a proposed septic system was both environmentally safe and less expensive (Staley, 1997, 119). The requirement was made because of unsubstantiated fears that the development would lower water pressure for nearby residents. MOP adopts a market-impact standard for addressing concerns over property development, moving toward the common law principle of nuisance as a standard for government regulation of voluntary, private activity. Many of these principles are already applied in the U.S. tort system. This focus differs from traditional zoning practice, which confers development rights on property owners regardless of the impact on adjacent property owners (Fischel 1985). It also differs from modern practice in which, through political pressures, the "use as of right" notions of traditional zoning have become subject to manipulation, reducing development certainty and requiring project modifications even where impacts are trivial or represent purely subjective perspectives of planners. For example. if someone wanted to add another floor to his house in a residential district, blocking the sun for adjacent property owners that reduced their quality of life, the would-be builder currently has a legal right to redevelop the property under the zoning law regardless of the impact on his neighbors. By contrast, a common law-type nuisance standard would give the neighbor standing to have clearly demonstrable damages resulting from the redevelopment compensated or mitigated. At the same time, this approach requires demonstration of actual "harm" or impact in order to require compensation of "nuisance" mitigation. This approach enhances the role of planners as mediators within the community, while still preserving "spheres of autonomy" for property owners. Principle #.4: Local planning should move toward a common law, nuisance-based standard for regulating land development. Observation #5: Local Politics Tends to Give Narrow Special Interests Too Much Weight and Influence The political decision-making process is poorly suited to the task of making decisions about resource-allocation activity, including property development. Property development, first and foremost, is about transforming an economic resource (land) from a less-productive use to a more-productive use. Planning policy should reflect and encourage this transformation of uses to maximize community welfare. Current planning procedures place developers and public officials in a bargaining relationship that unnecessarily drives up costs. The process is based on a fundamentally static conception of community. The land-use plan sets out in detail the planned development of the community. Any deviation is contrary to the plan. Since the plan, in theory, lays out the community's "values," the presumption is always in favor of the plan, irrespective of its applicability and relevance over time. As a result, all development applications are presumed rejected and the burden is on property owners and developers to prove the benefit of their proposal to a government agency. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership This inevitably hinders change and innovation and protects the status quo. In addition, by giving all members of a community standing in a public hearing, special-interest groups that represent a minority in a community (for example, a no-growth coalition), can raise objections during the public- hearing process. Bargaining drives toward compromise where developers modify their proposals to meet objections to expedite development approval. For example, a senior citizen coalition may object to the addition Of attached townhouse units, preferring single family, detached housing in its place. The developer will reduce the density of his project, perhaps eliminating the townhouses, to meet these concerns regardless of broader community sentiment on the project. By adopting administrative approval procedures that favor market trends in land development, the arbitrariness of development approval is minimized, By limiting standing in public hearings to directly affected property owners, the impact of special interests in the development control process is also minimized. Principle #5: Standing in public hearings should be limited to those directly and tangibly affected by the proposed development. These general principles provide a market- oriented framework for conceptualizing land-use planning on the local and regional level. The practical manifestations of these principles are discussed in the next section. ELEMENTS OF MARKET-ORIENTED PLANNING How can these principles be implemented in a practical way? Recognizing that Market-Oriented Planning attempts to capture the dynamic, evolutionary nature of property development, the following recommendations can be incorporated into local planning practice: Presumption in Favor of Property Owners Property development should be permitted as of right unless explicit action is taken by the planning board or local legislative body to evaluate the application. This can be coupled with maximum time limits for review by staff, planning commissions, or local legislative bodies. Since MOP also explicitly incorporates market impacts and the pursuit of non-market amenities as a justification for public intervention in land development, developers can be required to notify neighbors and others directly impacted by their proposed project. Project proposals should be subjected to public hearings only if city staff, council members, planning commission members, or parties directly affected by the project identify tangible impacts on their interests (see "Objections" below). Home Rule State and regional planning authorities are less likely to have the knowledge or forecasting ability to more accurately or reliably predict land use trends on the local level, They are also more displaced from community interests and desires. Therefore, intervention from regional or state planning agencies or authorities should occur only when a clear public interest or need is identified, or spillover effects are identified and not addressed in the proposed plan. Local planning decisions should thus be protected from regional or state planning mandates, including consistency requirements to meet state designated goals. The extent to which local development projects have negative impacts on communities and neighbors or create nuisances is best evaluated at the local level since decentralized governance allows public policies to match citizen preferences. Thus, diversity in local government accommodates diversity among and within communities (see Staley 1992, 20-3). This view is supported by studies on regional governance which show that consolidations have an unimpressive record in relieving traffic congestion, supplying affordable housing, and so on (Fischel 1989; Husock 1998). Moreover, other research demonstrates that presumed economies of scale in provision of most urban services do not exist (Staley 1992, 16-7; Husock 1998). Indeed, regional governance appears to result in some efficiency losses in service delivery. Moreover, lower levels of government are more likely to restrain spending than are consolidated governments (Boyne 1992). Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation ], 3 A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership Objections Limited to Tangible Impacts Developers should be expected to modify projects to minimize the negative impacts of their proposed development, but these impacts should be tangible and measurable. Groundwater run-off or traffic congestion, for example, are identifiable and measurable impacts that can be assessed objectively. Developers should be expected to consider the external costs imposed by their development on neighbors and the community. In general, planning and zoning approval should not control development for aesthetic reasons, or concerns over layout and density unless the project is located in a district with a clear purpose, intent, and identity (e.g., histodc districts or other special districts). Specialized districts, however, should be restricted to geographically targeted areas with clear, identifiable characteristics that warrant exception. Empirically, the impacts of negative externalities tend to be very localized, affecting close neighbors rather than entire neighborhoods or communities (Pogodzinski and Sass 1991). Thus broad, citywide applications of site-specific development controls should be avoided. Adopt Broadly Defined and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Planning boards should minimize the likelihood that projects will be delayed through a legislative approval process. This can be achieved by eliminating zoning districts (with a nuisance based system in place), or if that option is not feasible, adopting broadly defined zoning districts that accommodate a large number of uses. Rezonings are often prompted by poor forecasting by local planners and/or out-of-date master plans. A parcel of property, for example, may be zoned for strip retail even though market signals indicate a better use is professional office or multifamily housing. In many communities, a development plan incorporating professional office or multifamily housing would constitute a change in use and be subjected to a two-stage approval process. The first stage would consider rezoning the property to a land-use designation consistent with the proposed use (for example, retail to professional office or multifamily residential). The second stage would consider the proposed development plan for the site. (In most cases, the rezoning approval would also include evaluation of a preliminary site plan.) More broadly defined and mixed-used zoning districts could accommodate a variety of different uses and densities, depending on market conditions. Moreover, reducing the number of districts while broadening the number of uses permissible would reduce processing and approval time, consolidating two steps into one. A current urban planning trend that would benefit from this approach to land-use regulation would be neotraditional planning, Neotraditional urban architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk found that local planning and zoning codes were impediments to innovative urban design. "Regulatory codes lies at the heart of Duany and Plater-Zyberk's work," observes William Lennertz. "Early in their work they realized that existing zoning ordinances -- more than economics or planning and design philosophies - were impediments to achieving more urbane communities," (Lennertz 1991, 96)'q'he traditional pattern of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods has been inadvertently proscribed by these ordinances." (102) MOP would facilitate land-use changes that meet changing and evolving community needs by allowing diverse types of development as of right. Mixed-use districts are an excellent mechanism for promoting diversity within communities. An alternative would be broadly defined land-use districts that allow a variety of uses. For example, commercial districts could allow a wide range of commercial uses, from retail to professional office to hospitals to universities. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership Administrative Site Plan Review Once land is rezoned, site plans should be reviewed as quickly and efficiently as possible. This goal, in most cases, means adopting an administrative review process with clearly defined criteria for what is acceptable by local planning standards. Administrative site plan approval can also be coupled with performance bonuses to encourage the inclusion of certain characteristics. For example, under its flexible-zoning system (no longer used), Fort Collins, Colorado allowed higher densities if developers incorporated certain features (for example, landscaped buffers between roads and buildings) into their development plan (Eggers 1990). The critical element of the Fort Collins model Was flexibility, so that developers could make trade-offs about their site based on market conditions and trends. Developer Payment For Infrastructure Needs Property owners and developers should bear the full costs of property development. Local communities should not be expected to subsidize property development by extending sewers, roads, and other infrastructure to the site. Impact fees are one way to accomplish this goal. Delaney (1993), for example, found that development agreements that used impact fees and exactions tended to reduce uncertainties in the development approval process while ensuring revenues exist to provide infrastructure when it is needed (Nelson, Frank and Nicholas 1992). Impact fees, however, also have a political dimension. Ross and Thorpe (1992) identified more then 22 categories of facilities and activities that can legally be financed through impact fees. Most reflect political goals - public art, low income housing, mass transit, historical preservation, day- care facilities - rather than facilities and traditional public goods such as roads, sewers, public schools (see also Dresch and Sheffrin 1997, 10- 13). In addition, impact fees and exactions tend to pose significant equity questions. "Exactions tend to redistribute wealth from younger to older and from poorer to more affluent households," note AItshuler and Gomez-lbanez in their review of their equity impacts on housing prices and public services (1993, 110). A more appropriate mechanism would simply require pdvate developers to pay the full financial burden of extending these features to their property using materials and technology consistent with the existing infrastructure and with their own development needs. A developer-pay approach needs to be accompanied by flexible design criteria, so that individual developers can determine what level of infrastructure and what construction standards make sense for the intended users of that infrastructure. VVhile many communities increasingly require developers to pay for infrastructure, they give developers little latitude in determining what kind of infrastructure is appropriate. The result is often high-cost infrastructure that exceeds the development-site needs. For example: · Local governments sometimes specify roads with lane-widths (12-feet) appropriate for interstate highways-such lane-widths impose higher costs but are unnecessary for safety or smooth traffic flow on residential streets. · Storm drainage piping is sometimes required to accommodate flows that are many times greater than any calculated necessary capacity. · Many communities also require site landscaping according to prescriptive rules rather than allowing site developers to landscape according to what is prudent and aesthetically attractive to potential buyers and tenants. · Subdivision regulations in many regions of the country require that roads have concave crowns (roads bow upward) to force stormwater to drain to pipes on both sides of the road even though new technology and materials permit lower-cost convex crowns toward the center line where one pipe drains stormwater. A complete "developer-pay" approach runs the risk of underbuilding. Some property developers and builders might under-invest in roads, sewers, water systems etc., eventually shifting infrastructure up-grades to the public sector. This problem could emerge from attempts to minimize infrastructure costs or miscalculations about the willingness of new residents to pay for new infrastructure. Future subsidization can be mitigated by ensuring that the cost of future upgrades is borne by the residents most effected by the upgrades. This process is greatly facilitated in the residential market through homeowner associations. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership Developers, for example, sometimes receive waivers from local zoning codes (usually under Planned Unit Development provisions) to build private roads. Private roads are often narrower or built to different specifications than provided in subdivision regulations_and maintained by the local homeowner's association. Homeowner associations sometimes approach the local municipality to convert the private road to public streets (often because the association wants to avoid the transaction costs associated with maintaining a limited number of roads). If the local government agrees, the pdvate road is converted to a public street and the costs of the upgrade are assessed against the homeowners' association or residents on the affected street. Standing in Public Hearings Limited to Parties Clearly and Directly Affected by Proposed Development An important feature of MOP is correcting for "third-party" impacts of property development. Intensive development of a property may tangibly impact neighbors who might now be subjected to more traffic congestion, noise pollution, or other tangible impacts. Public hearings should be used primarily as a mechanism to disclose these tangible, measurable impacts so they can be addressed in the project proposal. Developers should address these concerns by modifying their projects. Alternatively, if agreement between developers and property owners cannot be reached, third parties such as conflict- management teams or local courts can mediate and adjudicate disputes. Process-driven Planning Development approval should be based on a process--a set of clearly defined rules--rather than an end-state vision of what the community should look like 10 or 20 years down the road. This recommendation accepts recent empirical evidence that, in practice, zoning decisions tend to follow market trends rather than vice versa (McMillen and McDonald 1991; Pogodzinski and Sass 1994). This is in contrast to top-down approaches, such as the Portland model, where cities are designated as growth poles by regional planners and new development is guided or steered to those areas. Process driven planning allows real estate markets to determine land-use patterns. Certain thresholds of development or performance criteria (e.g., traffic counts or density requirements) might trigger certain types of public investment (e.g., road expansion or modifications), but the object of planning would not be to direct or manipulate private investment to achieve a pre-defined architectural vision for the city. Streamlining the local planning system Several changes could also be made to existing local planning systems to streamline the approval process. Supermajority requirement to modify planning board decisions Planning board decisions and deliberations are important mechanisms for refining development plans. They also serve a mediating function between developers and neighboring property owners. VVhile local communities should provide an appeal process, local planning systems should presume that recommendations of planning boards are fair and accurate. A supermajority requirement would build certainty into the planning process, strengthen the ability of planning boards to mediate between affected parties, and provide a local appeal process. Mandatory pre-application meetings with planning staff, consultants, and planning boards Pre-application meetings with staff and planning boards can be effective ways to identify externalities and market impacts before significant resources have been invested in a project. Modifications to development proposals and site plans are more efficiently incorporated at the early stages of the design process. Modifications at advanced stages of site development, however, can significantly increase costs. Mandatory pre- application meetings can minimize some of these costs and lay the groundwork for a working relationship between developers, planners, and other public officials. These types of meetings are preliminary to formal commitments to move forward on development projects. One-stop permit processing One-stop permit processing streamlines the permit application and approval process, particularly for small and less-experienced developers. This approach could significantly reduce the transaction costs associated with development permission and approval once projects have been committed to. