HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-12 Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will
be held by the City Eouncil of Iowa City, Iowa, at
7:00 p.m. on the 12~ day of September, 2000, in
the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said
meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the
City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk;
at which hearing the Council will consider:
An ordinance conditionally amending the
approved sensitive areas development plan
for Lot 52 of Walden Hills, a 4.89 acre
property located on the west side of
Shannon Drive, south of Willow Creek.
b. An ordinance designating the property
located at 13 S. Linn Street as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
ppdadm/nph9-12-O0.doc
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY CONDITIONALLY AMENDING THE APPROVED
SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 52 OF WALDEN HILLS, A 4.89 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED IN THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-8) ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHANNON DRIVE
SOUTH OF WILLOW CREEK,
WHEREAS, the Owner, Walden Wood Associates, II, LLP, is Owner and legal title holder of approximately 4.89
acres of property located on the west side of Shannon Drive south of Willow Creek; and
WHEREAS, Owner has requested approval of an amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lot 52 of
Walden Hills, which would result in a total of 19 detached, single-family dwellings to be located on a parcel
previously approved for 32 townhouse-style dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions ensuring
the installation of neighborhood infrastructure in accordance with the original Sensitive Areas Development Plan,
said amended plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code, Section 414.5 (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy
public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the
installation of necessary neighborhood infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, Owner has agreed to use this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a
Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the above-referenced neighborhood infrastructure issues are
addressed.
NOW. THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, attached
hereto and incorporated herein, a revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan is hereby accepted and approved for
the following described property:
Lot 52, Walden Hills, Iowa City, Iowa in accordance with the plat recorded in Book 38, at page 18, of the
records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. Total tract area 4.89 acres:
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication
of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. Following final passage and approval of this ordinance,
the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement
between the property Owner and the City.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, and after
execution of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of
this ordinance and the Conditional Zoning Agreement and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder
of Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance
are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section. provision or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section,
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as required by law.
Passed and approved this __ day of ,2000.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
p admin~ord~waldhills,
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City. IA 52240; 319/356-5243
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter "City"), Walden Wood Associates II, LLP, an Iowa Limited Partnership (hereinafter Owner").
WHEREAS, the Owner. is owner and legal title holder of approximately 4.89 acres of property located
on the west side of Shannon Drive south of Willow Creek; and
WHEREAS, Owner has requested approval of an amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lot
52 of Walden Hills, which would result in a total of 19 detached, single-family dwellings to be located on a
parcel previously approved for 32 townhouse-style dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions
ensuring the installation of neighborhood infrastructure in accordance with the original Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, said amended plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code, Section 414.5 (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure
the installation of necessary neighborhood infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, Owner has agreed to use this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the above-referenced neighborhood infrastructure
issues are addressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Walden Wood Associates II, LLP, is the property owner and legal title holder of property located on
the west side of Shannon Drive south of Willow Creek, which property is more particularly described
as follows:
Lot 52, Walden Hills, Iowa City, Iowa in accordance with the plat recorded in Book 38, at page 18, of
the records of the Johnson County Recorders Office. Total tract area 4.89 acres:
2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure installation of necessary neighborhood
infrastructure. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (1999) provides that the City of
Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing-regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested
change. Therefore, Owner agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations as detailed
below.
3. In consideration of the City's approval of the revised sensitive areas development plan for Lot 52,
Walden Hills, Owner agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements
of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the RS-8 zone, unless superseded by provisions of the revised
sensitive areas development plan associated with this rezoning request, as well as the following
conditions:
a. The Owner shall not request nor shall the City issue building permits for Lots 1 through 19 within
the Resubdivision of Lot 52, Walden Hills until such time that Shannon Drive and all associated
2
a. The Owner shall not request nor shall the City issu6 building permits for Lots I through 19 within
the Resubdivision of Lot 52, Walden Hills until such time that Shannon Drive and all associated
improvements are constructed and extended north across Willow Creek to the north boundary of
the Walden Hills subdivision, and said improvements are accepted by the City.
b. Existing evergreen trees along the Highway 218 frontage of the property shall be avoided and
retained on the site to the extent possible. If grading and development activities associated with
the redevelopment of Lot 52 necessitate the removal of any of the existing trees, each tree shall
be replaced with a new tree of a similar size and species to those removed.
c. Traffic claming techniques, as illustrated on the preliminary plat for a Resubdivision of Lot 52,
Walden Hills and the revised sensitive areas development plan associated with this request to
rezone, shall be incorporated into the design of Shannon Drive, subject to final design approval by
City staff.
4. The Owner acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose
on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (1999), and that said conditions satisfy public needs which are
directly caused by the requested zoning change.
/
5. The Owner acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or
subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant
running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant
running with the title to the land unless or until released of record by the City. The Parties further
acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives
and assigns of the Parties.
7. Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve
the Owner from complying with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
8. The Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
Ordinance rezoning the subject property. and that upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance,
this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Owner's expense.
Dated this day of ,2000.
WALDEN WOOD ASSOCIATES II, L.L.P. CITY OF IOWA CITY
By: '~a~a By:
Wil ppel for Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor
.r--- Raymor;'J J. H ~ ust
By: {,~,. (jJ2,~ Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Southgate Development Company
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of 2000, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for the 'State of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest
W. Lehman and Madan K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they
are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing
instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf
of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in (Ordinance) (Resolution) No.
passed by the City Council, on the day of ,2000, and
that Ernest W. Lehman and Madan K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their
voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of ,2000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for said County, in said State, personally appeared William R. Happel, to me known to be the identical
persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he
executed the same as his voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of ,2000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Myles Braverman, to me known to be the identical
persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he
executed the same as his voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
pl~aclmin~agt%waldenwd2 doc
Prepared bv.(! Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, I a City, IA 52240; 319/356-5243
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREE NT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Io a City, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter "City"), Walden Wood Associates II, LLP, an Iowa ' ited Partnership (hereinafter Owner").
WHEREAS, the Owner, is owner and legal title holder o approximately 4.89 acres of property located
r Areas Development Plan for Lot
52 of Walden Hills, which would 'result in a total of 19 etached, single-family dwellings to be located on a
parcel previously approved for 32 tOwnhouse-style d Ilings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Comm' sion has determined that, with appropriate conditions
WHEREAS, Iowa Code, Section 2 . (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an appli nt's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs directly caus d ~y the requested change; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledge that ce ain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure
p ccordance with the terms and conditions of
NOW, THEREFORE, in consi eration of mutual promise contained herein, the Pa~ies agree as follows:
1. Walden Wood Associa s II, LLP, is the prope~ own and legal title holder of prope~ located on
:f~:ide of Sha .e south of Willow Creek, hich prope~ is more pa~icularly described
Lot 52, Walden Hill~ Iowa City, Iowa in accordance with the lat recorded in Book 38, at page 18, of
the records of the ~hnson County Recorder's Office. Total tra t area 4.89 acres:
Iowa City may i' pose reasonable conditions on granting an appli ant's rezoning request, over and
· / .
of the Sensiti~ Areas Ordinance and the RS-8 zone, unless superseded by provisions of the revised
sensitive areas '~velopment plan associated with this rezoning request, as well as the following
conditions:
2
a. The Owner shall not request nor shall the City issue building permits for Lots 1 through 19 within
the Resubdivision of Lot 52, Walden Hills until such time that Shannon Drive and all associated
improvements are constructed and extended north across Willow Creek to the north boundary of
the Walden Hills subdivision, and said improvements are accepted by the City.
b. ".Existing evergreen trees along the Highway 218 frontage of the property shall be avoided and
retained on the site to the extent possible. If grading and development activities associated with
the 'r~edevelopment of Lot 52 necessitate the removal of any of the existing trees, each tree shall
be replaced with a new tree of a similar size and species to those removec
c. Traffic claming techniques, as illustrated on the preliminary plat Resubdivision of Lot 52,
Walden Hills and the revised sensitive areas development plan ~ted with this request to
rezone, shall be. incorporated into the design of Shannon Drive, ect to final design approval by
City staff.
4. The Owner acknowledge~ that the conditions contained herei reasonable conditions to impose
on the land under Iowa Co~ §414.5 (1999), and that said satisfy public needs which are
directly caused by the requested zoning change.
\,
5. The Owner acknowledges that i~the event the sub is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or
subdivided, all redevelopment will nform with the ter of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The Parties acknowledge that this itional Zo Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant
running with the land and with title to shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant
running with the title to the land unless of record by the City. The Parties further
acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure benefit of and bind all successors, representatives
and assigns of the Parties. //
7. Owner acknowledges that nothing in Agreement shall be construed to relieve
the Owner from complying with all appli,~ble local, and federal regulations.
8. The Parties agree that this Condition t' Zoning Ag nail be incorporated by reference into the
~r's Office at the Owner's expense.
Dated this day of / ,2000.
/
!
WALDEN WOOD ASSOCIATES)f, L.L.P. CITY OF IOWA
By: , By:
~ Ernest W. Lehman,
William R. Happel for
Raymond J. Happel TruSt
By: / Attest:
Company
3
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , 2000, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest
W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they
are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing
instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf
of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in (Ordinance) (Resolution) No.
passed by the City Council, on the day of ,2000, and
that Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their
voluntary act and deed and the vol~tary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
% Notary Public in and for the S~ate of Iowa
\ /
', My commission expires:'
'\ ,..
STATE OF IOWA )
)ss: \
JOHNSON COUNTY ) ~'., .,,
~, /
'\
On this day of 'e!7,~ ~000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
executed the same as his voluntary act and de .
/ No ry Public in and for the State of Iowa
,..,~-' My co mission expires:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY ) ,'
On this day of /~ 2000 fore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for said County, in saic~'State personally appeared Myl~s raverman, to me known to be the identical
persons named in and W~o exe;suted the within and foregoi instrument, and acknowledged that he
executed the same as hiS.iVoluntary act and deed.
Nota e State of Iowa
.// My commission expires: ,,..
ppdadmin~agt\waldenwd2.doc
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Item: REZ00-0005/SUB00-0016. Lot 52, Walden Hills Date: July 6, 2000
Preliminary Plat and Revised Sensitive Areas
Development Plan
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Walden Wood Partners II, LLP
PO Box 1907
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Phone: 3374195
Contact person: MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 351-8282
Requested action: Preliminary plat and amended
preliminary sensitive areas development
plan.
Purpose: To create a 19-lot residential subdivision
Location: The west side of Shannon Ddve, south of
Willow Creek
Size: 4.89 acres
Existing land use and zoning: Vacant, OSA-8
Surrounding land use and zoning: North: Willow Creek open space,
undeveloped Residential, OSA-
8 and RS-5;
East: Willow Creek open space and
residential, OSA-8;
South: residential, OSA-8;
West: Highway 218, residential, RS-5.
Comprehensive Plan: Residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre
Applicable Code requirements:' Article 14-6K, Sensitive Areas Ordinance;
Chapter 14-7, Land Subdivisions
File date: June 16, 2000
45~day limitation period: July 31, 2000
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Walden Wood Partners II, LLP, is requesting a preliminary plat and revised
sensitive areas development plan for a Resubdivision of Lot 52, Walden Hills, located on the west
side of Shannon Drive, south of Willow Creek. This parcel contains approximately 4.89 acres and
is zoned Sensitive Areas Overlay - Medium Density Residential (OSA-8).
The rezoning and sensitive areas development plan for the Walden Hills development was
approved in 1997. At that time, Lot 52 was approved for the development of eight four-unit
townhouse buildings arranged around a pedestrian open space in the center of the property.
Ea~ier this year, an application was filed to amend that plan to change the orientation of the
dwelling units and the character of the proposed open space area. The application was deferred
indefinitely at the request of the applicant due to unresolved design issues. The current proposal
is a request to activate the previous rezoning application with a new revised sensitive areas
development plan, and for an assodated preliminary plat based on the revised design.
Lot 52 was rezoned and platted in 1997 along with the rest of the Walden Hills development.
Because of the presence of a stream corridor (Willow Creek) and a woodland on the 40+ acre
property, a sensitive areas overlay rezoning was required. The creek and most of the woodland
were set aside within two outlots that are to be dedicated to the City. The sensitive areas
development plan illustrated a shift in density on the overall property from the single-family areas
along the east side of the site to Lots 51, 52 and 53 along the north and west sides of the site.
Although Lot 52 does not contain any environmentally sensitive features, this application is being
treated as an amendment to the previously approved sensitive areas development plan, and the
site will retain its OSA-8 designation as a means of keeping its association with the original
sensitive areas development plan intact.
ANALYSIS:
This application requests both a revision to a portion of an approved sensitive areas development
plan and a subdivision of the property into individual lots. The revised development plan will be
reviewed with respect to the odginal approved plan to determine whether the alterations will
compromise the intent of the overall development plan and to assess the relationship of such a
change to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed preliminary plat will be reviewed
with respect to the City's subdivision regulations.
REZ00-0005. Revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan: The proposed alterations to the
approved development plan include the development of a different type of housing unit and an
altemative building layout and street design. Previously, eight four-unit townhouse buildings were
proposed, arranged around a pedestrian courtyard, with vehicular access provided by a loop
street around the outside of the development. The current proposal includes a pubic street down
the center of the property with 19 single-family lots arranged along both sides of the street. Since
this parcel is slightly removed from and isolated from the rest of the Walden Hills development to
the south and east, and is well buffered by large open space parcels to the nodh, staff feels that
the proposed revisions to the development plan will have relatively little impact on the surrounding
area.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for residential development at between two and eight dwelling
units per acre in this area. The proposed plan would result in a decrease in the overall net density
of the Walden Hills development (7.23 units per acre as approved in 1997), but it would still fit well
within this recommended density range. The plan also contains a number of policies to help guide
planning and decision making regarding the development of new neighborhoods. Most of these
are broad policies that deal with overall neighborhood design issues, such as a desire for
interconnected street systems, neighborhood commercial centers that are conveniently located to
serve the day-to-day needs of neighborhood residents, the provision of ample parks, trails and
open spaces to serve neighborhood residents, and the provision of diverse housing types within
neighborhoods to accommodate a variety of household types. Most of these policies are
accommodated on other properties within the neighborhood or are difficult to address on a
relatively small, isolated parcel such as this. However, the goal of providing diverse housing types
is one that deserves consideration in association with this application.