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership Mandatory public-sector planning Ironically, current planning practice regulates private property development without imposing the same restrictions on the public sector. This is particularly troublesome given the wide range and variety of long-term investments in infrastructure made by state and local governments. State, local, and regional governments should be required to plan the location of infrastructure and secure the necessary rights of way and easements before development takes place. This does not imply that the public agencies begin constructing infrastructure immediately. On the contrary, public agencies might lay out clearly where they expect to place key infrastructure such as roads, bridges, interchanges, sewers, and water lines. Actual construction, however, would be triggered by actual development patterns and can be tied to certain performance measures. This provides certainty for private developers but does not obligate the public sector to infrastructure development until land-use patterns are well established through market processes. This also New Urbanism What is New Urbanism? New Urbanism is a movement in city planning that puts people and the environment back in to city designs. New Urbanism is based on a return to the traditional town designs of before World War II. It recognizes the problem of suburban sprawl and the breakdown of the community while incorporating convenience, walkability, ascetics, livability, and ecological integrity into a city plan. Basically, it takes the automobile out of its place of prominence in most city plans and replaces it with people. Neotraditionalism replaces the suburban sprawl common to most cities with walkability and convenience. Cities designed through new urbanism are set up in a modified grid pattern of streets, thereby avoiding the cul-du-sac phenomenon and the congested traffic and decreases walkability it brings with it. Most cities also employ urban growth boundaries that set a limit on the growth of a city in order to avoid the problems of suburban sprawl down gives public (or private) infrastructure agencies flexibility: they could construct a two-lane road at early stages of development, expand to a center- lane road later in the development phase, and eventually develop the roadway into a four-lane highway. If public agencies were subject to mandatory planning requirements, and were required to buy rights of way early in the process, many of the objections to traffic congestion and other nuisance effects of development might disappear, reducing the politicized nature of the zoning and planning process. Note that this recommendation is not the same as end state planning as it is currently practiced. Concurrency, for example, requires infrastructure to be in place in anticipation of future development. In Portland, an end-state vision of what Portland should look like is used to guide public investment in rail transit, and private investment is directed by the regional plan to fit the plan's vision, not consumer markets. E the road. This grid like pattern encourages systematic growth that does not quickly max out as in many suburbs. (Post, 1994) A new urbanism city also employs a mixed use of space by juxtaposing business and residential together. This increases con as well as creates a more efficient use of the space. For example, one might find fiats located on top of store fronts with row and/or detached houses next door. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation ] '7 A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership The new urbanist city usually includes a town square as well. This is the center of activity and may include cultural, social, or religious places to gather as well as shops, public transportation hubs, schools and city offices. The town center, or town square, is usually at the most a quarter mile, five minute walk from the outskirts of the city. This distance is set to encourage walking and discourage unneeded automobile use (Post, 1994). By encouraging pedestrians and discouraging automobile use, new urbanism decreases thecities automobile air pollution. In larger cities, these smaller units can reflect neighborhoods each connected within themselves and between neighborhoods by walkways, bicycle paths and streets. The streets inside each neighborhood or smaller city are modified themselves. They are narrower and encourage on street parking or the use of alleys to discourage heavy or fast moving traffic. In addition, the side walks, in a neotraditional city, are on average one foot wider and their curb radii are decreased to promote as well as facilitate their use by pedestrians. Finally, speed limits in neotraditional cities are reduced, on average, to around 15-20 miles per hour to again dissuade car usage as well as make streets more safe for the pedestrian. (Post, 1994) New Urbanism also embraces ascetics and livability in its cities. Communities built under new urbanism are marked by neighborhood distinction and character while avoiding a faked "old" Iook.(Post, 1994) A city is built with ascetic gathering places and recreational facilities along with special attention paid to neighborhood beauti~cation. Therefore, the streets are tree lined, common areas planted, and parking lots are kept to a minimum. These communities are also marked with many restrictions to preserve this ascetic charm, for instance it is often prohibited to have garages facing the street. (Newsweek '1995, 15 Ways...) New urbanism does not just reflect a neotraditional town in appearance but in atmosphere as well. One of the purposes of new urbanism is to create a return to the strong community ties enjoyed by most small towns before World War II. Therefore, the city is designed with community interaction in mind. Designers attempt to generate a "sense of place" within the community by strategically placing gazebos, religious buildings, commons areas, restaurants etc .... This, increased interaction among its citizens, is meant to create a more dynamic community with high levels of community commitment resulting in a safer and friendlier place to live. (Langdon, 1988) (Patton, 1991 ) This atmosphere is a result of the community's walkability and its high density mixed use design. By creating a walkable community with accessible resources the chance for interaction is increased. In order to achieve the goals of walkability and increased social interaction a new urbanist community is designed as a high density community. Neotraditional communities are on average, six residential units per acre where as most suburban communities have one unit per acre. To achieve this high density, lawns are reduced, there is no minimum a building must be set back, and housing is mixed with other nonresidential buildings.(Langdon, 1988) This reduces the environmental impact by decreasing the amount of land used by development. Most new urbanist cities are designed from scratch but ~'_"¢~ ~::~'~' ~ ~':;"':::'g:"~<:~"~'~;' :":" ..' .., ·., ;.: .. some degree of retrofit is possible. Retmfitting is especially successful in dealing with conventional shopping malls. Their huge surface parking lots can easily be replaced by ramps and the left over land can be converted into a series of quaint streets with shops. Cities themselves, however, are less successful because streets are already in place and there are usually regulations concerning lot size and land usage (i.e. no mixed development) (Post, 1994). Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership The Major Principles Of New Urbanism Are: (D All development should be in the form of compact, walkable neighborhoods and/or districts. Such places should have clearly defined centers and edges. The center should include a public space - such as a square, green or an important street intersection - and public buildings - such a library, church or community center, a transit stop and retail businesses. (]:) Neighborhoods and districts should be compact (typically no more than one quarter mile from center to edge) and detailed to encourage pedestrian activity without excluding automobiles altogether. Streets should be laid out as an interconnected network (usually in a grid or modified grid pattern), forming coherent blocks where building entrances front the street rather than parking lots. Public transit should connect neighborhoods to each other, and the surrounding region. (:D A diverse mix of activities (residences, shops, schools, workplaces and parks, etc.) should occur in proximity. Also, a wide spectrum of housing options should enable people of a broad range of incomes, ages, and family types to live within .a single neighborhood/district. Large developments featuring a single use or serving a single market segment should be avoided. (D Civic buildings, such as government offices, churches and libradesi should be sited in prominent locations. Open spaces, such as parks, playgrounds, squares, and greenbelts should be provided in convenient locations throughout a neighborhood. (]:) Developers, planners, local government officials and citizens have all shown great interest in New Urbanist design approaches, particularly in regions that are experiencing conflicts related to growth. Many see the New Urbanism as a win-win approach that enables a community's growth to be channeled into a physical form that is more compatible with the scale of existing neighborhoods, that discourages auto use, that is less costly to service and that is less consumptive of land and natural resources. ~ Despite such benefits, the New Urbanism has yet to be broadly embraced as a development model. One reason for this is that its physical design standards and implementation practices are not fully compatible with the regulatory framework in most regions of the U.S. and Canada. For example, many fire departments require streets that are wider than those proposed by New Urbanists. Zoning laws often discourage secondary living units within established residential areas or require large setbacks for homes and businesses. (~ Another reason for the slow adoption of New Urbanism is that the real estate industry is highly segmented by land use category (such as single-family housing, multi-family housing, retail, office and warehouse). Each category has its own practices, markets, trade associations, and financing sources. The highly integrated development strategy advocated by the New Urbanists requires a more holistic approach to community-building than the real-estate industry is currently structured to deliver. However, in the face of these challenges, New Urbanist communities are consistently achieving much higher prices than those in more conventional adjacent developments. e Despite such barriers, public opposition to conventional suburban development is creating greater demand for alternative forms of growth, such as New Urbanism. To address this need, a coalition of architects, urban designers, developers, government officials and others formed the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) in 1993 to advance the principles of New Urbanism and promote their broad application. Since then the organization has hosted a series of annual meetings and drafted a Charter of the New Urbanism (ratified in May, 1996). Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership BACKGROUND ON THE CLINTON-GORE DEVELOPMENT AG ENDA (From the White House Press Office) COMMUNITY Since 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been committed to tapping the potential of America's urban and rural communities. They have a demonstrated record of creating new initiatives and expanding existing initiatives to promote community and economic development. The Clinton-Gore Administration has worked with the private sector, states, and localities to help revitalize America's communities by bringing capital, jobs, and opportunity to distressed areas and cleaning up the urban environment. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have created or expanded the following initiatives over the last six years: Helping to Bring Private Enterprise and Capital to Distressed Areas, The Clinton°Gore Administration has renewed the commitment of the Federal government to help bring private enterprise into underserved communities and improve access to capital for low-income households, minorities, and traditionally underserved borrowers. · 125 Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. The Clinton Administration has announced 105 EZs and ECs across the country. This effort was proposed by President Clinton and passed by Congress in 1993. The EZ/EC effort has generated more than $2 billion of new private sector investment in community development activities. The President also has signed into law a second round of EZs - 15 new urban and 5 new rural zones - which will qualify for tax incentives, small business expensing, and private activity bonds. In FY 1999, President Clinton and Congress provided first-year funding of $55 million for the new EZs, and $5 million in first-year funding for 20 new rural Enterprise Communities announced in January. · Strengthened and Simplified the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In April 1995, the Clinton Administration reformed the CRA regulations to emphasize performance. According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), the private sector has pledged more than $1 trillion going forward in loans to distressed communities - and more than 95 percent of these financial commitments have been made since 1992. Banks made $18.6 billion in community development loans in 1997 alone. Lending to minority and low-income borrowers is also on the rise. · Created the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI). Proposed and signed into law by the President in 1994, the CDFI fund, through grants, loans, and equity investments, is helping to create a network of community development financial institutions in distressed areas across the United States. The CDFI fund was established in 1994. In FY99, funding was increased 19 percent to $95 million from $80 million. · The Economic Development Initiative (EDI) and Section 108 Loan Guarantee. EDI grants are used to infuse capital into community development projects, enhancing the debt financing provided by the Section 108 loan guarantee program. Together, the programs support critical economic development in distressed communities. Estimated jobs supported by EDI and the Section 108 loan guarantee have grown by 300,000 from 1994 to 1998. During this time period EDI and the Section 108 loan guarantee program have funded $3.5 billion for more than 650 separate project commitments. Helping to Bring Jobs and Opportunity to Distressed Areas. A cornerstone of the Administration's community empowerment agenda is helping to bring jobs and opportunity back to distressed areas: · $3 Billion Welfare-to-Work Jobs Initiative. The Clinton Administration fought for a $3 billion welfare-to- work jobs initiative as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. The Administration is implementing these welfare-to-work grants directly to both cities and states for allocating additional resources to help long-term, hard-to-serve welfare recipients find and keep jobs. · Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit and Work Opportunity Tax Credit. The Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit, enacted in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, provides a credit equal to 35 percent of the first $10,000 in wages in the first year of employment, and 50 percent of the first $10,000 in wages in the second year, to encourage the hiring and retention of long-term welfare recipients. This credit complements the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which expands eligible businesses to include those who hire young adults living in Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. In FY 1999, the President requested and Congress accepted extending the credit through June 30, 1999. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership · Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Expansion. President Clinton's FY 2000 budget included an expansion of CDBG. The final budget increases funding for CDBG from $4.750 billion in FY 1999 to $4.775 billion in FY 2000, a $25 million expansion this year. Cleaning Up the Urban Environment. The Clinton Administration has launched a landmark effort, including the Brownfields Tax Incentive, to clean up and redevelop Brownfields sites, In total, the Brownfields action agenda has marshaled funds to clean up and redevelop up to 5,000 properties, leveraging between $5 billion and $28 billion in private investment and creating and supporting 196,000 jobs. PRESIDENT CLINTON AND VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCE A NUMBER OF NEW INITIATIVES THIS YEAR. While Americans are enjoying the fruits of our strong economy, we still need to do more to improve conditions in underserved urban and rural communities. To address this need, President Clinton and Vice President Gore are working on several fronts. The New Markets Initiative. President Clinton's FY 2000 balanced budget provides a new initiative designed to create the conditions for economic success by prompting approximately $15 billion in new investment in urban and rural areas through: · The New Markets Tax Credit. To help spur $6 billion in new equity capital, this tax credit is worth up to 25 percent for investments in a wide range of vehicles serving these communities, including community development banks, venture funds, and the new investment company programs created by this initiative (see below). A wide-range of businesses could be financed by these investment funds, including small technology firms, inner-city shopping centers, manufacturers with hundreds of employees, and retail stores. · America's Private Investment Companies (APICs). Just as America's support for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation helps promote growth in emerging markets abroad, APICs will encourage private investment in this country's untapped markets, by leveraging up to $1.5 bilion in investment in new development projects and larger businesses that are expanding or relocating 'in inner city and rural areas. · SBIC's Targeted to New Markets. For over 40 years, SBA's Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program has provided roughly $20 billion in equity and debt financing to more than 85,000 different companies, helping them to grow from small businesses to household names, like AOL and Staples. However, too little of the capital invested has benefited our cities and rural distressed communities. SBA now will offer more flexibility and new financing terms for SBICs that invest in underserved areas. · New Markets Venture Capital (NMVC) Firms. NMVC firms will make both capital and expert guidance available to small business entrepreneurs in inner-city and rural areas. Ten to twenty NMVC firms are planned. SBA will match the equity and technical assistance of private investors. · New Markets Lending Companies (NMLC). For the first time in many years, SBA will approve approximately 10 new non-bank lenders -- firms authorized to originate loans under SBA's largest loan program - the 7(a) General Business Loan Guaranty program. Under the 7(a) program, SBA guarantees up to 80 percent of a loan made by a lender to a creditworthy small businesses that cannot otherwise secure financing on reasonable terms. Firms must have a strategy to target lending to underserved areas. · Microenterprise Lending and Technical Assistance. Microenterprise initiatives in the FY 2000 budget include the proposed PRIME Act, under which the CDFI Fund will provide microenterprise technical assistance through competitive grants to microenterprise development organizations that focus on low- income entrepreneurs. President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's proposal also includes a doubling of support for technical assistance in SBA's Microloan Program and a doubling of support for SBA lending to leverage over $75 million in new microlending. The microenterprise strategy will also involve new funding for Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) and for SBA's One-Stop Capital Shops. · Regional Connections. Regional Connections will provide competitive funding to States and partnerships of local governments to develop and implement new, locally driven "smarter growth" strategies that create more livable communities by addressing economic and community development needs across jurisdictional lines. Regional Connections, as part of the Administrations' Livability Agenda, will complement existing federal programs that respond to growth and investment patterns. The budget proposes funding at $50 million in FY 2000. Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership · The Economic Development Initiative and Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. This program supports critical economic development in distressed communities in conjunction with the Section 108 loan guarantee program to help bring economic development to residents. In FY 2000 many projects will be eligible to participate in the Community Empowerment Fund Trust, a pilot program, which will enable the pooling of loans and the creation of a private sector secondary market for economic development loans. The CEF specifically targets Welfare-to-Work and City-Suburb Business Connections, building upon the success of HUD's EDI and Section 108 loan guarantee program, · Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. The 2000 Budget proposes mandatory funding for ten years: $150 million a year for urban EZs and Strategic Planning Communities; $10 million a year for rural EZs; and $5 million a year for rural ECs. · Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund. The budget proposes to expand funding for the CDFI Fund to $125 million--a $30 million increase from 1999. The Fund increases the availability of credit, investment capital, financial services, and other development services in distressed communities. · BusinessLINC. The President's . FY 2000 budget includes seed money to expand Business LINC -- an innovative public-private partnership launched by Vice President Gore -- for new markets in economically distressed communities. BusinessLINC (Learning, Information, Networking and Collaboration) is designed to encourage large businesses to work with small business owners and entrepreneurs. · Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Since its creation in 1986, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has given states tax credits of $1.25 per capita to allocate to developers of affordable housing. While building costs have increased 40 percent in the last decade, the amount of the credit has not been adjusted for inflation. Therefore, President Clinton and Vice President Gore propose to increase the cap on the LIHTC from $1.25 per capita to $1.75 per capita - restoring the value of the credit to its 1986 level and helping to an create additional 150.000-180,000 new low-income rental housing units over the next five years. · Play-by-the-Rules. This program will arlow renters with solid payment track records to own a home. The 2000 Budget proposes a second round of $15 million for this initiative. · Helping America's Communities Redevelop Abandoned Buildings. Redevelopment of Abandoned Buildings, as part of the Administrations' "Livability Agenda," would attack one of the primary causes of blight in urban neighborhoods: abandoned apartment buildings, single-family homes, warehouses, office buildings, and commercial centers. Under the proposal, HUD will provide $50 million in competitive grant funds in FY2000 to local governments to support the demolition or deconstruction of blighted, abandoned buildings. 22 Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce Federation A Division of Greater Des Moines Partnership Land Management/Condemnation: How Rural Subdivisions Impact Cities Urban Mayors/Chamber of Commerce Forum June 29, 1999 Summary of Comments · Sprawl is not a city phenomena. In Linn County, the majority of sprawl development is occurring outside of corporate limits in large-lot rural subdivisions. ° Rural subdivisions always consume more land than urban subdivisions because requirements for septic fields dictate large lots. · The market will drive demand for new development. If new development is restricted within cities, it will simply occur outside of cities. · New development must be encouraged to occur within cities to - Reduce the chances of environmental damage from wells and septic systems. - Reduce sprawl, minimizing conversion of farm land for nonfarm uses. · Infill development is already occurring, and can not account for substantial additional growth, especially residential. Sprawl Deftnee Sprawl is usually defined as fragmented large-lot development located at the fringe areas of cities. Sprawl development is considered undesirable because - It consumes more farmland than more compact, urban-scale development, - It is substantially more expensive for the govemmental agency to provide services than more compact urban-scale development, - It frequently is developed with septic fields and wells, which in some cases create problems for the homeowner or for the environment, and - It frequently is developed without a sense of place, just seemingly endless miles of cul-de-sacs and anonymous neighborhoods. Cedar RapiCs Metro Area Sprawl General Characteristics Sprawl-type development on large lots is not occurring within the corporate limits; it/s occurring in the unincorporated areas from just beyond the corporate limits to several miles away. Nearly 1 O0 percent of the development is not served by public sanitary sewer or water systems. Nearly 1 O0 percent of the development is single family development with lot sizes of one acre, more or less, featuring long cul-de-sac or dead-end street systems. Generally, sprawl-type developments tend to be just far enough away from current "hot" urban development areas that raw land prices are lower, and tend to be located in wooded areas or agricultural areas as close as possible to the city. Nearly 1 O0 percent of the development does not meet city standards for public improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and storm sewer. Ce&ar Rapi&s Metro Area Sprawl Example - Twin Knolls Area Aerial Photo The Twin Knolls unincorporated area, in the northeast quadrant of the metro area, includes over 225 lots on approximately 358 acres, and is growing every day. CeCar RapiCs Metro Area Sprawl Example - Twin Knolls Area Map This development area stretches for over one mile east-west and one mile north-south. It provides an effective blockage to the city' s growth in this vicinity, and may compromise the city's water supply from wells in the nearby Cedar River. This area, along with many others in the vicinity(all shown in yellow), is a prime example of sprawl in the Cedar Rapids metro area. Ce&ar RapiCs Metro Area Sprawl Example - Twin Knolls Area Lots The typical lot size in the Twin Knolls area is one acre or more. Shown at right is the 5th Addition Subdivision, with example lot sizes highlighted. Ce&ar RapiCs Metro Area Sprawl Rural Subdivision Statistics mile circle because jurisdictions). Those 61 lots covered In the past calendar year alone, Linn County has approved final plats for 61 residential lots within the Cedar Rapids 2-mile subdivision extraterritorial review area alone (which is not a true 2- it is cut off by other urban area cities' own 169 acres, which yields: - .36 lots per acre including street rights-of-way, or - 2.77 acres per lot including street rights-of-way. Cedar Rapids Metro Area Sprawl Large-lot county- approved subdivisions ring the metro area and in some cases (Indian Hill Road area, Twin Knolls area) completely cut off further city growth. On the map at right, red areas represent large-lot rural subdivisions. CeCar RapiCs City Development Example - Bowman Woods North Aerial Photo The Bowman Woods North neighborhood, in the northeast quadrant of the metro area, includes over 680 lots, and is growing every day. It features some of the largest residential lots in the city. CeCar RapiCs City Developmere Example - Bowman Woods North Area Map This developmere area stretches for about one half mile east-west and one mile north-south. It has grown out from existing development,, contiguous with the city. Typical of many Cedar Rapids developments, annexation of the land for this subdivision occurs as the developer prepares final plats. Large land areas are not annexed at the project's inception. 'i "' ......I I i : ! 'i ::i!i!i!ii: -... i -~. 1 t CeCar Rapids City Development Example - Bowman Woods North Area Lots The typical lot size in this area is .3 acre. Shown at right is the Bowman Woods Unit 22 Addition Subdivision, with example lot sizes highlighted. This particular addition is typical of the most lots in the neighborhood. BOWMAN WOODS UNIT TWENTY-'I'WO t"'q{;~~'t''H I r--I I I This developer, like others in the metro area, has increased lot sizes somewhat in recent years in response to buyer demand. CeCar RapiCs City Development Example - Noahbrook II Area Aerial Photo The Noahbrook II neighborhood, in the northeast quadrant of the metro area, includes over 160 lots, and is fully built out. It features lots that are typical of the city's smallest single family zoning district. CeCar RapiCs City Development Example - Noahbrook II Area Map This developmere area stretches for about 1/3 mile east-west and 1/2 mile noah-south. \ i ~ i I iwatha Cedar RapiCs City Deve2opment Example - Noahbrook II Area Lots The typical lot size in this area is. 19 acre. Shown at right is the Northbrook 9th Addition Subdivision, with example lot sizes highlighted. CeCar Rapids City Development Urban Subdivision Statistics In the past fiscal year, the city approved 390 single-family residential lots on 225 acres, which yields - 1.73 lots per acre including street rights-of-way, or - .58 acres per lot including street rights-of-way. This figure does not include multiple-family developments which are of course at a much higher density. Most subdivisions and developments are occurring at the fringe areas of the city due to lack of infill land. CeCar Rapids Metro Area Summary: Rural vs Urban Development SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONLY NUMBER OF LOTS CEDAR RAPIDS RURAL DEVELOPMENT 390 61 TOTAl, ACRES 169 226 AVERAGE LOT SIZE 18,875 Square feet, including rights-of-way 161,386 Square feet, including rights-of-way 8.55 average city lots were platted in the same area required for every rural county lot platted. If the demand for new metro area lots was shifted to rural subdivisions, 1,445 acres would have been consumed rather than the 169 acres that were actually platted. How Sprawl Hurts Cities Sprawl is extremely harmful to cities. It results in the following problems: · Large lot, rural developments have the effect of blocking city growth. Current owners are not likely to voluntarily annex to the city if they have operating wells and septic fields, and cities are reluctant to use involuntary annexation because of the cost and political perceptions generated. · Expansion of residences dependant on septic fields presents a potential environmental safety concem, not only for private wells, but also for the city' s municipal water supply. · The developments are often built to substandard rural specifications. Design and improvement specifications are generally lower, and include inferior street layout and surfacing; lack of sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewer systems; drainage inadequacies; and other improvement issues that cause near-term problems and long-term expenses for cities when the county cannot deal with aging and substandard development and annexation eventually occurs. In~ll Deve2opment Infill development is promoted by some as the salvation for sprawl problems; however, the following are true for Cedar Rapids: · The city has been aggressively and continuously promoting infill and upgrading its older neighborhoods since the 1960' s. Examples: - Federal programs such as the Community Development Block Grant Program, Flood Relief Program, and more recently brownfield redevelopment grants, - State-administered programs such as primary roads projects, and - General-fund parks and infrastructure projects. · One reason that outlying development is so attractive in the metro area is the scarcity (and in the case of nonresidential development, the cost) of infill sites. · The city has not annexed vast expanses of area for future development. The exception may be a large annexation that occurred in 1997 to bring the outlying airport into the city. Related Complications Cities face other related pressures that make sustainable growth increasingly difficult: The rapid expansion of rural water suppliers who compete with city water service and encourage rural growth, while taking advantage of favorable federal financing. Rural water suppliers are naturally much more interested in serving rural subdivisions than truly rural areas, and laws provide substantial monetary disadvantages for municipal providers to eventually take over the rural systems. In addition, rural water systems do not provide adequate capacity for fire protection services. New laws intended to limit the annexation authority of cities. Recent bills are aimed not only at involuntary annexations, but also at other portions of annexation law needed by cities to encourage and facilitate sustainable and efficient urban development and urban growth. Conclusions Most development should occur within corporate limits, where it will be more dense (smaller lots) and served with reliable utilities. Limiting cities' authority to grow will actually encourage sprawl by driving more growth to rural areas at lower densities. The Legislature must acknowledge the major contributions to sprawl made by county approved unincorporated rural subdivisions, and must make recommendations to limit further approval of those subdivisions. New laws need to be enacted that give cities the authority to control sprawl at their fringe areas. Examples: - Increasing city authority within extraterritorial review area to include land use planning, zoning review, and some limited inspection services. - Expansion of the extraterritorial review area from 2 miles to 5 miles. - Limitations to the ability of rural water providers to compete with municipal systems within the extraterritorial review area. General Recommen6ations Metropolitan area cities need to be an integral part of any growth management planning. Issues identified need to be empirically documented if they are to be the basis for legislation hostile to any government. Anecdotal accounts must not be assumed to be true and typical. Material reviewed and considered by the Legislature must be evenhanded and present both sides of issues. Land Managemere/Condemnation: How Rural Subdivisions Impact Cities Urban Mayors/Chamber of Commerce Forum June 29, 1999 JOHNSON COUNTY JAIL BUILDING JOHNSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT i ~ ~/, James L. McGinley Director/Coordinator dune 98, 19gg TO: Elected Officials & Emergency Management Commission Members Each year the Johnson County Emergency Management Agency and various county-wide Emergency Response Organizations must train and prepare for evacuation situations, should a major disaster OOOLlr. We have found that annual training and exercises are the best way to keep our emergency response ability at a peek level. Well, it's that time of year when plans are coming together for the annual Evacuation Walk-Through Training for our Host County support of the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC). This valuable assistance by Alliant Energy, in this training, is offered to comply with both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements and to keep our County-Wide Respondere trained to cope with any Evacuation Disaster. The Iowa City Community School District has confirmed that our training will take place as follows: WEST HIGH - July 22, 1999 from 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. and NORTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH -AUGUST 5, 1999 from 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. Dinner will precede both training sessions at 5:00 P.M. We look forward to this opportunity to refine our skills in preparation for the FEMA Evaluation of our facilities in the year 2000. Please RSVP to our office, on how many guests we can expect from your organization, so that we can adequately plan for the meal. We believe that it is very important for our Flected Officials and Commission Members to show that they support the many volunteers that will be training these nights by being in attendance. Remember that the training received is applicable to many different forms of emergencies which could affect Johnson County. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at 356-6028. Thanks for your usual good cooperation. J McGmley 511 S. CAPITOL / P.O. BOX 169 / IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 / TELEPHONE (319) 356-6028 Date: To: From: Subj: Month FY98 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total FY99 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Totals 1 -Jul-99 Treasury Division City Manager and City Council Dianna Furman ~ Utility Discount Program Statistics by Month - January, 1998 and Fiscal Year 1999 Water Sewer Refuse Total Accounts Recyling Water Sewer on Discount Water Discounts Discounts Program Discount Memorandum Sewer Tax Discount Discount 173 60 233 1,192.96 58.25 1,253.54 182 65 247 1,218.56 59.52 1,280.44 179 73 252 1,141.65 57.15 1,144.88 180 77 257 621.27 31.26 623.04 178 76 254 923.94 46,27 926.56 174 75 249 899.16 45.15 901.70 1066 426 1492 5,997.54 cc: Don Yucuis utildis.xls7/1/999:00 AM Refuse Discount Recycling Discount Total Discounts 1,134.88 363.30 4,002.93 1,161.12 371.70 4,091.34 1,659.68 531.30 4,534.66 721.60 231.00 2,228.17 1,210.33 387.45 3,494.55 1,174.24 375.90 3,396.15 297.60 6,130.16 7,061.85 109 59 168 431.88 21.61 433.10 115 59 174 612.42 30.70 614.16 120 62 182 631.89 31.67 633.68 117 57 174 654.90 32.80 656.76 119 62 181 633.66 31.72 635.45 117 65 182 649.59 32.52 651.43 124 66 190 651.36 32.74 653.20 134 67 201 700.92 35.12 702.90 138 73 211 725.70 36.44 727.75 141 73 214 762.87 38,36 765.03 144 76 220 768.18 38.60 770.35 144 76 220 796.50 39.90 798.77 2,260.65 21,747.80 478.88 153.30 1,518.77 728.16 233.10 2,218.54 780.64 249.90 2,327.78 806.88 258.30 2,409.64 780.64 249.90 2,331.37 783.93 250.95 2,368.42 780.64 249.90 2,367.84 852.80 273.00 2,564.74 879.04 281.40 2,650.33 921.69 295.05 2,783.00 938.08 300.30 2,815.51 970.90 310.80 2,916.87 1522 795 2317 8,019.87 402.18 8,042.58 9,702.28 3105.90 29,272.81 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Department of Housing and h~spection Services 410 Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 07-09-99 IP23 BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION June 1999 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS Type of Improvement: ADD Addition ALT Alteration DEM Demolition GRD Grading/excavation/filling REP Repair MOV Moving FND Foundation only OTH Other type of improvement Type of Use: NON RAC RDF RMF RSF MIX OTH Nonresidential Residential - accessory building Residential - duplex Residential - three or more family Residential - single family Commercial & Residential Other type of use Page: 1 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use BLD99-0268 PARKVIEW EVANGELICAL 15 FOSTER RD REMODEL EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW ADDITION ADD NON 1 0 $ 2936510 BLD98-0654 CITY OF IOWA CITY 111 KIRKWOOD AVE ADD NON 0 0 $ 20000 FRAMED AND CHAIN LINKED CAT RUN ADDITION ADD NON permits: 2 $ 2956510 BLD99-0462 T~OM3~S & JULIA 824 CAROLINE AVE ADD RAC 1 0 $ 2800 DOHRER SLAB FOR FUTURE GARAGE ADD RAC permits: 1 $ 2800 BLD99-0262 KATHERINE NICHOLSON 2018 PLAEN VIEW DR ADD RDF 0 0 $ 1500 DECK ADDITION TO RDF ADD RDF permits: 1 $ 1500 BLD99-0447 JEFF EDW/~RDS 1330 CMAMBERLAIN DR CONSTRUCT A THREE SEASON PORCH AND DECK ONTO EXISTING SFD. ADD RSF 1 0 $ 20000 BLD99-0410 NANCY ROMALOV 802 S 7TH AVE ADD RSF 0 0 $ SFD ADDITION BLD99-0455 YANG BAOLI 3342 LOWER WEST BRANCH RD 12' X 18' GREAT ROOM BLD99-0411 LINDA PARKER 3505 GALWAY CT SFD 3 SEASON PORCH ADDITION, DECK ADDITION BLD99-0423 TOM & KAREN ZEFd~N 1018 WYLDE GREEN RD three season porch BLD99-0426 S~RAH EBERLY 1409 RIDGE ST 2ND STORY ADDITION BLD99-0388 LIZ JENSEN 1125 PICKARD ST 8'x 14' COVERED CONC. PATIO AND 12'x 12' SCREENED PORCH. BLD99-0392 MARK VINING 763 ELLIOTT CT CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH OVER EXISTING DECK. 19500 BLD99-0467 J L MC CLURE SFD DECK ADDITION 1225 ROCHESTER AVE ADD RSF 0 0 $ 6000 ADD RSF 0 0 $ 16000 ADD RSF 1 0 $ 16000 ADD RSF 2 0 $ 12075 ADD RSF 1 0 $ 6500 ADD RSF 1 0 $ 6100 ADD RSF 1 0 $ 19500 Page: 2 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use BLD99-0478 RONNIE JONES 1318 BRISTOL DR SFD SCREEN PORCH ADDITION ADD RSF 0 0 $ 5000 BLD99-0485 SWEETING BUILT 156 APPANOOSE CT CONSTRUCTION, IC TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ADD RSF 1 0 $ 4950 BLD99-0445 JOSEPH ROBINSON 613 E COURT ST REMOVE AND REPLACE FRONT PORCH ADD RSF 1 0 $ 4500 BLD99-0474 JESSICA KLEKAMP SFD DECK ADDITION 1685 RIDGE RD ADD RSF 0 0 $ 4500 BLD99-0452 BOB & SUE DOLEN 1023 CARVER ST GARAGE ADDITION AND PARTIAL REROOF ADD RSF 0 0 $ 4000 BLD99-0487 JOHN MC }{UGH SFD DECK ADDITION 601 TEMPLIN RD ADD RSF 0 0 $ 2500 BLD99-0477 THOMAS J GEORGE SFD DECK ADDITION 20 PARTRIDGE CT ADD RSF 0 0 $ 2000 BLD99-0464 CHRIS & TERESA 1936 HANNAH JO CT SUCHOMEL INSTALL ROOF AND SCREENING OVER EXISTING PORCH ADD RSF 1 0 $ 1600 BLD99-0448 DAN MCGEHEE 174 SHRADER RD DECK ADDITION TO SFD ADD RSF 0 0 $ 1500 BLD99-0459 JOHN M YODER 171 ST/~WYCK DR CONSTRUCT A NEW WOOD DECK ON THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. ADD RSF 0 0 $ 1500 BLD99-0421 PATRICK MORELAND 507 GRANT ST ADD RSF 1 0 $ WOOD DECK 1400 BLD99-0419 CLAUDE WILLIAMS 626 DIANA CT ADD RSF 1 0 $ 1000 WOOD DECK ADD RSF permits: 21 $ 156125 BLD99-0412 HYVEE FOOD STORES INTERIOR REMODEL 1201 N DODGE ST ALT NON 2 0 $ 930000 BLD99-0323 KF~RT CORPORATION INTERIOR REMODEL 901 BOLLYWOOD BLVD ALT NON 0 0 $ 150000 BLD99-0408 PROCTER & GAMBLE 2200 LOWER MUSCATINE RD STAIRWAY ~ DOORS IN FACTORY ALT NON 2 0 $ 75000 Page: 3 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use BLD98-0798 RANDY'S CARPETS AND 1506 HIGHWAY 1 WEST INTERIORS INTERIOR ALTERATION OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ALT NON 1 0 $ 20000 BLD99-0442 MARC MOEN 103 COLLEGE ST 2ND EXIT TO BUILDING ALT NON 0 0 $ 4800 BLD99-0438 EMERGENCY HOUSING 331 N GILBERT ST PROJECT MODIFICATIONS TO STAIRWAY HEADROOM ALT NON 0 0 $ 1300 BLD99-0440 ROY YELDER 222 WASHINGTON ST ALT NON 0 0 $ 800 REMOVE INTERIOR WALL ALT NON permits: 7 $ 1181900 BLD99-0463 CINDY PARSONS 119 DAVENPORT ST ALT OTH 0 0 $ 800 INSTALL NEW FRONT A/qD REAR ENTRY DOORS. ALT OTH permits: 1 $ 800 BLD99-0418 JOHN & DENISE NELSON 817 MELROSE AVE NEW ROOF AND REPLACE DECK ALT RDF 0 0 $ 9333 BLD99-0449 GARY HUGHS 222 1/2 S LUCAS ST ALT RDF 2 0 $ 3000 CREATE LIVING ROOM BY RAISING ROOF ABOVE 7'6" ALT RDF permits: 2 $ 12333 BLD99-0431 CHRIS KLITGAARD 630 N DUBUQUE ST REMODEL FRATERNITY KITCHEN ALT RMF 0 0 $ 37000 BLD98-0492 CITY OF IOWA CITY 28 S LINN ST ALT RMF CENTER HANDRAIL AT THE WEST EXTERIOR STAIRS AND REMODEL THE SOUTH ENTRANCE 0 0 $ 23000 BLD99-0429 KEYSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT 225 IOWA AVE ALT RMF 0 0 $ 7820 BLD99-0391 KEYSTONE PROPERTY 3201 MUSCATINE AVE # 1 ALT RMF '0 0 $ 6712 REPLACE SIX WINDOWS IN BUILDING. ALT RMF permits: 4 $ 74532 Page: 4 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use BLD99-0122 JAMES KAUFNLANN 1730 MUSCATINE AVE CONVERT 3 UNIT RENTAL BACK TO SFD ALT RSF 2 0 $ 12000 BLD99-0482 FR3LhITZ CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. SFD BASEMENT FINISH 147 ST/M~]WYCK DR ALT RSF 1 0 $ 10655 BLD98-0747 TIM FINER 1436 ABURDEEN CT FINISH BASEMENT- BEDROOM, FAMILY ROOM, BATH. ALT RSF 0 0 $ 10000 BLD98-0503 DAVID J LENOCH 608 E COURT ST FINISH 560 SQUARE FEET OF BASEMENT IN SFD ALT RSF 1 0 $ 8400 BLD99-0484 DAVID DUNLOP 1517 DUBUQUE RD ALT RSF 0 0 $ SFD BATRROOM 5000 BLD99-0492 WILLA JONES 88 OBERLIN ST ALT RSF 0 0 $ SFD PORCH ROOF 4500 BLD98-0613 THOMAS J BENDER 1145 DUCK CREEK DR CONVERT SCREEN PORCH TO 3 SEASON FOR SFD ALT RSF 0 0 $ 4000 BLD99-0479 AARON GWINNUP 821 CHURCH ST ALT RSF REPLACE GARAGE FOUNDATION, REFRAME HOUSE ROOF, MISC OTHER REPAIRS. I 0 $ 3000 BLD99-0469 JOHN HOOTON 533 TERRACE RD ALT RSF 0 0 $ EGRESS WINDOW 2400 BLD99-0465 DANA CHRISTIANSEN SFD BATH REMODEL 302 MORNINGSIDE DR ALT RSF 0 0 $ 2000 BLD99-0483 FRANTZ CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. SFD BASEMENT BEDROOM 245 STANWYCK DR ALT RSF 1 0 $ 1900 BLD99-0420 MARCIA KLINGE 732 RUNDELL ST REMOVE CHIMNEY AND BUILD NEW ALT RSF 0 0 $ 1275 BLD98-0842 GARY COOL 1227 SANTA FE DR DRYWALL EXISTING WALLS ONLY. NO CEILING ALT RSF 0 0 $ 1000 BLD99-0432 HERBERT JACKSON 614 GREENWOOD DR ALT RSF ENCLOSE HEAT DUCT, COLUMN, AND BEAM IN EXISTING GARAGE TO MAINTAIN ONE-HOU SEPARATION TO DWELLING. 0 0 $ 3oO BLD99-0294 JAMES J OBRIEN 1320 OAKCREST AVE ALT RSF 0 0 $ EGRESS WINDOW 288 Page: 5 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTP~ACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use ALT RSF permits: 15 $ 66718 BLD99-0475 NOBLE LUKE 1808 F ST DETACHED GARAGE ~/)DITION TO SFD NEW RAC 1 0 $ 10000 BLD99-0471 WILLIAM L GAUGER 119 POTOMAC DR NEW RAC 1 0 $ 6200 WOOD FRAME ACCESSORY BUILDING ON A TRENCH FOOTING. NEW RAC permits: 2 $ 16200 BLD99-0439 TONITA RIOS & RAMON 2431 CATSKILL CT BONILLA DUPLEX WITH TWO CAR GARAGES NEW RDF 2 2 $ 204186 BLD99-0454 HODGE CONSTRUCTION 1712 LOUIS PL DUPLEX WITH TWO CAR GARAGES NEW RDF 1 2 $ 203682 BLD99-0347 TOM SIMPSON/GARY 1301 DODGE ST CT SIMPSON DUPLEX WITH SINGLE STALL GA/{AGES NEW RDF 2 2 $ 150921 BLD99-0428 EAST HILL LAND 2512 CATSKILL CT NEW RDF 2 2 $ 145378 DEVELOPMENT DUPLEX WITH TWO CAR GARAGES NEW RDF permits: 4 8 $ 704167 BLD99-0414 BEN CHAIT 22 COLWYN CT NEW RMF 4-UNIT RANCH STYLE CONDOMINIMUM WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR G/U~AGES. 1 4 $ 409464 BLD99-0397 FRA/qTZ CONSTRUCTION 3333 CHATHAM PL NEW RMF 1 3 $ 325825 CO., INC. THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM WITH ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGES. ALL HAVE FINISHED BASEMENTS, OUTSIDE UNITS HAVE 3-SEASON PORCHES. NEW RMF permits: 2 7 $ 735289 BLD99-0380 TIM SAYLOR 20 SHAGBARK CT S.F.D. WITH ATTACHED 3-CAR GA/~AGE. BLD99-0486 SMITH-MORELAND 4736 INVERNESS CT PROPERTIES S.F.D. WITH THREE CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 300000 NEW RSF 2 1 $ 166701 Page: 6 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use BLD99-0427 RICHARD CALVERT 3512 GALWAY CT S.F.D. WITH TWO CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 154472 BLD99-0476 MICHAEL POTTER 53 DONEGAL PL SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 141993 BLD99-0434 LON TINKEY 1448 CHAMBERLAIN DR CONSTRUCTION S.F.D. WITH TWO CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 141506 BLD99-0402 SMITH-MORELAND 806 BARRINGTON RD CONST. SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 132064 BLD99-0406 WALDEN WOODS 2658 IRVING AVE ASSOCIATES II SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR G~RAGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 118009 BLD99-0407 WALDEN WOODS 1356 EMILY CT ASSOCIATES II SFD WIT}{ ATTACHED 2 CAR C~GE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 117990 BLD99-0367 WALDEN HILLS 1234 SHANNON DR PARTNERS S.F.D. WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 109652 BLD99-0368 WALDEN HILLS 1222 SHANNON DR PARTNERS S.F.D. WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 109652 BLD99-0369 WALDEN HILLS 1204 SHANNON DR PARTNERS S.F.D. WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE. NEW RSF 2 1 $ 109652 BLD99-0443 FR3%NTZ CONSTRUCTION 1290 VILLAGE RD CO. INC. SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 103216 BLD99-0404 WALDEN WOODS 2851 IRVING AVE ASSOCIATES II SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GA2,AGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 103009 BLD99-0405 WALDEN WOODS 2861 IRVING AVE ASSOCIATES II SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 103009 BLD99-0371 WALDEN HILLS 1216 SHANNON DR PARTNERS S.F.D. WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE. NEW RSF 2 1 $ 102588 Page: 7 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use BLD99-0373 WALDEN HILLS 1210 SHANNON DR PARTNERS S.F.D. WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR G~J~AGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 102588 BLD99-0370 WALDEN HILLS 1228 S}{ANNON DR PARTNERS S.F.D. WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR GAIRAGE. NEW RSF 2 1 $ 102234 BLD99-0416 MITCHELL-PHIPPS 3372 SOUTH JAMIE LN BUILDING S.F.D. WITH ONE CAR GARAGE ZERO-LOT-LINE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 93885 BLD99-0417 MITC~ELL-PHIPPS 3364 SOUTH JAMIE LN BUILDING S.F.D. WITH ONE CAR GARAGE ZERO-LOT-LINE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 93885 BLD99-0395 GREATER IOWA CITY 1664 DICKENSON LN HOUSING S.F.D. WITH TWO C~LR GARAGE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 90645 BLD99-0396 GREATER IOWA CITY 1683 HEMINGWAY ST HOUSING S.F.D. WITH TWO CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 90645 BLD99-0398 GREATER IOWA CITY 1562 DICKENSON LN HOUSING S.F.D. WITH TWO CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 1 1 $ 90645 BLD99-0403 WALDEN WOODS 2871 IRVING AVE ASSOCIATES II SFD WITH ATTAC~ED 2 CAR GARAGE NEW RSF 2 1 $ 87263 BLD99-0346 MITCHELL-PHIPPS INC 56 POND VIEW CT NEW RSF 1 1 $ 81876 S.F.D. WITH TWO CAR GARAGE ZERO-LOT-LINE NEW RSF permits: 24 24 $ 2847179 BLD99-0413 JEFFRY SCHABILION 431 RUNDELL ST OTH RSF 0 0 $ 300 8' X 8' STONE FENCE OTH RSF permits: 1 $ 300 BLD99-0461 REGINA CATHOLIC EDUCATION CENR REROOF WITH EPDM 2120 ROCHESTER AVE REP NON 0 0 $ 87000 Page: 8 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use BLD98-0473 HILLS BANK & TRUST 1401 S GILBERT ST CO. REROOF COMERCIAL BUILDING REP NON 0 0 $ 15000 BLD99-0437 PREUCIL SCHOOL OF 524 N JOHNSON ST REP NON 0 0 $ 2800 MUSIC REROOF REP NON permits: 3 $ 104800 BLD99-0472 LINCOLN HEIGHTS INC. 30 LINCOLN AVE REROOF RMF WITH CLASS "A" SHINGLES REP RMF 0 0 $ 24201 BLD99-0473 LINCOLN HEIGHTS INC. 24 LINCOLN AVE REROOF RMF WITH CLASS "A" SHINGLES REP RMF 0 0 $ 24201 BLD99-0424 COLDREN RETIREMENT HOME REROOF 602 CLARK ST REP RMF 0 0 $ 11000 BLD98-0859 EMERGENCY HOUSING 331 N GILBERT ST REP RMF 2 0 $ 800 PROJECT REPLACE EXISTING INTERIOR STAIRS TO BASEMENT REP RMF permits: 4 $ 60202 BLD99-0409 KIM MCDONALa3 1424 EURESH AVE WIND REPAIR AND ~JaTERATION OF SFD REP RSF 2 0 $ 20000 BLD98-0493 JERRY W BUSCH 3416 S~OCK DR REMOVE AND REPLACE 42' G/UIAGE FOUNDATION REP RSF 0 0 $ 7500 BLD99-0450 LOWELL & PALrLA 824 N GILBERT ST BRANDT EXTERIOR STAIRS LEADING TO PUBLIC WAY REP RSF 0 0 $ 5000 BLD99-0363 MARK ROEYER 2269 HICKORY CT DECK REPLACEMENT FOR SFD REP RSF 0 0 $ 3300 BLD99-0415 PATRICK ELBERT 530 WASHINGTON ST REP RSF 1 0 $ REPAIR PORCH 1500 BLD99-0446 THERESA TP~ANMER 708 IOWA AVE REP RSF 0 0 $ 1500 REPAIR THE FRONT PORCH FLOOR, STAIRS AND RAILING REP RSF permits: 6 $ 38800 Page: 9 Date: 07/02/99 From: 06/01/99 To..: 06/30/99 CITY OF IOWA CITY EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR CENSUS BUREAU REPORT Permit Applicant name Address Tl/pe Type Stories Units Valuation No. Impr Use TOTALS 39 $ 8960155 MINUTES East Central Iowa Council of Governments Board Meeting May 27, 1999 - ECICOG Office 108 Third Street SE, Suite 300, Cedar Rapids, Iowa MEMBERS PRESENT Dell Hanson-Benton CounO, Supen'isor Tom Tjelmeland-Mayor of Ely Charles Montross-lowa Coun.ty Supervisor Ann Hearn-Linn Counl~' Citi:.en Gary Edwards-Iowa County Citi:.en Edward Brown-Mayor of Washington Rod Straub-lowa Coun .ty Supervisor AI Willcutt-Washington County Citizen Don Magdefrau-Benton Coung.' Citizen Lu Barron-Linn Coun.ty Supervisor Dee Vanderhoef-[owa Cit~' Cit~' Council Henry Herwig-Coralville Cit).' Council Sally Slutsman-Johnson County Supercisor ME~IBERS ABSENT Paul Coyle-Vinton City Council Leo Cook-Jones Count~' Super~'isor Bob Stout-Washington Corinth' Supervisor Carol Casey-Johnson Coutlg' Citir. en Ole Munson-Cedar Rapids Commissioner David Cavey-Ma>.'or of Olin Dennis Hansen-Jones Counl~' Citizen