The original sensitive areas development plan included the approval of six different residential
building types, including a number of single-family lots along Emily Court, Irving Avenue, and
Jacques Street, zero-lot line duplexes along Shannon Drive, detached single-family
condominiums at the south end of Emily Court on Lot 7, a future senior housing facility on Lot 53,
multi-unit condominiums on Lot 51, and the above mentioned townhouses on Lot 52, the subject
parcel. That plan has been changed once to permit the development of 25 single-family
residences on narrow lots to replace the proposed condominiums on Lot 51. Although this
resulted in additional single-family units within the development, those located on Lot 51 are
different in size and character than others within the neighborhood and did not diminish the variety
of housing types available. The revised plan for Lot 52 would result in the development of
additional detached single-family residences, likely similar to those found elsewhere within
Walden Hills, and would reduce the variety of housing types originally planned for this
development. However, within the broader neighborhood there is a wide variety of housing
available, including single-family dwellings of various sizes and on a wide range of lot sizes,
duplexes, townhouses, multi-family buildings, and senior housing. Staff feels that the proposed
amendment to the appmved plan will not have a significant impact on the housing options
available within this neighborhood.
When this property was rezoned along with the rest of the 40+ acre Walden Hills property in 1997,
a conditional zoning agreement was adopted that contained conditions that apply to the
development of Lot 52. To ensure that there was an incentive for the developer to construct
Shannon Ddve to the north property line, the agreement spedties that this will occur along with
the development of Lot 52. Also, to address traffic concems along Shannon Ddve, neck-downs
were required'at all of the intersections along Shannon Ddve within this development as a traffic
calming measure. Although the plan has changed and there will now be one street intersection
instead of two pdvate ddve intersections along Shannon, staff recommends that a neck-down be
provided at this intersection as well. These details are illustrated on the revised plan and will be
incorporated into this development. In addition to the conditional zoning agreement, the sensitive
areas development plan included the planting and maintenance of evergreen trees along the west
property line, including the west line of Lot 52, to help buffer the development from Highway 218.
The trees that were planted along this frontage should be maintained within this development.
The plan illustrates a retaining wall in the vicinity of the trees. This wall should be designed so
that it does not negatively affect the trees.
A planned development typically involves the review of proposed building elevations as well as a
site development plan. However, in many cases elevations for proposed single-family dwellings
are not reviewed. The applicant has indicated that they would like to provide a variety of buildings
designs in this development, and would rather not be tied to one or two building designs that they
submit at this time. Staff does not see a need to scrutinize the building elevations in this case, but
notes that this development would provide a good opportunity to utilize many of the design
suggestions that were discussed a few months ago when the revised townhouse plan was
submitted for this property. A copy of building elevation demonstrating these ideas is attached to
this report.
In summary, the proposed revision to the approved sensitive areas development plan for Walden
Hills, Lot 52, appears to result in little affect on the rest of the neighborhood, and does not conflict
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the revised plan be
approved, and that all provisions contained within the 1997 sensitive areas development plan and
conditional zoning agreement that are applicable to this property, specifically pertaining to the
planting and maintenance of evergreen trees along the Highway 218 frontage, the incorporation of
traffic calming at the intersection of Shannon Drive and Andtea Court, and the construction of
Shannon Drive to the north property line along with the development of Lot 52, should remain in
effect.
SUB00-0016. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat appears to be in general
conformance with the City's subdivision regulations. However, the City Engineering Division has
identified a few items that need to be corrected on the plat. Staff recommends deferral until these
items have been addressed. It is anticipated that these items can be taken care of pdor to the
July 6 meeting. Upon resolution of these items, staff recommends approval of the preliminary
plat, subject to the approval of a revised grading plan prior to City Council consideration of the
plat.
The proposed preliminary plat illustrates one new public street, Andrea Court, as opposed to the
approved plan, which contained a private drive to serve the individual residences. Along the new
street a total of 19 lots are to be platted. Consistent with the City's policy regarding access to
corner and double-frontage lots, a note has been added to the plat that prohibits direct vehicular
access to Lots 1, 16 and 19 from Shannon Drive, a collector street. Instead, all vehicular access
should come from the local street, Andrea Court.
Lot 16 is a double-frontage lot - having street frontage on opposite lot lines. Lots 17 and 18 are
very similar, although they do not have rear frontage on Shannon Drive. Lot 19 is a triangular
shaped comer lot that, due to the alignment of Shannon Ddve to the north, will also be very similar
to a double-frontage lot. The subdivision regulations discourage the use of double-frontage lots,
but leave open the possibility of approving them where warranted. Due to the configuration of the
subject property, it seems reasonable to permit these lots, provided that measures are taken to
ensure that the roadway behind the lots does not have a major impact on their use and
enjoyment. Because Shannon Ddve will eventually be one of only a few through streets leading
from Rohret Road to Melrose Avenue, it could experience a higher level of traffic than a typical
collector street. Therefore, the plat illustrates trees along the back edge of these lots, to be
installed pdor to acceptance of the streets and infrastructure improvements associated with this
plat. This should help to mitigate the impact of the roadway located to the rear of these
structures. Because Lots 16 and 19 have frontage on Shannon Ddve, the owners of these lots
will have responsibilities for snow removal of the sidewalks along Shannon Drive, as well as along
their frontage on Andrea Court.
Other Requirements/Dedications/Fees: Storm water management for this property was
planned for with the original development plan and plat for Walden Hills - no additional facilities
are needed. The dedication of Neighborhood Open Space and water main extension fees were
taken care of for this property when the original final plat was considered in 1997. An 8-foot
sidewalk is planned for the west side of Shannon Ddve to connect Rohret Road and the Willow
Creek Trail, for which the City will pay the oversize paving costs.
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the proposed rezoning and preliminary plat be deferred pending the
resolution of the deficiendes and discrepancies identified by the City Engineer. Upon resolution of
these items, staff recommends that the request for a revised sensitive areas development plan
and preliminary plat for the Resubdivision of Lot 52, Walden Hills, a 4.89 acre, 19-1ot residential
subdivision located on the west side of Shannon Drive, south of Willow Creek, be approved,
subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of the 1997 conditional zoning agreement that
apply to Lot 52, the retention of the evergreen trees planted along the Highway 218 frontage of
the property as required by the 1997 sensitive areas development plan, and the approval of a
revised grading plan prior to City Council consideration of the preliminary plat.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Revised sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat.
3. Previously approved plan for Lot 52.
4. Building elevations.
Approved by: /"~~
Robed Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
HUNll~RS RUN
PARK
III
P
PDH
CITY OF IO~:A
CITY
DUCK CREEK
RR 1
ROHRE I R }
6k, ITY OF IOWA CITY CORPORATE LIMITS
ROBERTS RD ~
CN
Clearwater -
R,'
I/
Rushmore
RS
SITE LOCATION: Resubdivision of lot 52, Walden HillsSUB00-0001 6
Pl'c:li~nirkt~ry Plat &: Amended Sensitive Ar'eas Development Plar~
;~Ze~-,,t~bdivisior~ of Lot 52, Walden Hills
Iowa City, iowa
_pii PLAT PRP-PARED BY .
1917 SOUTH ILI:IERT ST
IO~A CITY IOWA. 52~4O
STANDARD LEGEND ANO NOTES
0WNER/DEV]~,~PJ:~ 9WNi2[~,L~ A'i IOItNE;~,
IOWA C['I'Y, IOWA 62~40IOWA CITY. IOWA
18
2
,..,.'.'.'.'.x.,
.(
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
PLAN - WALDEN HILLS,
LOT 52
REQUIRED STORM
Bayview
Base Price: $129,500
Includes Finished Lower Level and Fireplace
All information contained her~in h deemed reliable but not guaranteed
ALTERNATIVE-- PL/~N
STAFF REPORT
/
To: Planning Commission Prepared by: Scott Kugl,~r
Item: Of Lot 52, Walden Hills Date: September 7, ~'0
tl Plat
/
GENERAL /
Applicant: Walden Wood II, LLP
PO Box 1907
Iowa City, 52244
Phone:
Contactperson: MMS
1917 Gilbed St.
IA 52240
P 351-8282
Requested action: plat
Purpose: To create a 19-lot residential subdivision
Location: 'he west side of Shannon Drive, south of
illow Creek
Size: ~cres
Existing land use and zoning: OSA-8
Surrounding land use and zoning: North: illow Creek open space,
un eveloped Residential, OSA-
8 a RS-5;
East: Willo Creek open space and
reside ial, OSA-8;
South: resident I, OSA-8;
West: 18, residential, RS-5.
Comprehensive Plan: Residential, 2-8 dwe%i,Lng units per acre
Applicable Code rec s: Chapter 14-7, Land Su'~ivisions
File date: August 17, 2000
45-day limitation October 1, 2000 "\
60-day limitation pet October 16, 2000
2
BACI~OUND INFORMATION:
The appli~.nt, Walden Wood Padners II, LLP, is requesting a final plat for a of Lot
52, Walden Hills, located on the west side of Shannon Ddve, south of Willow This parcel
contains approximately 4.89 acres and is zoned Sensitive Areas Overlay Density
Residential (OSA-8).
The rezoning and sensitive areas development plan for the Walden H development was
approved in 1997. At that time, Lot 52 was approved for the develo !nt of eight four-unit
townhouse buildings arranged around a pedestrian open space in the ,nter of the property.
Earlier this year, an application was filed to amend that plan to replace proposed townhouses
with 19 detached single-family dwellings on individual lots g~ around a cul-de-sac. A
preliminary plat was submitted at that time also. That application i,~y pending before City
Council.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed final plat appears to 'be in general with the City's subdivision
regulations and the preliminary plat. Approval of legal and construction drawings will be
needed prior to consideration of the plat by;the City uncil. Approval of this plat should also be
subject to the approval of the revised semirive as development plan and preliminary plat
currently pending before Council.
When this property was rezoned along with th~ of the 40+ acre Walden Hills property in 1997,
a conditional zoning agreement was ado \{hat contained conditions that apply to the
development of Lot 52. -To ensure that wa~ an incentive for the developer to construct
Shannon Drive to the north property agreei~,ent specifies that this will occur along with
the development of Lot 52. In the conditi0~nal zoning agreement, the sensitive areas
development plan included the plan and ' " of evergreen trees along the west
The trees that were planted frontage should b~maintained within this development. A
proposed conditional zoning in association with ~e revised development plan currently
pending before Council both of these requirem~ts to ensure that they are ~rried
through with the develo of the prope~y. The I~1 papers should reflect these
requirements, as well. neither s addressed in the cu .ent draft of the legal papers.
The proposed plat one new public street, Andrea Cou~, Along the new street a total of
19 lots are to be pl ~nsistent with the City's policy regardin ac~ss to ~rner and double-
frontage lots, a note h been added to the plat that prohibits direct ehicular ac~ss to Lots 1, 16
and 19 from Shanno rive, a collector street as noted on the preh ina~ plat. This should be
~rried over into t~ ~ al papers for this subdivision as well. Instead, II vehicular access should
STAFF REC( ENE )N:
Staff rear s that SUB00-0018 a request for a final plat for the Resub ivision of Lot 52,
Drive, of o r , , r
con~ drawings prior to City Council consideration of the plat, and subject to the approval of
3
the revised sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat currently before the
Ci~ Counc"il.
A AcHMEN :
\
1. Location m~,
2. Final plat.
Approved by:
Robert enior Planner
Depa~men Planning and
Communi ~ment
CITY OF IO YA
/
~' ~ ~ D H ~LLOW CREEK
~~ ~ PARK
,
,, ......
; ~"',, ~.~===="~:~ ' '
~ v
. ~ ..... ---~ -~,, OPDH ~ ""
~ll ....
~ ......... ? .... p
_ * ((, ~=~- ~,, __
~ -~, RU sh~ ore D~ - _
/" ~ } K~WANIS
, , PARK
FLANIGAN CT
SITE LOCATION: Lot 52, Walden Hills SUBO0-O001 8
r
(~(~e~G. Og.J~Gt. BSTHAHlfOOTI42~OOO~q
\,
/
/"i4 ,,
/
/ /
I ~4T f .~ee'2rx'-w
b~th,
City of Iowa CiLy
"' Final Plat
Resubdivision of LoL 52, Walden
Iowa City, Iowa
PLAT PREPARED BY: OW~ER/DEVETBPER OT~ER'S A'I'FORNEY
MMS CONSULTANTS INC. WALDEN WOOD ASSOC. [I I,,I~P. TOM GELMAN
1917 SOUTH GILBERT ST.,PO BOX 1907 321 ~. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY. IOWA. 522,10IOWA CITY. IOWA 5~,10 IOWA CITY. {OwA 5~15
Hills
SHANNON DRIVE
$89'33'27'E
8~7
*i
.!
22650
09-12-00 ~
5c
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City. IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY CONDITIONALLY AMENDING THE APPROVED
..SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 52 OF WALDEN HILLS, A 4.89 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED IN THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-8) ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHANNON DRIVE
SOUTH OF WILLOW CREEK.
WHEB. EAS, the Owner, Walden Wood Associates, II, LLP, is Owner and legal title holder of approximately 4.89
acres of pr0p.erty located on the west side of Shannon Drive south of Will and
WHEREA~S0 Owner has requested approval of an amended Sensi Areas Development Plan for Lot 52 of
Walden Hills, which would result in a total of 19 detached, sin. dwellings to be located on a parcel
previously approved, for 32 townhouse-style dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the'P, lanning and Zoning Commission has that. with appropriate conditions ensuring
the installation of neigh,borhood infrastructure in accordance wit original Sensitive Areas Development Plan,
said amended plan is in Conformance with the Comprehensive and
WHEREAS, Iowa C6~,e, Section 414.5 (1999) provide,, the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, c and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy
public needs directly caused the requested change;
inst c r
WHER~S, Owner has to use this in accordance with the terms and conditions of a
Conditional Zoning Agreement to asure that above-referenced neighbo~ood infrastructure issues are
addressed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE CI~ COUNCIL OF THE CI~ OF IOWA CI~, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. Subject and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, a~ached
hereto and incorporated heroin, a revised ~itive Areas Development Plan is hereby accepted and appmved for
the following described prope~:
Lot 52, Walden Hills, Iowa with the plat recorded in Book 38, at page 18, of the
records of the Johnson tract area 4.89 acres:
SECTION II. ZONING ~P. Th ~or is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the Ci~ of iowa ci~, Iowa, to this endment upon the final passage, approval and publication
of this ordinance as provided by la~
SECTION III. CONDITIC NA , AGREEMEN Following final passage and approval of this ordinance,
the MayOr is hereby authorized m directed to sign, and th Ci~ Clerk to a~est, the Conditional Zoning Agreement
be~een the prope~y Owner a ~ the City.
SECTION IV. CERTIFIC TION AND RECORDING. Upon assage and approval of the Oralinane, and after
execution of the Conditional oning Agreement, the Ci~ Clerk is ereby authorized and directed to ~i~ a copy of
SECTION VI. SE ~BILI~. If any sealion, provision or pad of th~ ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, ch adjudication shall not affed the validity of th ordinance as a whole or any section,
publication, as retired by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,2000.
/
,(
CI~ CLERK
Appmved by
City Attomey's Office
ppdadmin~'d',waldhills.doc
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will
be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at
7:00 p.m. on the 12 day of September, 2000, in
the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said
meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the
City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk;
at which hearing the Council will consider.
a. An ordinance conditionally amending the
approved sensitive areas development plan
for Lot 52 of Walden Hills, a 4.89 acre
property located on the west side of
Shannon Drive, south of Willow Creek.