Jim Houser-Linn Coun.ty Supervisor ALTERNATES PRESENT Lumir Dostal-Linn Coun,ty OTHER'S PRESENT-None STAFF PRESENT Doug Elliott-Executive Director Gina Peters-Administrative Assistant Angela Williams-Housing Planner Marie De Vries-Solid Waste Planning Coordinator Chris Kivett-Berry-Housing Planner Ma .ry Rump-Transportation Planner Dan Kassik-Planner Chad Sands-Planner Tricia Heald-Housing Planner 1.0 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Dell Hanson. .1 Recognition of Alternates Lumir Dostal for Jim Houser .2 Public Discussion - None .3 Approval of Agenda M/S/C (Vanderhoef/Stutsman) to approve the agenda. All ayes 2.0 .1 M/S/C ROUTINE MATTERS Approval of Minutes (April 29, 1999) (Herwig/Stutsman) to approve the minutes as written. All ayes. .2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets Elljolt gave an overview of the April financial statements. M/S/C (Brown/Montross) to receive and file the April financial statements for audit. All ayes. 3.0 .1 AGENCY REPORTS Chairperson's Report - None .2 Board Members' Reports - None .3 Director's Report E!liott referred the board to pages 8-9 of the board packet regarding Silos & Smoke Stacks. He told the board that he felt no action was needed by the ECICOG board but that members coCtld take this information to their city or county if they wanted. (Barron joined the meeting at this time) At the last board meeting Elliott was asked to find out whether or not ECICOG was involved in the class action suit against Wellmark. Elliott reported that he spoke with David Vestal at ISAC and that the suit asked about last month was .another suit filed for people not involved in the first suit won against Wellmark. Vestal will contact the attorneys and get back to Elliott if it appears ECICOG could be a plaintiff. .4 Community Development Report Sands told the board that the CDBG pre-applications for sewer and water funding are due on August 3rd. .5 Housing Report Kivett-Berry told the board that she was informed recently that four grants were funded. The grants include Tiffin Senior Housing, General Enterprise Fund, Benton County Needs Assessment and Coralville Needs Assessments. Kivett-Berry also told the board that she received a call from USDA-RD regarding Lone Tree Downpayment Assistance. USDA-RD will present an award to ECICOG on June 2"a for this program. Vanderhoef suggested that the press be contacted. .6 Transportation Report Rump told the board that the [DOT has given tentative agreement to the request for the transfer of vehicles to Iowa City and Coralville from Johnson County SEATS. M/S/C (Barron/Stutsman) to allow the chair to sign the Memorandum of Transfer on behalf of the region to the [DOT allowing the transfer of title to another entity. Proceeds from the transfer will pass-thru the ECICOG office and then be paid out to Johnson County. All ayes. (Tom Tjelmeland joined the meeting at this time.) Rump showed the Board a Power Point presentation outlining the FY2000 proposed contract revisions for the Region 10 Transit System. Discussion followed on the presentation. M/S/C (Stutsman/Herwig) to approve the presented contract changes for FY2000. All ayes. .7 Solid Waste Report DeVries clarified a mistake in the board packet. 30. The Student-Built house open house will be on May 29- 4.0 .1 COMMITTEE REPORTS Executive Committee - None .2 Markets Identification Vanderhoef gave an overview of the committee's discussion from last month's meeting. 3 Brand Identity Committee Elliott gave an overview of the committee's discussion from last month's meeting. .4 Development/Training Committee Kivett-Berry gave an overview of the committee's discussion from last month's meeting. .5 Position for Future Committee Herwig gave an overview of the committee's discussion from last month's meeting. .6 Ad Hoe Committee Reports - None 5.0 IOWA INTERGOVERNNIENTAL REVIEW SYSTENI NUS/C (Herwig/Hearn) to approve all Intergovernmental Reviews with favorable review. All ayes. 6.0 OLD BUSINESS .1 Approval of Expenditures NUS/C (Edwards/Vanderhoef) to approve payment of expenditures. All ayes. 7.0 NEW BUSINESS - None 8.0 NEXT MEETING: June 24, 1999 Carol Casey, Secretary/Treasurer June 24, 1999 Date BALANCE SHEET May 31, 1999 CURRENT ASSETS 1120 CHECKING-FIRSTAR 1150 PETTY CASH 1220 SAViNGS-TRANSIT 1230 SAViNGS-FIRSTAR 1240 SAVINGS-HOUSING 1400 PREPAID EXPENSES 1450 REHAB LOAN REC-WILCOX 1460 REHAB LOAN REC-FRATZKE 1500 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS 1610 TRANSPORTATION EQUIP 1615 ACCUM DEPRECIATION 1620 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1625 ACCUM DEPRECIATION TOTAL FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS ASSETS S 9,C96.93 50 00 21,650 25 127 278 31 10 378 19 6 184 02 6 454 19 8 993 25 87 254 01 364 852 60 (2,424,935-.20) 52,547.71 (32,302.40) $ 277,339.15 960,162.71 S 1,237,501.86 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY CURRENT LIABILITIES 2100 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 2300 ACCRUED VACATION PAY 2350 IPERS PAYABLE 2360 CAFETERIA 2400 FEDERAL PAYROLL TAXES 2450 STATE PAYROLL TAXES TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE 2500 FUND BALANCE-UNRESERVED 2510 FLrND BALANCE-RESERVED CURRENT YEAR INCOME TOTAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 3,556.17 11,184.99 2,244.46 3,!16.23 93.56 1,401.00 439,369.36 888,552.00 (112,015.91) $ 21,596.41 1,215,905.45 $ 1,237,501.86 EAST CENTRAL IOWA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM 07 -09-99 ~ IP25 May 27, 1999 MINUTES LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: Lee C!ancey Lumlr Dostal Henry Herwig Ole MaRson Edward Sass Sally Stutsman John Tibben Dale Todd Dee Vanderhoef Mayor, City of Cedar Rapids Lirm County Board of Supervisors Council Member, City of Ceralville Commissioner, City of Cedar Rapids Benton County Board of Supervisors Johnson County Board of Supervisors Iowa County Board of Supervisors Commissioner, City of Cedar Rapids Council Member, City of Iowa City OTHERS PRESENT: Connie Aidridge Robert L. Ballantyne Larry Harmon Mary Krambeer Mark Moore Steve Rackis Harold R. Yeoman Dislocated Worker Center/Kirkwood Community College Tide llA Administrative Entity Staff Dislocated Worker Center/Kirkwood Community College Title IIA Administrative Entity Staff lowa Workforce Development - Des Moines iowa Workforce Development/Kirkwood Community College East Central Iowa Private Industry Ceuncil Chair Lumir Dostal, chair of the East Central Iowa Employment and Training ConsortSum called the meeting to order at 11:35 a.m. APPROVE AGENDA Ole Munson made a motion to approve of the agenda as presented. Sally Stutsman seconded the motion and it passed. APPROVE MINUTES Sally Stutsman made a motion to approve the minutes. Lee Clancey seconded the motion and it passed. RECOGNIZE VISITORS There were several visitors to the meeting: Larry Harmon, Dislocated Worker Center/Kirkwood Community College; Connie Aidridge, Dislocated Worker Center/Kirkwood Community College; Mark Moore, Iowa Workforce Development office in Des Moines, Steve Rackis, Iowa Workforce Development/Kirkwood Community College and Harold Yeoman, East Central Iowa Private Industry Council Chair. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication items. OLD BUSINESS A. Audit Matters Bob Ballantyne stated that Kelly Taylor had not been able to look at the audit because of other job responsibilities. After Memorial Day, he should be able to look at it. Bob Ballantyne said that the audit exception appears to be a bookkeeping error made several years ago. Lumir Dostal mentioned that the State ought to consider foregoing collection on this matter because it appears to be a shortfall for which money could have been drawn down from the grant but wasn't due to a bookkeeper's error. Chairman Dostal also remarked that the liability question in the new WIA would be considerably easier to accept if we can get past this current audit question. Chairman Dostal asked Mark Moore to convey that message to the appropriate officials at the State. Mark Moore said that he would. B. Summer Youth Employment and Training Program Update Bob Ballantyne explained that approximately 125 youth in a seven-county area would receive Academic Enrichment and Summer School training this summer. This enrollment projection is very close to that of last year's actual enrollment figure. The sites for the training will be Benton Community, Metro High School, and several Kirkwood Community College learning centers. The training will include tours of the Kirkwood campus and major industries as well as classroom training. C. Welfare to Work Update Bob Ballantyne informed LEO members that he was going to contact the congressional delegation for Service Delivery Region Ten and express his displeasure with the nan'ow criteria utilized in the Welfare to Work program. He will try to urge our congressional delegation to expand the eligibility criteria. With broader eligibility requirements, we would be able to serve a lot more people. Bob said that we have approximately twelve people enrolled in Welfare to Work activities. These activities include customer service activities and computer basics. Copier Request for Quotation Bob started by explaining that the copying volume on our current copier had increased from 35,000/month to 70,000/month due to the partnership with Kirkwood staff since the move into Kirkwood's Fifth Avenue Resource Center. We need to have our current machine repaired quite often because of the increased volume. Bob Ballantyne informed members that a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for a copy machine had been issued. (The Iowa Workforce Development office had also sent out a RFQ for a copier.) Handout #1 was a summary of the quotations which had been received. These bids included four different brands made by the same company. Bob Ballantyne explained that while the Gestetner 3265 from Shelton Technologies (a local business) was not initially the lowest price, it would be if you looked at the total copier and 3-year operating costs. Bob said that the PIC had authorized him to negotiate a lower price with Shelton for the print controller price and installation. (IWD was also interested in purchasing a copier from SheIron, but is interested in the Gestetner 3255.) After talking with Shelton, they agreed to lower these prices. Mayor Clancey questioned whether the purchase of the copier was in our budget. Bob Ballantyne stated that yes it was and that the cost would be split out across all of our grants. He also stated that a per copy cost would be billed to our partners but that the initial price would not be shared by all partners. Commissioner Munson asked why there were no costs for Maintenance and Supplies. He asked how this was justified? Bob Ballantyne explained that the maintenance and supply costs were included in the $.0075 cost per copy. He said that it's a per copy cost of providing service. Sally Stutsman made a motion to approve the purchase of the Gestetner 3265 from Shehon Technologies. Mayor Clancey seconded the motion and it was passed. NEW BUSINESS Comnuter Purchase Purchase of Two Docking Stations Purchase of Printer for Welfare to Work Bob Ballantyne explained that we wanted to purchase a computer for office staff not currently on line. He also said that we needed to purchase docking stations for itinerant staff from our other counties. He explained that docking stations allowed staff to use their portable computers so they could read their email and keep up with their work while not at their regular stations. Bob Ballantyne also explained that we wanted to purchase a printer for the Welfare to Work Staff when they move to the second floor. Bob explained that the cost of a printer was not included in handout #2. He explained that the price range for printers considered for purchase was between $200 and $300. Bob stated that bids will be obtained and the lowest bid will be utilized. However, if the lowest bid is over $250, then approval from the Local Elected Officials (LEO) would be required. Bob was seeking approval to proceed with the request for a printer with this contingency. Mayor Clancey made a motion to approve the purchase of a computer and two docking stations and for Bob Ballantyne to proceed with the request for quotations for a printer. Ole Munson seconded the motion and it passed. D. Title III Revised Fund Availability and Budget and Service Level Summary Larry Harmon provided LEO members with copies of the Available Funds Summary for the Title III Displaced Worker Program. Larry informed members that the original allocation for the Title III Program at the beginning of the fiscal year was $423,779. Carry-over funding and reallocated funding increased the total Title III fund amount to $430, 178. Larry informed LEO members that this was solely an informational item and no action on the part of the LEO was necessary. Lumir Dostal commented that he would like to hear a motion from the LEO members to receive this report and have it recorded in the minutes as having been received. Ed Sass made a motion to receive the Title III report. Dee Vanderhoef seconded the motion and it passed. OLD BUSINESS E. Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Uvdate Mark Moore, Iowa Workforce Development State staff, presented an update on the Workforce Investment Act. Included in the packets was a handout entitled "Workforce Investment Act Implementation - A Technical Assistance Guide for Local Elected Officials. Mark Moore also distributed a Workforce Investment Act Timeline for the Regional Workforce Investment Board. Mark Moore explained that he has been visiting with Board of Supervisors and City Officials across this region. He explained that he still has to visit Washington County and the City of Cedar Rapids. Mark Moore explained that the LEOs need to get together and create a new agreement for the Consortium. He explained that the State is assuming that all previous members are still interested in remaining on the board but that those involved need to elect a chairperson. He explained that the handouts provided information regarding roles and responsibilities for the following WIA positions: Chief Elected Official; Regional Workforce Investment Board; Youth Advisory Council; Coordinating Senrice Provider; Workforce Development Center System Partners and WIA Service Provider. Mark Moore also stated that there are current openings on the Regional Advisory Board. There are two labor openings, one business opening, and one county official opening. He explained that the RAB Board needs to be both politically and gender balanced. He stated that he had applications for appointment which he passed around if LEO members were interested. Mayor Clancey asked who should get the nomination papers. It was decided that Steve Rackis would gather any nominations and send them in. A question was raised as to how much time is needed to participate on the RAB board. Mark Moore stated that it has been once a month and would probably be that often for at least the next few months although the next year would probably involve a little more because of the WIA implementation. He said that the meetings usually last about 2 - 2 ¼ hours and that some committee work might be involved. Mark Moore explained the nomination process. He said that the nomination papers are presented to Governor Viisack. He looks them over and may suggest someone else for nomination or may reject any also. Then the nominations come back to the areas and they decide who they want to serve. The deadline for nomination papers is mid-June. Mark Moore explained there have been several suggestions from this region made already. Mark Moore again said that a important issue that needs to be decided for Service Delivery Region Ten is the agreement that states who makes the decisions. A Coordinating Service Provider needs to be decided upon because there are several issues that needed to be decided upon by mid-September. Bob Ballantyne proposed a meeting between all Local Elected Officials and other elected officials. Mark Moore stated that he is already planning a meeting but that a date had not been set yet. The next LEO meeting was set for June 24. A discussion followed on where the meetings would be held. Bob Ballantyne explained the Council of Governments had several issues coming up in the next few months so the ECIETC Board should plan on meeting at the Council of Governments office at least while these issues are being dealt with. Bob further explained that the ECIETC would cover parking and mileage for board members. The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m. Council on Disability Rights and Education 2. 3. 4. MEETING AGENDA JULY 6, 1999 - 11:00 A.