An ordinance designating the property
-~located at 13 S. Linn Street as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
ppdadm/nphg-12-O0.doc
E09-12-00
5d
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 S. LINN STREET AS AN IOWA CITY
HISTORIC LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, Scott Kading, Owner and legal titleholder of property located at 13 S. Linn Street, has filed
with the City a nomination for the designation of said property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and evaluated the significance of the
building located on said property and has determined that it meets the requirements for designation as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing on July 13, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated the
subject property for designation as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed landmark nomination; and
W~HEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed said nomination and concurs with the
assessment of the Historic Preservation Commission that the subject property meets the criteria for
designation as a histodc landmark; and
WHEREAS, the designation of the subject property would be consistent with the goals and objectives of
the City's Historic Preservation Plan, which has been incorporated as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The following described property is hereby designated as an Iowa City
Histodc Landmark pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 4, Land Control and Development, Article C, Historic
Preservation Regulations:
Beginning at a point 110' south of the NE corner of Block 66, Original Town Plat, thence west 95 feet,
thence south 40 feet, thence east 95 feet, thence north 40 feet to the Point of Beginning.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this __ day of ,2000
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
ppdadm/ord/13slinn.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 28, 2000 (for August 3 meeting)
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Re: REZ00-0019. Proposed Historic Landmark Nomination for 13 S. Linn Street
Scott Kading, owner of property located at 13 S. Linn Street, has nominated the building for
designation as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The building, now known as Linn Street
Square, was constructed in 1917 and originally housed the Hohenschuh Mortuary. At its July
13 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval pf the nomination. A
copy of the nomination form is attached for the Commission's review. The Historic Preservation
Ordinance requires a review and recommendation from both commissions before the City
Council can act on the proposed designation. If designated, the property would be rezoned
from Central Business (CB-10) zone to Historic Preservation Overlay/Central Business
(OHP/CB-10) zone.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that the Planning and Zoning Commission should
review the proposed nomination "with respect to the relation of such ... designation to the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, proposed public improvements and other plans for the
renewal of the area involved," and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Staff has
reviewed the nomination and is of the opinion that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
and does not conflict with the purpose or requirements of the Zoning Chapter or any
improvement plans for the area. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Historic
Preservation Plan, and encourages the retention and protection of buildings that are historically
significant. There are a number of public improvement projects occurring in the area, including
the Iowa Avenue Streetscape project, the Downtown Streetscape project, and the Tower Place
and Parking building construction. Staff feels that the preservation and rehabilitation of historic
buildings within the downtown will complement the City's efforts to improve the downtown
streetscape and should be encouraged.
The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the nomination and finds that the building
meets the requirements for designation as a historic landmark based on its architectural and
historical significance. Staff can see no conflicts between the proposed designation and the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or public improvement plans for the area. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed nomination.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ00-0019, the proposed designation of the property located at 13 S.
Linn Street as an Iowa City historic Landmark, be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Iowa City Historic Landmark nomination
Approved by:
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
U:/...word/13 s linn P&Z memo.doc
CITY OF IOWA CITF
P
I I1
Z
UNIVERSITY QF
JEPPERSC>N
_J
IOWA
P
_i
W A, c
_:. H I C-' ':
-J
°1
<c
I
COLLE GEL
BLJ R i IN G T
SITE LOCATION: 13 S. Linn Street
Historic 'Landmark Nomination
HISTORIC LANDMARK
NOMINATION FORM
Property Address: /~j '~ L.-~/,J A.~ (~ ~. Date of Preparation: o ~1- t,- c c
Historic/Common Name: c ~ ,4 r~ ~ r. ~ ~,~/~Ac Prepared by:
Property Owner: ~ c o T T K, A b f,~ C-: ~ Address:
Address: i ~ ~ rE , ,G ~ v ~ 'T A , c, b
('c;p-,AL_v,,-LE',/A ~':z~4t Phone:H(
Phone: H(?~p) ~],~ ~"94L- W(
Date of Construction:
(Attach documentation or list source)
Original use of building/object/site:
Current use of buiidingiobject/site: F~,~ s,~j ~ ~s / .P-~ ~ , b~ r~ T,A c-
BUILDING INFORMATION: If the proposed landmark is a building or structure, please answer the
following: '
Building Height: ')_ stories
Materials: Foundation ~'.E/-I~.NT/P,P.,oF- Walls
Builder (if known):
Architect (if known):
Significant alterations or additions (explanation & date): F,~l, obCL~z3 ,,,, ~ ,~g /,~ 1~4
U P DA"'F/,J G-
(over)
10~95
2
Required attachments:
1 ) A narrative providing information indicating the proposed landmark meets one or more of the following
criteria:
A. The landmark is significant to American history, architecture, archaeology and culture or Iowa
City history, architecture, archaeology and culture; or
B. The landmark possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workership; or
C. The landmark is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
D. The landmark is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
E. The landmark embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction;
represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
F. The landmark has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
2) Photographs showing all elevations of the building/object/site, and of any ornamental or structural
details of historical importance.
3) Plat map indicating the location of the proposed landmark.
4) Any additional information that may help to justify the historic importance of the nominated property.
Please submit this completed form and all required attachments to the IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVA-
TION COMMISSION, CIVIC CENTER, 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET, IOWA CITY, IA 52240.
ppdadmin%lndmknom.frm
Linn St. Square Iowa City Historic Landmark Nomination
13 S. Linn St.
Iowa City, Iowa
June 26, 2000
This building was built by Mr. W. P. Hohenschuh who was the son of a mortician and was born
and raised in Iowa City. It was built in 1917 and is believed to have been the first building west of
the Mississippi solely for use as a mortuary. Mr. Hohenschuh was a prominent and respected
local businessman and very active in the community. He was a leader in the beautification of
Iowa Avenue - a design similar to what Iowa City is now returning to - and a pioneer in the
funeral profession. He was part owner of the Jefferson Hotel, so the same construction company
was used to build 13 S. Linn St. In an article about his death in 1920, Mr. Hohenschuh was said
to have considered this building to be his one true monument to survive long after his death.
There is an early Iowa City postcard of the building dated in the 1930's with a Model T Hearse
pulled up to the back of the building. The exterior of the building is almost the same now as when
it was built in 1917. The building was also used as a mortuary by the Lensing family until they
built their new building on Kirkwood St. in the 1980's.
The following information was provided by Marlys Svendsen, a consultant recently hired to
complete a historical/architectural survey of the downtown area on behalf of the City's Historic
Preservation Commission.
The building is architecturally significant as a well-preserved example of the Georgian Revival
Style. It has a number of the characteristics typical of such building designs including its brick
construction, a symmetrical three-bay facade, a basically rectangular plan, a side-gabled roof
with prominent gable attic dormers, a cornice featuring classical details, a strong central
entrance embellished with a multi-light transom and side-lights, a curved entrance portico
with roof balustrade, and multi-light sash with brick and stone arches.
Its significance also derives from its construction during the first half of the "Town and Gown
Era (1899-1940)" when downtown Iowa City was reflecting the growth of the University and
the local commercial prosperity that occurred at the same time. A number of important
downtown structures appeared during these years with Neoclassical designs such as that
favored for the Hohenschuh Building. They included the new post office (1904, 1931
addition), the new library (1904), the B,P.O.E. (Elks) Building (1908), First National Bank
(1911), new Johnson County Savings Bank (1912, later the Iowa State Bank and Trust), and
the Dey Building (1917). The Neoclassical elements first evidenced in Proudfoot and Bird's
Pentacrest buildings carried over into the downtown prior to World War I. Outside of the
downtown, Neoclassical designs were frequently favored in the institutional scale fraternity
and sorority houses built for University of Iowa students along North Clinton Street, North
Dubuque Street, and other parts of the city.
It appears that W.P. Hohenschuh was one of several prominent funeral parlor operators in
Iowa City in the years following the turn of the 20th century. The design of the building may
well reflect the needs and requirements of buildings built for this particular use. Its location
just off Iowa Avenue which had been paved in brick in 19(~7-08 and near Iowa City's
downtown and north side churches favored its operation. The location of another funeral
home across the street is evidence of this fact as well.
The following information was provided by the Lensing family:
Lensing Funeral and Cremation Service began as a funeral home rounded in the mid-1800s
by Frank Hohenschuh, who operated both the funeral home and a furniture business on
Dubuque Street in downtown Iowa City. After his death in 1876, his son, William P.
Hohenschuh, assumed the business. He designed and constructed the building at 13 South
Linn Street in 1917 -- a very progressive design for its time.
William Hohenschuh was well known nationally as an author and lecturer in the funeral
profession. He organized the Iowa Funeral Directors' Association in 1891 and served as its
president. He was elected president of the National Funeral Director's Association in 1894.
He established the Hohenschuh-Carpenter College of Embalming in Des Moines and served
on the faculty of the embalming college of the University of Minnesota. He also organized the
Western College of Embalming in Chicago in 1895.
After Hohenschuh's death in 1920, John H. Donohue purchased the business. John was
succeeded by his son, Walter J. Donohue, who ran the funeral home, then named Donohue
Mortuary, until his death in 1974. In November, 1978, Michael and Vicki Lensing purchased
Donohue Mortuary. They continued to operate the funeral home at 13 South Linn Street until
June 1984, when they moved to a new building at 605 Kirkwood Avenue.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City Council will be holding a public
hearing on the FY0.1 Amended Annual Action
Plan budget on September '12, 2000, at 7:00
p.m., Civic Center, Council Chambers, 4'10
East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA.
The City of Iowa City has available a draft
FY0'1 Amended Annual Action Plan budget
for the use of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) funds. A thirty-
(30) day public comment period began on
August 11, 2000.
This Amended Annual Action Plan budget
includes information on the proposed use of
Community Development Black Grant
(CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership
(HOME) funds for housing, jobs and services
for low-moderate income persons. The
Amended Annual Action Plan will outline a
proposed new project and amended budget
for FY01.
Additional information is available from the
Department of Planning and Community
Development, 410 East Washington Street,
Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 or by calling 356-
5230.
City of Iowa CityJ
MEMORANDUM .....
DATE: September 7, 2000
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Steve Nasby, Community Development Coordinat~~
RE: FY01 Annual Action Plan Budget Amendment
The Council agenda includes an item amending our FY01 Annual Action Plan budget. The
Annual Action Plan, approved by the Council in May, is being amended as recommended by
the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) at their 3uly 20 meeting.
This amendment includes two items. First, funds in the amount of $25,550 are
recommended by HCDC to be awarded to the Greater ]~owa City Housing Fellowship (G1~CHF)
for the acquisition of a lot to be used for an affordable homeownership project. GTCHF has
partnered with the Homebuilders Association and Iowa City School District on the
development of the "Student Built House". The $25,550 in Community Development Block
Grant funds is to come out of the FY01 contingency budget. The second budget amendment
is an adjustment to our contingency line item. This adjustment includes the inclusion of
unprogrammed program income from FY00, the return of unexpended FY00 funds and the
reallocation of funds to the G]:CHF project described above.
A copy of the amended budget is included with the resolution in the Council packet. If you
have any questions please call me at 356-5248 or e-mail at steven_nasby@iowa-city.org.
Cc: Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council (~
FROM: Administrative Assistant
DATE: September 7, 2000
RE: 2000-2001 Deer Management Plan
The 2000-2001 Deer Management Plan item is on Council's September 11
Work Session Agenda and September 12 Formal Agenda (public
discussion). Deer Management Committee Chair Pat Farrant will present
the plan to the Council.
Tony DeNicola (President of White Buffalo, Inc.) will be available both
evenings to answer questions about sharpshooting,
If Council approves the Plan as recommended, the timeline indicated below
should to be followed:
September 12 Hold Public Discussion
September 19 Council Consideration of Resolution Approving
2000/2001 Plan
September 22 Items for 10-12 NRC Meeting Due to DNR
September 28 DNR Staff Meeting
October 12 Natural Resource Commission Meeting (Sidney, IA)
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Prepared by Lisa Mollenhauer, Admin, Asst. to the City Manager, 410 E, Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, 356-5010
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
2000-2001 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR IOWA CITY
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has conducted a study of deer herd population and
management options; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has determined that steps must be taken to develop
and implement a deer management plan that is designed to provide needed relief and
protection for the environment, property owners, and motor vehicle operators within the
corporate limits of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Deer Management Committee has thoroughly reviewed the deer
population problem in Iowa City and made recommendations on the best methods to
resolve this problem; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has adopted a long-term deer management plan; and
WHEREAS, the attached deer management plan for 2000-2001 is in harmony with the
long-term plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,
that it is in the public interest to adopt the attached 2000-2001 Deer Management Plan
and the City Manager i~ hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to
implement said plan, including, but not limited to, engaging appropriate personnel and
declaring certain public areas of the City "no trespassing" to the public.
Passed and approved this __day of , 2000.
MAYOR
ATTEST: APP~~--~i~
CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office
It was moved by and seconded by the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYES: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilburn
2000-2001 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
It is the unanimous decision of the 2000-2001 Iowa City Deer Management Committee that the City
Council of Iowa City resolve that the City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the 2000-
2001 Deer Management Plan, including the following elements:
1. The City will continue to assemble resources that provide residents with information on deer and
offer guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening,
alternative plantings, and other techniques. Educational materials will be available at the Civic
Center and Public Library, and on Government Channel 4 and the City website (www.iowa-
city.org). A video on deer-traffic issues will be produced. The City should also actively pursue a
number of other feasible nonlethal deer management activities the Committee will recommend.
2. The City will continue to install and maintain appropriate warning signs and reflectors designed to
reduce the likelihood of vehicle-deer accidents. To further minimize deer-vehicle conflict, Council
will direct staff to include passageways (tunnels) under roads in planning and designs for
transportation improvement projects whenever they involve areas where deer live. The City will
also investigate the availability of federal funds for including such passageways in eligible
transportation projects.
3. The City will actively work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fully understand
and support their efforts to control the deer population for which the DNR is responsible and
which affects the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents.
4. The City of Iowa City will continue to attempt to identify an appropriate agency to assess the
feasibility of a deer contraception pilot project or program in Iowa City.
5. The City will immediately apply for permits from the DNR to implement a plan to kill no more than
500 deer within the Iowa City corporate limits, by sharpshooting, during the winter of 2000-2001.
a. To enhance understanding of deer reproductive rates, in cooperation with the DNR, the
sharpshooting agency, and meat processors, the City will allow reproductive autopsies to be
performed on deer killed.
b. The City will fully comply with all state law governing the killing of deer, exercise great.
caution and observe all possible safety measures during the sharpshoot, assure use of the
most humane methods available, and arrange for free distribution of processed deer meat.