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CIVIC CENTER -- 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IA 52240 Discussion of the Future of the CDRE Other Business Next Meeting Agenda, if applicable Adjourn CC: Iowa City City Council Johnson County Board of Supervisors CDRE MISSION STATEMENT The Council on Disability Rights and Education (CDRE) is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to accessibility, full participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities· Our mission is to act as a comprehensive, community-wide educational resource for promoting disability awareness, to provide technical assistance and to encourage compliance with disability civil rights legislation. Our goal is the attainment of community-wide accessibility and the full participation of persons with disabilities to all facilities and services within our community. rngrlassVcdre-agd,doc Council on Disability Rights and Education MEETING MINUTES MAY 4, 1999-11:00 am IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET Present: Len Sandler, Keith Ruff, Dale Helling, Jim Whalen, Crockett Grabbe, Jan Gorman, Ethel Madison, Jane Monserud, Heather Ritchie, Tim Clancy Chairperson Ruff called the meeting to order. Those present introduced themselves. DISCUSSION OF PURPOSE The sole agenda item for this meeting was noted as a discussion of the future of the organization. A considerable number of observations were made regarding the CDRE including the following: · The organization is not doing anything and consequently there is no attendance. People might attend if the group were doing more. · The converse of the above is that nothing is being done because no one is participating. Everyone has not been part of what is going on. The group seems to do a few things, generally done by a couple of people, and then no follow-up is made. [The systematic visits now occurring at the Coral Ridge Mall were offered in contrast. It was observed that these are both purposeful and fun, and ongoing follow-up with the stores and use of checklist has created favorable relationships with the store owners. Progress toward making them more accessible has resulted.] · Other groups are doing the same things that the CDRE is trying to do. · The intent of this group was a community focus, but that has gotten lost. We are not a known organization in the community. · We should go back to the basics and see if we want to resurrect this organization or join with another existing organization. · The meeting time and format of the CDRE is always the same. We should attempt some variety to attract others. For example, a dinner meeting or special meetings at different times. · We should sponsor events or information sessions. · We should find issues that affect the community as a whole and not just persons with disabilities. · The CDRE needs to be seen as contributing something to the entire community. The issue was raised as to where do we go from here? We need to decide whether there is a need for this group and if there is something that we need to do that other groups are not doing. The uniqueness of this group which existed at the beginning is gone. It was extremely difficult to elicit participation from the business community from the start. CDRE Meeting Minutes May 4, 1999 Page 2 It was observed that accessible and affordable housing issues should be a high priority for the CDRE and for the community. There was some frustration from the lack of response to "universal housing" proposals put forth approximately 1 ~ years ago. Several CDRE members worked with the City Department of Planning and Community Development regarding housing issues. The results were less than had been hoped for. A question was raised as to the status of the various CDRE committees. These were abandoned last year due to lack of participation. A question of whether or not we might merge with the Evert Conner Center or the Johnson County Coalition for Persons With Disabilities was put forth. One possibility might be to become an advisory body to the Evert Conner Center. The question was raised as to whether a merger would empower this group as well as the group with which we merged, if all active participants continue to be involved. It was noted that the Coalition is open to anyone. It was further noted that there are certain advantageous to merging with the Coalition. Many of the goals and purposes are the same or similar and, further, there might be a strengthening of the Coalition. That group sometimes has difficulty getting members involved and attending meetings as well. It was agreed that calls would be made to persons on the mailing list of the CDRE. We will meet again on July 6, 1999, to decide what our next steps may be. mgr/asst/min/cdre5-4-99.doc Steve Atkins From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry Trueblood Monday, June 28, 1999 2:32 PM Steve Atkins Riverside Stage I have another meeting with them Thursday, so hopefully will have better news after that, which brings me to the bad news ..... preliminary cost estimate is $215,000 (including $36,000 for NE fees, but not including anything for mechanical/plumbing). My own pessimistic opinion ..... don't expect better news. Please keep one thing in mind ...... the $120,000 budgeted for this project was based on a cost estimate NOT developed by me or any other City staffer. +3193565889 IOWfi CITY CLERg Johmon Courtly IOWA Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Charles D. Duffy Michael E. Lehman Sally Smtsman Carol Thompson BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Agenda Boardroom - 2nd Floor Johnson County Administration Building 913 South Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 July 1, 1999 FORMAL MEETING Call to order 9:00 a.m. 2. Action re: 3. Action re: claims formal minutes of June 244 4. Action re: payroll authorizations 5. Business from the County Auditor a) Action re: permits b) Action re: reports 1. County Recorder' s monthly reports of fees collected. c) Other 6. Business from the County Attorney a) Discussion/action re: Collective Bargaining Agreement with PPME for the Administrative Unit b) Discussion/action re: Collective Bargaining Agreement with PPME for the Johnson County Sheriffs Office. c) Other 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (319) 356-6086 Bfi/30/99 08:2fi:Og 319-~54-4219 -> ,~1995~S~B9 I~g~ CITY CLBRR Page 802 Agenda 7-1-99 Page 2 7. Business from the Board of Supervisors a) Discussion/action re: Resolution 07-01-99-B1 establishing Fund 06. b) Discussion/action re: Resolution 07-01-99-B2 interest earned in the Technology Fund remain in the Technology Fund. c) Motion to approve East Central Iowa Council of Governments to apply on our behalf for Local Housing Assistance Program. d) Motion to approve a resolution to accept East Central Iowa Council of Governments match offer. e) Motion authorizing Chair to provide a letter of support to East Central Iowa Council of Governments. f) Motion authorizing Chair to send Joe Kral a letter of appreciation and certificate for serving on the Iowa City Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission. g) Discussion/action re: appointing Sally Stutsman as a representative to the Sixth Judicial District Board of Directors and appointing Jonathan Jordahl as a representative to MECCA Board of Directors. h) Discussion/action re: appointments to the Johnson County Housing Task Force. i) Discussion/action re: fireworks permit(s). j) Other 8. Adjourn to informal meeting a) Reports and inquiries from the County Attorney b) Inquiries and reports from the public c) Reports and inquiries from the members of the Board of Supervisors d) Other 9. Adjournment BT/B1/~9 14;36|02 319-354-4213 -> +3193~6~BB~ IOtlfi ~l~V ~L~RR h~e 801 Johnson Courtly { ']% .i~YX ~ X_ Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Charles D. Duffy Michael E. Lehman Sally Stutsman Carol Thompson BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Agenda ' Boardroom - 2na Floor Johnson County Administration Building 913 South Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 July 6, 1999 INFORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. 2. Review of the formal minutes of July 1 st 3. Business from Tom Kriz, Johnson County Treasurer and Mike Sullivan, Ambulance Director re: implementation of a new line item for the Ambulance Department for donations. discussion/action needed 4. Business from Jim McGinley, Johnson County Emergency Management Coordinator a) Discussion/update/action needed re: Mitigation Relocation of Citizens from County Floodways. b) Discussion/update/action needed re: preparation for the Year 2000 (Y2K) assistance as it relates to Emergency Management. Assessment of the degree of coordination among the emergency plans of the cities, county, and school districts. c) Other 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (319) 356-6086 87/81/99 14:3fi:32 319-~54-~21~ -> +~1~3Sfi58~ IUgA CITY CLERE Page ~ Agenda 7-6-99 Page 2 5. Business from the County Engineer a) Discussion/action needed re: potential traffic implications and costs associated with the Muslim Camp on Corps of Engineers land. b) Other 6. Business from the County Auditor a) Discussion/action needed re: Resolution 07-08-99-T1 transferring from the General Supplemental Fund to the General Basic Fund. b) Discussion/action needed re: Resolution 07-08-99-T2 transferring from the Rural Services Basic Fund to Secondary Roads Fund. c) Discussion/action needed re: Resolution 07-08-99-T3 transferring from the General Basic Fund to the Technology Fund. d) Discussion/action needed re: Resolution 07-08-99-T4 transferring from the General Basic Fund to the Capital Expenditure Fund. e) Other 7. Business from the Board of Supervisors a) Discussion/action needed re: extending Long Term Disability Coverage to Elected Officials. b) Minutes received 1. Johnson County Decat Project Executive Committee for June 10, 1999 and June 28, 1999 e) Reports d) Other 8. Work Session re: Progress Report from the Physical Plant Manager. discussion 9. Work Session re: monthly report/update on discussion/action needed 10. Discussion from the public 11. Recess Strategic Pl~ing. 1:00 p.m. - Canvass of Votes for Special Election OG/3B/99 1G|BS:2B 319-~54-4213 -> +9lg9SGS~Bg IOWa EITV CLEeR Page BB1 Johnson County ~IOWA ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Charles P. Duffy Michael E. Lehman Sally StuBman Carol Thompson Agenda Boardroom - 2nd Floor Johnson County Administration Building 913 South Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 July 6, 1999 FORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 1:00 p.m. 2. Canvass of votes for Special Election for the Amendments and Board of Supervisors Election. Special Constitutional 3. Adjournment 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. SUITE #201 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-4207 TEL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (3~ 06/38/99 16:84:19 ~19-~54-421~ -> +-~19~565009 IOMA CITY CLERg Page 081 Jolmson County IOWA s~ Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Charles P. Duff'y Miohael E. Lehman Sally Stutsman Carol Thompson BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Agenda Johnson County Human Services Building 911 North Governor Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Wednesday, July 7, 1999 INFORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 9: 00 a.m. 2. Work Session re: 3. Adjourn site visit with General Assistance Director. discussion 07187/99 18:28:33 319-354-q213 -> +3193565809 IOlllt CITY CLE!Ig Page 881 Johnson County IIOWA :> Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Charles D. Duffy Michael E. Lehman Sally Stutsman Carol Thompson BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Agenda Boardroom 2nd Floor Johnson County Administration Building 913 South Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 July 8, 1999 FORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 5:30 p.m. 2. Action re: claims 3. Action re: formal minutes of July 1st and formal minutes for canvass of votes for Special Election for the Special Constitutional Amendments and Board of Supereisors Election of July 6th 4. Action re: payroll authorizations 6. Business from the County Auditor a) Action re: permits b) Action re: reports c) Other 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (319) 356-6086 0?/8?/99 10:~8|57 ~19-~5~-4~19 -> +919~565809 IO~A CITV CL~R~ Page 88~ Agenda 7-8-99 Page 2 7. Business from the Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator a) Discussion/action re: the following Platting application: Application S9921 of Steve Schmidt requesting preliminary plat approval of Crestview Third Addition, a subdivision described as being located in the NW ¼ of Section 25; Township 79 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 4 lot (3 residential with 1 outlet), 22.69 acre, residential subdivision, located in the NW quadrant of the Landon Avenue SW and Highway 1 SW intersection in Union Twp.). b) Other 8. 6:00 p.m. - Public Hearing on Zoning and Platting applications: a) First and Second consideration of the following Zoning applications: Application Z9918 of Tom Seelman, Oxford, Iowa, requesting rezonmg of 4.33 acres from A1 Rural and RS Suburban Residential to RS3 Suburban Residential of certain property described as being Lot 1 of Seehnan's First Addition located in the NW ~,~ of the NE ~/~ of Section 24; Township 79 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the south side of 400th Street SW, approximately ~,'~ of a mile west of Greencastle Avenue SW in Union Twp.). , Application Z9919 of Sylvia Hahn Pence, Iowa City, Iowa, signed by John Heirseman, Solon, Iowa, requesting rezoning of 1.99 acres from A1 Rural to RS Suburban Residential of certain property described as being in the SE ~,~ of Section 28; Township 80 North; Range 5 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the west side of Wapsi Avenue NE, approximately 3A of a mile south of its intersection-with~apid Creek Road NE in Graham Twp. ). 87107199 1B:29:35 319-354-~213 -> +3193~G~OB9 IO~ CITV CL~RH hgc BB3 Agenda 7-8-99 Page 3 Application Z9920 of Leroy Bistricky, Swisher, Iowa, requesting rezoning of 1.0 acres from A1 Rural to RS Suburban Residential of certain property described as being located in the SE ¼ of Section 15; Township 81 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the south side of Plotz Road NW, approximately ¼ of a mile east of its intersection with Derby Avenue NW in Monroe Twp.). Application Z9921 of Raymond Miller, Oxford, Iowa, requesting rezoning of 10.99 acres (3 residential lots) from A1 Rural to RS3 Suburban Residential of certain property described as Lot A of the Subdivision of Lot B of Mahoney Acres located in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15; Township 80 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the south side of Highway #6 NW, approximately ¼ of a mile west of its intersection with Lower Old Highway 6 NW in Oxford Twp.). Application Z9922 of Jacob Ropp, Kalona, Iowa, requesting rezoning of 1.25 acres from A1 Rural to A2 Resort of certain property described as being in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 31; Township 78 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the east side of Gable Avenue SW, approximately ¼ of a mile south of its intersection with 560th Street SW in Sharon Twp.). Application Z9923 of Wanda Wilker, Iowa City, Iowa, requesting rezoning of 15.01 acres from A1 Rural and RS Suburban Residential to RS10 Suburban Residential of certain property described as Lot 2 of Alpaca Pines Subdivision located in the SW ¼ of Section 2; Township 79 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located in the NE quadrant of intersection of 355th Street and Kansas Avenue SE in Clear Creek Twp.). B?/B?/99 18:3B: 15 319-354-4213 -> +31935fiSBB9 I01~t CITY CLERK PaGe 88t Agenda 7-8-99 Page 4 Application Z9924 of Richard Beaehy, Kalona, Iowa, requesting rezoning of 1.0 acres from A1 Rural to RS Suburban Residential of certain property described as Lot 1 of Pleasant Acres Subdivision located m the SW ¼ of Section 28; Township 78 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the east side of Calkins Avenue SW, approximately ¼ of a mile south' of its intersection with 550th Street SW in Washington Twp.). Application Z9925 of John Fobian, Iowa City, Iowa, signed by Kenneth Fobian, Iowa City, Iowa, requesting rezonmg of 4.0 acres from A1 Rural to GAG Agricultural Business District of certain property described as being in the NE ¼ of Section 34; Township 79 North; Range 5 West of the 5th P-M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located in the NW quadrant of American Legion Road SE and Highway #6 SE in Scott Twp.). b) Discussion/action re: the following Platting applications: Application S9729 of Mike Evans, signed by Glen Meisncr of MMS Consultants Inc., requesting preliminary plat approval of Whip-Poor-Wil Subdivision, a subdivision described as being located in the East 1/2 of Section 6; Township 80 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 15-1ot (14 residential and 1 outlot), 76.99 acre, residential subdivision, located on the west side of Mehaffey Bridge Road, approximately 1.0 mile north of North Liberty in Penn Twp.). Application S9925 of Nettie Crrothe, signed by Keith Grothe, requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Crrothe Farmstead Subdivision, a subdivision described as being located in the South ~ of Section 16; Township 78 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a l-lot, 14.81 acre, farn~ead split, located on the south side of 500th Street SW, a!~roxir~tely 1/3 of a mile ~ west of its intersection with Highway 2~I~ I~erty/~ 07/B?/99 10:3B:57 319-354-4213 -> +31935fi5809 IOWA CITY CLERK Page 885 Agenda 7-8-99 Page Application S9927 of Willard Brenneman requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Willard Brenneman's 2na Subdivision, a subdivision described as being located in the NW ¼ of Section 31; Township 78 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a l-lot, 1.72 acre, residential subdivision, located on the south side of 5601h Street, approximately ~ mile east of the Johnson Iowa Road SW in Washington Twp.). Application S9928 of Steve Schmidt, signed by Tom Anthony of Landmark Surveying and Engineering, requesting final plat approval of Crestview Third Addition (A Resubdivision of Lot 2 Crestview Second Addition), a subdivision described as being located in the NW ¼ of Section 25; Township 79 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 4-1ot, 22.69 acre, residential subdivision, located on the west side of Landon Avenue SW, in the NW quadrant of its intersection with Highway # 1 SW in Union Twp.). Application S9929 of Leroy Bistricky, signed by Doug Frederick of Hart Frederick Consultants, requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Bistricky Farm Subdivision, a subdivision described as being located in the SE ¼ of Section 15; Township 81 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a l-lot, 4.67 acre, residential subdivision, located on the south side of Plotz Road NW, approximately ¼ of a mile east of its intersection with Derby Avenue NW in Monroe Twp. ). Application S9930 of Jim Anderson and Tom Bender, signed by Jim Anderson, requesting preliminary plat approval of Westcott Heights, Part Two, a subdivision described as being located in the NE ¼ of the NE 'A of Section 27; Township 80 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 4-1ot, 24.99 acre, residential subdivision, located at the end of Westcott Drive NE, which is a private road off Prairie du Chien Road NE in Newport Twp.). Agenda 7-8-99 Page 6 , Application S9931 of Robert Sentman requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Helen Sentman Subdivision, a subdivision described as being located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 15; Township 80 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 1-lot, 7.35 acre, farmstead split, located on the north side of 270th Street NW, 200 feet east of the Jasper Avenue NW and 270th Street NW intersection in Madison Twp.). Application S9932 of Steve Carfrae, signed by Glen Meisner of MMS Consultants Inc., requesting final plat approval of Pine Ridge Estates, a subdivision described as being located in the SW ¼ of Section 11 and the NW ~A of Section 14; all in Township 81 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 8 residential lots with 1 outlot, 20.23 acre, residential subdivision, located on the south side of Sandy Beach Road NE, and the east side of Curtis Bridge Road NE, in the SE quadrant of their intersection in Jefferson Twp.). Application S9933 of Steven Michel requesting preliminary and fmal plat approval of Seth-Aaron Addition, a subdivision described as being located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 31; Township 79 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 1-residential with 1 outlot, 19.59 acre, residential subdivision, located on the north side of Hazelwood Avenue SW, approximately 2/3 of a mile south of its intersection with Black Diamond Road SW in Union Twp. ). 