6. The City will investigate the possibility of permitting regulated hunting in selected undeveloped
areas within the city limits, with permission of landowners and in compliance with all applicable
DNR regulations.
7. The City will continue to compile data for deer management, including but not limited to
information about vehicle-deer accidents, citizen comments, and an annual helicopter deer count.
8. The City will evaluate the effectiveness of this Deer Management Plan at a City Council Formal
Meeting no later than May 1, 2001. A report will be filed with the DNR.
Approved by the Deer Management Committee on this 30th day of August 2000, by a vote of 9-0.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council ~
FROM: Administrative Assistant
DATE: September 7, 2000
RE: 2000-2001 Deer Management Plan
The 2000-2001 Deer Management Plan item is on Council's September 11
Work Session Agenda and September 12 Formal Agenda (public
discussion). Deer Management Committee Chair Pat Farrant will present
the plan to the Council.
Tony DeNicola (President of White Buffalo, Inc,) will be available both
evenings to answer questions about sharpshooting.
If Council approves the Plan as recommended, the timeline indicated below
should to be followed:
September 12 Hold Public Discussion
September 19 Council Consideration of Resolution Approving
2000/2001 Plan
September 22 Items for 10-12 NRC Meeting Due to DNR
September 28 DNR Staff Meeting
October 12 Natural Resource Commission Meeting (Sidney, IA)
Please let me know if you have any questions.
2000-2001
IOWA CITY
DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Approved by the Deer Management Committee August 30, 2000 , _~ ,
Approved by the Iowa City City Council ~7~t ~
City Manager's ,Office
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 356-5010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE .................................................................................................................................1
LONG-TERM DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................5
2000-2001 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................................................................................7
DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DEER TO BE KILLED IN 2000-2001 ...................................................................... 9
Population Surveys .............................................................................................................................................................9
DNR Projections ...............................................................................................................................................................10
Recommended Number of Deer to Kill .............................................................................................................................11
SUMMARY OF POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED ............................... 13
No Lethal Action ...............................................................................................................................................................13
Control of Deer Reproduction via Contraception and Sterilization ................................................................................13
Trap (or Dart) and Relocate ..............................................................................................................................................13
Bow Hunting ......................................................................................................................................................................14
Trap and Kill ....................................................................................................................................................................15
Sharpshooting ...................................................................................................................................................................! 6
TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................19
Deer-Vehicle Accident Statistics .......................................................................................................................................19
Reflectors ..........................................................................................................................................................................19
Traffic Speeds ...................................................................................................................................................................19
EDUCATION AND OTHER NONLETHAL INITIATIVES FOR IMPROVED HUMAN-DEER COEXISTENCE ........ 21
Current Projects ...............................................................................................................................................................21
Ideas for Future Cons ideration ........................................................................................................................................21
HISTORY OF DEER MANAGEMENT IN IOWA CITY - 1997-2000 ............................................................................... 23
1997-1998 ..............................................................................................................................................................................23
1998-1999 ..............................................................................................................................................................................23
1999-2000 ..............................................................................................................................................................................24
CITIZEN COMMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................................25
COMMONLY-ASKED QUESTIONS AND COMMITTEE ANSWERS ............................................................................ 25
ATTACHMENT A - DNR PROJECTED NUMBER OF DEER TO BE REMOVED ...................................................... 29
ATTACHMENT B - WHITE BUFFALO SUMMARY REPORT ..................................................................................... 31
ATTACHMENT C - WEBSITE DEER COMMENT BOARD .......................................................................................... 45
DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Members
Pat Farrant (Chair)
Janet Ashman
Linda Dykstra
Paul Emerson
Harold Goff
Steve Hendrix
Doug Jones
Nancy Menning
Judy Rhodes
Responsibilities
To annually recommend to the City Council a Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the
Long-Term Deer Management Plan. To that end, members should review data (population count,
deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control
programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and
consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods, and recommend appropriate action.
The members of the 2000-2001 Iowa City Deer Management Committee acknowledge
that we are not wildlife specialists, traffic engineers, mathematicians, or politicians, but
rather citizens who have come together to address an important matter facing our
community. We developed this plan after researching options for deer management,
considering documented evidence, gathering information about other communities in
comparable situations', receiving advice from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
listening to the opinions and experience of fellow citizens, and exploring our perceptions of
the kind of plan likely to be both accepted by and effective for the community. We believe
it is unlikely that every component of any deer management plan would be accepted by
every member of the committee or every resident of Iowa City. This plan is a compromise,
the product of our attempt to understand and respect many different voices.
City of Iowa City Advisors Department of Natural Resource Advisors
Ron Fort Tim Dorr
Misha Goodman Jim Jansen
Lisa Mollenhauer Willie Suchy
Tim Thompson
Joe Wilkinson
LONG-TERM DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. The City of Iowa City will develop an educational program that will provide residents with
information on deer habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of
screening, alternative plantings, and other techniques. The City's comprehensive management
plan will be included. Educational materials will be distributed through a variety of methods
including public informational meetings, pamphlets, and government television programs.
2. The City of Iowa City will evaluate the need for and, where appropriate, install or petition the
State or County to install on roadways under their jurisdiction warning signs and/or reflectors that
may reduce the likelihood of vehicle-deer accidents. The City will prepare annual reports on
effectiveness of deer reflectors. In addition, thoughtful consideration will be given to deer
migratory paths as transportation improvement projects are approved by the City Council.
3. In order to prevent irreparable damage to the ecosystems in Iowa City and to prevent significant
injury or damage to persons or property, the City Council has set the maximum deer population
density to be thirty-five (35) per square mile per City-designated management district. Actual
numbers are to be collected via helicopter count.
4. In order to implement its long-term population goal of thirty-five (35) deer per square mile per
management district, the City of Iowa City formally requests that the Natural Resource
Commission approve a rule establishing a special deer population management area for Iowa City
to the following conditions, limitations, and procedures:
a. The special deer management area is defined as all public and private land in Iowa City a~s
designated by the City Council of Iowa City.
b. The City is allowed to kill as many deer as the City determines necessary to reach its desired
goal. Killing may occur between September I and February 28.
(1) The City is allowed to utilize sharpshooting with centerfire rifles for the lethal removal of
deer. Bait may be used to attract deer to the sites. The City shall determine locations,
training, and all other conditions for the sharpshooting activities. The City shall also
comply with all applicable state laws.
(2) The City is allowed to utilize City personnel to use baited traps to capture and kill deer in
locations determined by the City Council.
(3) All deer killed by sharpshooting and/or trapping operations are to be processed for human
consumption and distributed free of charge. Processing lockers participating in the plan
will be allowed to keep and utilize the deer hide.
(4)No licenses will be required for the City and no fees will be charged.
c. The City will initially utilize sharpshooting over bait and trap-and-kill to reduce the number of
deer in each management district to the goal of 35 deer per square mile. By the end of the
initial reduction plan, it is projected that the deer population will be to a level that requires
maintenance rather than aggressive reduction. The City will strongly encourage use of non-
lethal methods to maintain deer numbers but recognizes that killing of deer may be necessary
to maintain the population goal.
5. The Deer Management Committee will convene each spring to review educational material, deer
population numbers (current and projected), management options, and to recommend methods to
kill deer. Any or all legal lethal methods available (currently consisting of sharpshooting, trap-and-
kill, and bow and arrow hunting) may be utilized after the initial reduction plan if the method(s)
meet the following criteria: 1) public safety, 2) community acceptance, 3) effectiveness in
maintaining the desired number of deer.