10. Application S9934 of Robert Stmocher requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Stinocher Hill Subdivision, a subdivision described as being located in the SE 1A of the NE ~A of Section 28; Township 81 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 2-1ot, 19.28 acre, residential subdivision, located on the east and west side of Mehaffey Bridge Road NE, to the east side of the intersection of Mehaffey Bridge Road NE and Cottage Reserve Road NE in Big Grove Twp.). 87187/99 18:32:2B 319-354-4213 -> +3193555BB9 IOWfi CITY CLERK Page Agenda 7-8-99 11. Page 7 Application S9935 of Peter Van Getpen requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Northwood Estates Part 2 (A Resubdivision of Lots 1 & 2 and Outlot A of Northwood Estates), a subdivision described as being located in the South V2 of Section 28; Township 80 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 1 residential lot with 1 outlot, 6.02 acres, residential subdivision, located on the north side of Hensleigh Drive NE in the northwest quadrant of Hensleigh Drive and Dubuque Street NE intersection in Penn Twp. ). 9. Business from the Board of Supervisors a) Discussion/action re: Resolution 07-08-99-T1 transferring from the General Supplemental Fund to the General Basic Fund. b) Discussion/action re: Resolution 07-08-99-T2 transferring from the Rural Services Basic Fund to Secondary Roads Fund. c) Discussion/action re: Resolution 07-08-99-T3 transferring from the General Basic Fund to the Technology Fund. d) Discussion/action re: Resolution 07-08-99-T4 transferring from the General Basic Fund to the Capital Expenditure Fund. e) Discussion/action re: appointments of the following as Reserve Deputy Sheriff: (As recommended by Sheriff Carpenter) 1. Marc G. Burge 2. Richard Childs 3. Brad Kunkel 4. Andrew Slaughter f) Other 10. Business from the County Attorney a) Discussion/Action re: Grievance from PPME (Executive Session) b) Other 11. Adjourn to informal meeting Other a) Reports and inquiries from the County Attomey b) Inquiries and reports from the public c) Reports and inquiries from the members of the Board of Supenzisors ~ d) c~ ~ 12. Adjournment 07/12/99 88:44:41 319-354-4Z13 -> +3193565889 IOefi CITY CLERK Page 881 Johnson COunty Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Charles D. Duffy Michael E. Lehman Sally Slutsman Carol Thompson BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Agenda c~ c_. Boardroom - 2nd Floor Johnson County Administration Building 913 South Dubuque Street Iowa Ci~, Iowa 52240 ~; July 13, 1999 INFORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. 2. Review of the formal minutes of July 8th and formal minutes for canvass of votes for Special Election for the Special constitutional Amendments and Board of Supervisors Election on July 6th. 3. Business from the County Engineer a) Discussion/action needed re: discussion/action needed setting public hearing for Road Vacations 1-99, 2-99 and 3-99. b) Other 4. Representatives of Newport Road regarding proposed improvements along Newport Road. discussion/action needed 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (319) 356-6086 07/12/99 BB;45:B? 319-354-4213 -> +3193555889 lOgA CI~ CLERK Page BB2 Agenda 7-13-99 Page 2 5. Business from the County Auditor a) b) e) d) Discussion/action needed re: resolution 07-15-99-T1 transferring funds from the Capital Expenditure Fund to the Technology Fund. Discussion/action needed re: resolution 07-15-99-T2 transferring funds from the General Basic Fund to the Capital Expenditure Fund. Discussion/action needed re: resolution 07-15-99-T3 transferring funds from the General Basic Fund to the Technology Fund. Other 6. Business from the Board of Supervisors a) Schedule visit with Director of Mental Health/Development Disabilities. discussion/action needed b) Discussion of memo rescheduling of July 22nd Joint Meeting. discussion/action needed c) Letter from Lumir Dostal, Chair East Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium re: Workforce Investment Act (WIA). discussion/action needed d) Minutes received 1. Johnson County Board of Health for June 9, 1999 2. Johnson County Nutrition Advisory Board for June 21, 1999 e) Reports f) Other 7. Work Session re: monthly report/update on Strategic Planning. discussion/action needed 8. Discussion from the public Work Session with the Planning and Zoning Administrator re: 1998 Land Use Plan implementation. discussion/action needed 10. Recess IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SURVEY OF LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX AND GENERAL ELECTION VOTERS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In May 1999, telephone interviews were conducted with 300 Iowa City residents who voted in the March 30th Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) referendum and 200 residents who voted in the last General Election. The purpose of this study was to explorein depth voters' attitudes toward the sales tax proposals to find out how much support exists for building a new Iowa City Public Library. In addition, because a bond issue might be included on the next general election ballot (as opposed to a special election), we interviewed a small sample of general election voters to test their receptivity to a bond issue. This report summarizes the key findings. It includes key tables and strategic interpretations of the findings. Attached to the end are tabulated questionnaires showing top-line data for the two sample groups. The margin of error for the sample of 300 LO ST voters is plus or minus 5.7 percentage points. This means that if we were to conduct the same study 20 times, 19 of those times we would not expect the findings to differ by more than the margin of error. For general election voters, it is plus or minus 6.9 points. In addition to these two samples, we define a group of 3 13 definite voters, dram from both lists. These are respondents who say they would definitely vote in a referendum on the public library. The attitudes of this latter group constitutes the bulk of the following analysis, except where noted. OVERVIEW An expanded Iowa City Public Library enjoys strong public support; but the vehicle for raising the money needs to fit the city's sensibilities. Fully 59% who voted in the March local option sales tax (LOST) election say they supported the idea of an expanded library and another 69% say they supported providing operating expenses to the library. This resounding endorsement stems from the library' s stellar public image. Three out of four LOST voters say the library is one of the best or above average, compared to other libraries with which they are familiar, and the same proportion say the library is very or fairly important to them. These attitudes lay the foundation for the next step--a bond issue to build a new library. Support for this project appears weaker, with just 50% of voters who say they would definitely vote in such an election indicating they would vote yes on such a referendum-- short of the 60% needed to pass. Still, a specific project is not yet in the proposal stage, so it is early, and, a .campaign has yet to begin. We look at this 50% as a reasonable starting point, with much work yet to be done. Respondents react favorably to three key strategies. First, the library is a symbol of everything good about Iowa City. The reason that the library is overcrowded is the very reason people like to live here--this is a community of hungry minds. Second, libraries are all about children. If you can show that children are losing out or that children' s services are threatened in some way by the current overcrowding, this gives voters a reason to say yes. Third, only by building a new library can you make efficient use of patrons' time (with convenient parking,. drive through pick-up and drop-off, self-check out, and so on). Focusing on what' s in it for the average person gives them a chance to act on their self-interest. Iowa City supports its library. On two key indicators of support, the Iowa City Public Library registers impressively solid marks: · 75% of Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) voters rate the Iowa City Public Library as one of the best (33%) or above average (42%); · 74% say the library is very (47%) or fairly (27%) important to them and their family; and Even though the local option sales tax referendum was soundly defeated, voters in that election voice strong sentiment in favor of expanding the Iowa City Public Library and funding its operating expenses. · 59% of Local Option Sales Tax voters strongly (34%) or mostly supported (25%) expanding the library. · 69% strongly (35%) or mostly (34%) favor providing supported for library operating expenses. · The library belongs downtown (64% say this is their personal preference) and we see little support for branch libraries. Opposition to the Local Option Sales Tax does not translate into a lack of support for the library. In fact, the opposite holds true. Those who voted no in the March 30m referendum express strongly favorable attitudes toward the library: '. 75% of Local Option Sales Tax opponents rate the Iowa City Public Library as one of the best (31%)or above average (44%); · 73% say the library is very (44%) or fai~y (29%) important to them and their family; and Even a majority of those who voted against the sales tax favored library expansion and fund allocation for operating expenses:. · 51% of no-voters strongly (25%) or mostly supported (26%) expanding the library. · 60% strongly (26%) or mostly (34%) favored providing support for library operating expenses. S~r2:~, & COMI'A.NY PAOB 2 Interpretation These findings confirm that the ~:esounding no vote in the sales tax election was opposition to the form of the tax, not the content of the proposal with specific regard to the library. While strong support bodes well for a new library initiative, respondents do not yet fully commit to fund a new building. At some point in the near future, Iowa City residents will be asked once more to put their money where their mouth is--this time in the form of a bond referendum. If the vote were held today, the library would come in short of the 60% favor needed to pass: Just half(50%) of definite voters (drawn from both the LOST sample and a general election sample) say they would vote .for the bond. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say they'll vote against it; the remaining 11% are unsure. The task to pass is made a bit more complicated by the fact that slightly more no-voters than' yes-voters (64% to 58%) say they've made up their minds and could not be persuaded to vote otherwise. Interpretation As a starting point, a 50% approval rating for a tax increase is fairly solid ground. After all, property owners would be voting themselves a tax increase. When half agree to a new tax, this must be considered good news. Of course, more than half--60% is needed to pass a bond issue, so this is far from a done deal. Groups who see the need most clearly are: · Citizens with children under 18 living in their household (58% would vote yes, versus 46% of those who do not have children). · Those with graduate schooling (64%, versus 38% with no graduate schooling). · Women (53%, versus 45% of men). As we might expect, library enthusiasts are more likely to vote yes, including: · Regular visitors to the library--those frequenting the facility ten or more times in the past year (68%, versus 30% of less regular users). Residents who value the library most--those saying the .facility is very important to them and their family (71%, versus 30% of individuals to whom the library is less important). Interpretation These are the groups who form the core of committed supporters and would be essential to a successful outcome. Sm'.znn. & COMPANY PAGB 3 The most convincing arguments speak to the symbol of a library in a place like Iowa City, and concerns over threatened services. The strongest argument tested in this survey underscores the importance of a library to a city like Iowa City. The second theme involves what is threatened by the library' s current situation--programming and innovation. Vcr)' c.nvincin~ Iowa City is the Lind of commtmity that must have a stro~ pubiLi~ .......... library. 49 65 FOR Ttc~ BOND 70 86 AGAINST THE BOND 21 38 Cutling back library program.q because of a lack of space is not in the best interest of this community. 37 56 FOR THE BOND 58 78 AGAINST THE BOND 12 29 The library cannot be innovative when there is not space for new programs, new collections, or new computers. 27 49 FOR THE BOND 44 69 A GA/Nb'T THE BOND 8 20 Cuts in library services hurt those in the lowest income group the most. 23 39 FOR THE BOND 30 50 AGAINST THE BOND 14 24 The library is crowded now and that makes it more difficult to use its services. 22 43 FOR THE BOND 37 62 AGAINST THE BOND 6 15 Very/fairly c{m~incin:~ In their volunteered reasons for voting in favor of the LOST and bond referendum, proponents reiterate their willingness to support the library, believing it needs to be upgraded and expanded (78%). In addition, they believe the cost--at $50 per $100,000 valuation--is reasonable (15%), again underscoring a willingness to pay for what is needed. Opponents argue that taxes are too high now (28%), the city doesn't need a new library (26%), that there must be alternatives to a new library (18%), and that they don't trust government to spend money wisely (16%). These reasons differ little from volunteered explanations for voting against the LOST. In those comments, no-voters said money did not need to be spent on library or the cultural center (20%), that t. he sales tax was regressive (15%), that they don't trust government (14%), and that they are alregdy overtaxed (14%). Interpretation One of the things these data clarify is the lack of support for the cultural center that was part of the LOST proposal. The cultural center and the sales tax vehicle for raising revenue were the biggest detractors. And a new library proposal would likely not carry that baggage. ,qm,zmt. &; COMPANY PAOI~ 4 To be effective, these arguments in favor of a new library need to be translated into concrete problems with real consequences. The clearer picture you can paint in citizens' minds, the more solid support becomes. We recommend thinking through a list of things the library cannot do now that it could do in a new building. And, we recommend that this list focus on core services, not what would be perceived as unnecessary frills. A wish for branch libraries appears to pose no stumbling block. In testing arguments against building a new library, respondents heard one that suggested branch libraries would be a better solution.. Among those who would oppose building a new library, this argument ranks fourth out of five tested. Anti-tax voters dislike property taxes as well as sales taxes. A certain core of Iowa City voters is tax-adverse. Fifty-nine percent (59%) believe the contention that property taxes are already too high is a good reason to vote against the bond referendum. Property taxes axe 'already too high. FOR TI-IE BOND A GA/NST THE BOND This community would be better serviced by adding a branch library than building a whole new library. 27 FOR TIlE BOND 14 A C_;A/NST THE BOND 43 This library is only 20 years old; we can't afford to keep building new hl~raries. 25 FOR THE BOND 9 AGAJNST THE BOND 49 The current library is good enough for now. 23 FOR THE BOND 3 AGAINST THE BOND 52 Computer technology is making libraries obsolete. 10 FOR THE BOND 5 AGAINST THE BOND 18 35 19 53 36 16 62 37 12 69 15 7 27 Interpretation What is evident in this analysis is the conflict between symbol and money. More than 70% of yes-voters say a convincing reason to vote for the bond referendum is because Iowa City is the type of place that needs a strong library. This is not a concrete need, but an abstract concept. It is countered by more than 70% of no-voters saying that property taxes are already too high. These no-voters are unlikely to be moved by symbols. In fact they are likely immovable. The library's best shot is to find a way that this bond issue will actually cost taxpayers less in the long run. l~v2mK & COMPANY PAO~ 5 Beyond the symbolism of a new library and threats to needed services and programs, citizens need to see benefits for all in a new library building. The theme of the most valuable services is convenience and saving patrons' time. This shines through in strong percentages endorsing the need for: · Additional parking facilities; · A quicker means to pick up and return library materials; and · Greater visibility for the collections. In addition, support for ehildren's programming reinforces the symbolic importance of public libraries. Vc,'y Vcr)'/fairly ~alu;llfic vahialfic % Additional parking for library patrons. 56 VOTED FOR THE LOST 64 VOTED AGAINST THE LOST 46 Expanding children' s area. 40 VOTED FOR THE LOST 56 VOTED A GA/NST THE LOST 22 Expanded library shelving to display the library's full collection. 30 VOTED FOR THE LOST 51 VOTED AGAINSTTHE LOST 6 More computer terminals for access to the library' s catalog and the InterneL 27 VOTED FOR THE LOST 39 VOTED AGAINST THE LOST 12 A drive up window for book returns. 26 VOTED FOR THE LOST 33 VOTED AGAINST THE LOST 14 Increased seLf-service options, such as a seLf-check-out so lines move faster. 22 VOTED FOR THE LOST 32 VOTEDAGAINSTTHE LOST 10 Expanded quiet reading spaces with comfortable seating. 20 VOTED FOR THE LOST 31 VOTED AGAINSTTHE LOST 5 An upgraded community room for large meetings and program.~. 19 VOTED FOR THE LOST 30 VOTED AGAINST TIlE LOST 7 A drive-up window to pick up reserved items. 15 VOTED FOR THE LOST 19 VOTED A GA/NST THE LOST 8 More meeting rooms to accommodate more groups who need the space. : VOTED FOR THE LOST VOTED AGAINST THE LOST VOTED FOR THE LOST VOTED A GA/NST THE LOST A coffee bar. 15 23 5 1 3 70 76 61 57 74 39 54 80 25 46 62 25 47 62 27 41 53 28 39 57 16 35 51 15 30 35 20 28 40 12 7 10 3 SELZEK & COMPANY PAOB 6 Interpretation This list of valued attributes in a'new library articulates what' s in this for voters. While the symbolism of the library helps you create a rallying cry, and the need to tend to children tugs at emotional hemstrings, the idea that the average voter who uses the library will have an easier time cements the core arguments for the campaign. This makes the vote rational. To be effective, again, you'll need to paint pictures that contrast what must happen now with what will happen in the new building. The issue of whether a new library should be located downtown can be put to rest. There is little question regarding the location of the library. Sixty-one percent (63%) say they personally prefer a downtown location. In addition, another 1% can be persuaded that downtown is the best solution for all library users and residents of Iowa City (when asked to separate their own preference from what would be in the best interest of the community). The prospeas for success are no better and no worse if the vote were held during a general election. To test this possibility, we interviewed a small sawnpie of 200 general election voters as an early gauge of any difference in support for a library referendum. General election voters are considerably less likely to say they would definitely vote in such an election (50%, compared to 71% of past LOST voters). This makes them a less predictable group on the whole. And, they are just as inclined to vote yes (51% would support the library bond, compared to 49% of past LOST voters). Interpretation We believe the library would fare the best with its own election, rather than including the bond issue on a general election ballot. With the smaller turnout of a special election, the library stands a better chance of mounting a successful get-out-the-vote campaign with its supporters. With candidates on the ballot---especially presidential candidates--it will be difficult for the library to be heard amidst the ballyhoo to make its case. Had we seen a much stronger yes-vote among general election voters; then the greater potential for victory may have offset the risk. These data show a much greater risk in adding this to the general election ballot, with no offsetting gain. In Summary A bond referendum to build a new library is not a done deal--the case must be made. Still, when 50% of the electorate raise their hands, and say "tax me," this is a firm starting point. The library will need to begin its work by documenting the need. A large percentage of non-supporters fail to believe a new library is needed. While most of those will never be COMPANY PACH~ 7 persuaded otherwise, the more you can document what's not happening at the library, the more you increase support and the more chance you have of changing minds. The core arguments of the campaign need to focus on: · The symbolic importance of the library to Iowa City; · The threat to current programming--especially children' s programming; and · The ease and convenience benefits to be gained by all. In addition, if the library can show financially that taking this step now .saves money in the long run, this argument stands the best shot at convincing those who do not currently support the project. SI:IT-~I~It. &; CO1VIPAlq'Y PAOB I1 Study#1619 300 LOST voters in Iowa City zips (sample 1) 200 General election voters in Iowa City zips (sample 2) SELLER & COMPANY May 1999 IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SURVEY A. Before we get started, do you live inside the city limits of Iowa City or not? , LOST GE 100 100 Inside Continue - Outside Terminate - Not sure Did you happen to vote in the March 30t~ election about raising the local sales tax by one cent to support a number of city and county services? LOST GE 96 52 Yes, voted Continue 2 46 No, did not vote Skip to Q.6 2 2 Not sure How did you vote in that election--yes in favor of the sales tax increase or no, against the sales tax increase? (LOST, n ' 289, GE = 103) LOST GE 28 27 Yes, infavor 57 58 No, against 15 15 Not sure Can you tell me the strongest reasons why you voted (for/against) the sales tax increase? (Respondents were allowed to give multiple responses: Percentages total more than 100%.) (LOST, n = 289, GE = 103) Against Fgr LOST GE LOST GE 23 10 15 13 15 8 14 17 9 - 7 10 6 8 5 2 4 3 3 5 3 3 12 2 3 1 2 6 12 2 3 Don' t need to spend money Sales tax is regressive Don't trust government Already overtaxed Too many things tacked on Wouldn't vote for any tax No clear use for money Bad location/not downtown No sunset clause/no end date Other ~qays to get money Not thought out Not needed at this time Money going to the wrong things Too much money to be spent Other None/Don' t knowfRefused 31 21 17 50 17 4 17 15 7 5 7 2 7 Support library Community improvement/development Suppon other specific projects Projects/improvements were needed Fair tax/good way to raise money Money comes from outside county Wouldn't cost that much 14 Other 7 None/Don't how/Refused SELZ,m~ & COMPANY PAaB 1 (Ask Q.4 only of those who voted against.) 4. I understand you voted against the sales tax increase. Was this vote more because you didn't support the projects the extra tax money would be spent on, more became you oppose raising the sales tax specifically, or more because you oppose afiy new tax? (LOST, n = 163, GE -- 60) LOST GE 39 35 Didn't support projects 43 38 Oppose raising sales tax as a way to raise revenue. 5 10 Oppose any new tax. 11 12 Other(VOL) 2 5 Not sure I'm going to mention the individual elements of the proposal that were on the ballot for the March 30t~ ' referendum. I'd like you to put aside your feelings about whether the sales tax is the best way to raise money and also put aside how you voted on March 30th and tell me for each of these elements whether this is a project you strongly support, mostly support, mostly oppose, or strongly oppose. (Rotate lists.) (LOST, n = 289, GE = 103) Strongly Mostly Mostly Strongly Not Support Support Oppose Oppose Sure A. Support for the water works to offset a rise in rates for water LOST 24 GE 30 B. Expanding the public library LOST 34 GE 30 C. Support for operating expense of the library LOST 35 GE 34 D. Construction of a community events center LOST 7 GE 7 E. Support for operating expense of a community events center LOST 5 GE 7 F. Support for public transportation LOST 33 GE 31 G. Support for hiring police, firefighters and other public safety personnel LOST 28 GE 28 H. Support for human service agencies LOST 30 GE 32 36 16 16 8 37 15 10 8 25 15 18 8 29 18 21 2 34 13 15 3 29 20 14 3 23 30 36 4 15 26 44 8 ' 22 32 35 6 19 31 37 6 43 14 6 4 45 14 7 3 48 15 5 4 46 12 7 7 44 13 7 6 43 12 8 5 SRV.7.RI & COlvlPANY I'd like to talk specifically about the Iowa City Public Library. First, can you tell me about how many times you've been inside the Library building or used any Library services in the past year--to use the services, attend a meeting, or for any otherxeason. LOST GE 13 14 None 5 6 One 13 22 Two to four 16 15 Five to nine 52 43 Tenormore 1 - Not sure I'd like to get a rating from you about the overall quality of the Iowa City Public Library--based on your experience or just what you happen to know of its reputation. Compared to other libraries with which you might be familiar in cities of roughly similar size, do you consider the Iowa City Public Library to be one of the best, above average, about average, or below average? LOST GE 33 22 One ofthe'best 42 46 Above average 15 20 About avcragc 1 2 Below average 9 10 Not sure How important is the Iowa City Public Library to you and your family--is it'very important, fairly important, just somewhat important, or not important ? LOST GE 47 42 Very important 27 26 Fairly important 16 19 Just somewhat important 9 12 Not important 1 1 Not sure The city of Iowa City is considering building a new library. I'm going to ask your opinion on this issue in a moment, but here are some facts that are relevant: First, the structure of the current building cannot be expanded without great expense and temporary relocation. Second, the building was built at a time when low population growth was expected for Iowa City. In fact, in the 1980s, Iowa City was the fastest growing city in the upper Midwest. Third, a branch library is not being considered because the additional operating costs would require cuts in other parts of city government. I' m going to mention some of the services that would be possible with a new building. For each, please tell mc how valuable this would bc to you--very valuablc, fairly valuable, just somewhat valuable, or not valuable? (Rotate list.) A, Expanded children' s area, including room for Story Tim~ and other children's programming LOST GE Just Very Fairly Somewhat Not Not Valuable Valuable Valuable Valuable Sure 35 20 21 21 3 38 18 22 20 2 S~.z~ & COMPANY PAGE 3 Very · Valuable B. Expanded quiet reading spaces with comfortable seating LOST 16 GE 23 C. An upgraded community room for large meetings and programs LOST 16 GE 14 D. A drive up window to pick up reserved items LOST 11 GE 18 E. More meeting rooms to accommodate more groups who need the space LOST 12 GE 14 F. Additional parking for Librm3r patrons LOST 53 GE 52 More computer terminals for access to the library' s catalog and the Intemet LOST 23 GE 30 A drive up window for book returns LOST 23 GE 32 Expanded library shelving to display the library' s full collection LOST 27 GE 32 J. A coffee bar LOST GE 4 Increase sclf-scrvicc options, such as self-check-out so lines move faster LOST 20 GE 28 Fakly Valuable 21 20 19 16 15 14 13 19 14 18 20 18 21 18 27 24 4 10 21 21 Just Somewhat Valuable 30 25 29 30' 25 22 30 28 16 13 26 22 22 20 25 24 11 14 30 22 Not Valuable 31 32 33 37 47 44 37 35 16 15 24 26 32 28 17 18 84 71 22 27 Not Sure 2 3 3 2 2 8 4 1 2 7 4 2 2 4 2 S~x.z~l>, & COMPAlq"/ PAGE 4 I'm going to mention some reasons for and against raising the property tax to fund building a new library. For each argument I mention, please tell me if you fred it very convincing, fairly convincing, just somewhat convincing, or not convincing: (Alternate Q.10 and Q.11 every other intervieW. Rotate lists.) Just Very Fairly Somewhat Not Not Convincing Convincing Convincing Convincing Sure 10. A. The library is crowded now and that makes it more difficult to use its services LOST 20 GE 24 B. Cutting back library programs because of a lack of space is not in the best interest of this community LOST 34 GE 34 C. Iowa City is the kind of COmmllnity that must have a strong public library LOST 47 GE 46 D. Cuts in library services hurt those in the lowest income group the most LOST 19 GE 28 E. The library cannot bc innovative when there is no space for new programs, new collections, or new computers LOST 24 GE 26 18 28 31 3 26 18 28 4 19 20 25 2 18 18 24 6 18 19 15 1 18 20 14 2 15 23 37 6 22 20 25 5 22 24 27 3 24 22 25 3 I1. Just Very Fairly Somewhat Not Convincing Convincing Convincing Convincing Property taxes arc already too high LOST 42 GE 40 This community would be better served by adding a branch library than building a whole new library LOST 29 GE 24 The current library is good enough for now LOST 19 GE 20 Not Sure 18 14 24 2 17 18 21 4 10 13 40 8 13 22 36 5 16 25 38 2 15 26 36 3 SBLZ~ & COMPANY PAGB 5 12. 13. D, Just Very Fairly Somewhat Not .Convincing Convincing Convincing Convincing Not Sure Computer technology is making libraries obsolete LOST 9 5 13 70 3 GE 8 8 14 68 2 This library is only 20 years old; we Can't afford to keep building new libraries LOST 23 10 24 41 2 GE 20 17 20 40 3 The city is considering .a referendum to float a bond to cover the cost of building a new library. How likely is it you will vote in that election--will you definitely vote, probably vote, might or might not vote, or probably not vote? ' LOST GE 71 50 Definitely vote 23 'SIt 3g Probably vote 4 c~ -q Might or might not vote 1 ~, ~5 Probably not vote 1 Not sure The referendum would probably call for an increase of $50 per $100,000 home valuation in property tax until the building is paid for. The only thing this money could be spent un is construction of a new library. If this election were held today, how do you think you would vote---yes, in favor of the bond issue, or no, against it? LOST GE 49 51 Yes, in favor 39 36 No, against Askb 12 13 Not sure Skip to Q.15 Would you say your mind is made up to vote this way, or could you still be persuaded to vote the other way? (LOST, n = 263; GE, n=174) LOST GE 53 56 Mind is made up 45 39 Could still be persuaded 2 5 Not sure S~r ~ & COlvII'ANY PAO~ 6 14. 15. What are the main reasons you would vote (FOR/AGAINST) this proposal? (LOST, n=263; GE, n=174) (Respondents were allowed to give multiple responses: Percentages total more than 100%.) Against For LOST GE LOST 28 22 Don't need new library 75 27 29 Taxes too high/No more 16 17 19 Alternatives to new library 8 13 21 Don't trust government 6 11 12 Downtown bad location 7 6 Other ways to raise money 4 3 6 Don't use library 3 GE 82 Support library 13 Wouldn't cost much 5 Community support 1 Support other projects 4 Other 3 None/Don't how/refused 7 11 Other 4 1 None/Don' t know/refused I have one last issue to ask you about. Some residents of Iowa City have questioned whether the best or most convenient location for the library is in the downtown area. Others say that downtown is the geographic center and transportation hub and the library adds to downtown vitality. What is your opinion? Would you personally prefer the library to be in a different location, or do you think it should stay downtown? LOST GE 28 25 Prefer different location Ask b-c 61 67 Prefer it to stay downtown Skip to Q.100 11 8 Not sure- b, In what general part of the city would you prefer it to be located--in the Northeast, Southeast, or West side of the city? (LOST, n = 83; GE, n = 50) LOST GE 11 16 Northeast 35 40 Southeast 23 14 West side (Interview note: this includes Manville Heights ) 31 30 Not sure C, Sometimes what we prefer personally differs from what we think is the best solution for everyone concerned. I just asked you about your personal preference and that is noted and will be considered. Would your opinion change ffI asked you about the best location for all library users and residents oflowa City? (LOST, n = 83; GE, n = 50) LOST GE 31 28 Yes. would change Ask d 50 58 No, would not change Skip to Q.100 19 14 Not sure SELZ~I~& COMPANY PAGE 7 d, Do you think it's the best solution for the library to be in a different location, or do you think it should stay downtown? (LOST, n -- 26; GE n = 14) LOST GE 73 86 Different location 19 Stay downtown 3 14 Not sure These last questions are asked just to see what cross-section of Iowa City and Johnson County residents we are interviewing. 100a. What is your age? (WRITE IN ACTUAL AGE :) __ __ b. (CODE PROPER CATEGORY:) LOST GE LOST GE - 10 Under 25 19 14 55 to 64 5 14 25 to 34 31 16 65 and over 17 21 35 to 44 2 1 Refused/not sure 26 i~ 4 45 to 54 101. What is the last grade of school you've completed? LOST GE - 1 12 13 16 23 25 34 46 28 1 1 Less than high school graduate High school graduate Some college or 2-year degree College degree Graduate schooling or degree Refused/not sure 102. Do you happen to have children under age 18 living in your household? LOST GE 32 32 Yes 66 68 No 2 - Refused/not sure 103. Do you live in a home you own or a home you rent ? LOST GE 91 72 Own 8 28 Rent 1 - Refused/not sure SBLZBK & COMPANY PAGB 8 104. Generally, in what part of Iowa City do you live--the Northeast, Southeast, the West side oft he city, or the downtown area? LOST GE 32 28 29 34 26 28 6 4 7 6 Northeast Southeast West side (Interview note: this includes Manville Heights) Downtown area Not sure 105. What is your household income? LOST GE 24 24 Less than $25,000 6 14 $25,000 to $49,999 33 24 $50,000 to $74,999 23 29 $75,000 or higher 14 9 Refused/Not sure 106. Respondent sex: LOST GE 43 40 Male 57 60 Female Thank you for your time. We truly appreciate your help. COMPANY PAGB 9 87/13/99 08:46:15 319-3S4-4213 -> +319356SB09 I~g~ CITY CLERR Page 001 Johnson CoLmt~ ]~ IOWA Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Charles P. Duffy Miohaol E. Lehman Sally Bratsman Carol Thompson BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Agenda Boardroom - 2nd Floor Johnson County Administration Building 913 South Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Wednesday, July 14, 1999 INFORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 3:00 p.m. 2. Work Session re: development of Board of Supervisors goals and benchmarks for FY 2001. discussion 3. Adjouru City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: July 9, 1999' RE: Out of Town I will be out of the office from Friday afternoon, July 16 through Tuesday afternoon, July 20. I will return to work Wednesday. Dale will have my itinerary.