6. Committee recommendations must be approved by the City Council following public hearing prior
to initiation of City management plans. Annual plans approved by the Council will be forwarded to
the Department of Natural Resources and, if necessary, the Natural Resource Commission for
authorization to implement.
3
INTRODUCTION
The members of the 2000-2001 Iowa City Deer Management Committee affirm our concurrence with
the goals of the City's Long-Term Deer Management Plan. We agree that deer management within the
city limits is a necessary duty of the City to maintain the health of the herd, to prevent irreparablle
damage to plant and animal life in the ecosystems of the natural areas in the City, to protect citizen
safety and welfare, and to prevent major deer damage to public and private property. Because
managing deer-human-ecosystem interaction is an ongoing process, each year the City must gather
information and evaluate the outcomes of the implementation of the long-term plan.
As have previous committees, we value the presence of deer in the city limits and are recommending
a number of ways to encourage citizens to become better educated about ways to coexist with deer.
We do not recommend total elimination of deer in the city limits. But it is clear that the number of
deer in some areas may endanger lives because of deer-vehicle accidents, cause destruction of
landscaping and yard plantings, and further disrupt already altered ecosystems.
Deer-human conflicts will probably increase, despite efforts to improve community tolerance of deer.
Natural habitat for many types of wildlife in the Iowa City area is being continuously reduced as
previously rural land is developed for housing and commercial purposes. In a natural setting, the size
of a deer population depends on food sources, predators, hunting, and wildlife management practices.
Inside the city limits, deer have an abundant supply of food and no natural predators. Deaths from
starvation and disease seem unlikely to stem the increasing numbers. For these reasons, by
unanimous agreement, the Committee determined it is necessary to kill deer during the winter of
2000-2001.
We concluded, after careful review of lethal and nonlethal management options, the most preferable
means to reduce the size of the herd is by killing via sharpshooting. To arrive at this consensus, we
considered the costs, legality, risks to humans, and humanehess of each method of killing. For
purposes of this discussion, we agreed that a death that is instantaneous and, therefore, presumably
painless is humane.
We also agreed the City should pursue a number of other nonlethal control methods, discussed in
subsequent sections of this report.
2000-2001 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
It is the unanimous decision of the 2000-2001 Iowa City Deer Management Committee that the City
Council of Iowa City resolve that the City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the 2000-
2001 Deer Management Plan, including the following elements:
1. The City will continue to assemble resources that provide residents with information on deer and
offer guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening,
alternative plantings, and other techniques. Educational materials will be available at the Civic
Center and Public Library, and on Government Channel 4 and the City website (www.iowa-
city.org). A video on deer-traffic issues will be produced. The City should also actively pursue a
number of other feasible nonlethal deer management activities the Committee will recommend.
2. The City will continue to install and maintain appropriate warning signs and reflectors designed to
reduce the likelihood of vehicle-deer accidents. To further minimize deer-vehicle conflict, Council
will direct staff to include passageways (tunnels) under roads in planning and designs for
transportation improvement projects whenever they involve areas where deer live. The City will
also investigate the availability of federal funds for including such passageways in eligible
transportation projects.
3. The City will actively work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fully understand
and support their efforts to control the deer population for which the DNR is responsible and
which affects the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents.
4. The City of Iowa City will continue to attempt to identify an appropriate agency to assess the
feasibility of a deer contraception pilot project or program in Iowa City.
5. The City will immediately apply for permits from the DNR to implement a plan to kill no more than
500 deer within the Iowa City corporate limits, by sharpshooting, during the winter of 2000-2001.
a. To enhance understanding of deer reproductive rates, in cooperation with the DNR, the
sharpshooting agency, and meat processors, the City will allow reproductive autopsies to be
performed on deer killed.
b. The City will fully comply with all state law governing the killing of deer, exercise great
caution and observe all possible safety measures during the sharpshoot, assure use of the
most humane methods available, and arrange for free distribution of processed deer meat.
6. The City will investigate the possibility of permitting regulated hunting in selected undevelope,rl
areas within the city limits, with permission of landowners and in compliance with all applicabl,e
DNR regulations.
7. The City will continue to compile data for deer management, including but not limited to
information about vehicle-deer accidents, citizen comments, and an annual helicopter deer count.
8. The City will evaluate the effectiveness of this Deer Management Plan at a City Council Formal
Meeting no later than May 1, 2001. A report will be filed with the DNR.
Approved by the Deer Management Committee on this 30th day of August 2000, by a vote of 9-0.
7
DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DEER TO BE KILLED IN 2000-2001
For deer management purposes, the most commonly-accepted number of deer an urban setting can
sustain is 20 to 25 per square mile. Based on recommendations from the DNR and review of
management plans from other communities, the 1997 Deer Management Committee established the
following guidelines for the City's long-range management plan:
0-24 deer/square mile: Educate residents about living with deer.
25-34deer/square mile: Review on an area-by-area basis. Educational material may be
recommended or killing methods implemented depending on the
management area, number of complaints, and/or evidence of types of
damage.
35 + deer/square mile: Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to the
ecosystem.
Since deer populations generally tend to increase by approximately 30% each year, approximately
30% of a given population must die or be killed annually if that population level is to remain stable.
The number of deer being recommended for killing in various areas within Iowa City takes into
consideration the number of square miles in each area and allows for 35 deer per square mile. For
example, the Hickory Hill/ACT area consists of 2 square miles, so up to 70 deer could conceivably live
there without causing widespread damage to that ecosystem. Although such a formula is only an
approximation, until the herd size is established at the desired level, we believe a more precise
projection is not needed.
Population Surveys
To estimate as accurately as possible the number of deer in the city limits, the City has conduct~;d
three helicopter surveys (January of 1997, 1999, and 2000).
Chart 1. Summary of Population Surveys
Sq. 1997 Deer/ 1999 Deer/ 2000 Deer/
Area Description Area Acres Mile Deer Sq. Mile Deer Sq. Mile Killed Deer Sq. Mile.
W of Dubuque St/N of 1-80 1 230 0.360 NA NA NA NA 15 NA NA
Peninsula 2&3 590 0.922 69 75 154 167 208 81 88
Dubuque St to Dodge Street 4&5 780 1.219 78 64 90 74 57 99 81
Dubuque St to Hwy 1 (N of 1-80) 6 560 0.875 37 42 60 69 0 74 85
Hickory Hill/ACT 7 1280 2.000 65 33 127 64 102 140
SE Iowa City 10 720 1.125 NA NA NA NA 0 7 6
Iowa River (S) 11&12 720 1.125 11 10 15 13 0 48 43
Finkbine (U of I) 16 370 0.578 6 10 31 54 0 48 83
Willow Creek 17 280 0.438 3 7 0 0 0 4 9
Manville Heights 20 500 0.781 NA NA NA NA 0 6 8
6030 9.423 269 38 477 67 382 507 55
7.157 mi 7.157 mi 9.063 mi
9
Deer count conditions were as follows:
· January 31, 1997
v' Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Dale Garner (DNR)
v' Navigator: Ron Fort (Iowa City Police Department)
v' Conditions: Temperature 45 degrees F, wind 15 to 30 mph SW, sky clear and sunny,
snow cover 5" and melting
v' Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only
deer actually viewed (no estimations)
v' Results: 269 total deer
· January 19, 1999
v' Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Dennis Proctor (DNR)
v' Navigator: Lisa Mollenhauer (City Manager's Office)
v' Conditions: Temperature 28 degrees F, wind 3-7 mph W, sky clear and sunny, snow
cover 1-2" new snow on top of 10" old snow
· / Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only
deer actually viewed (no estimations)
v' Results: 477 total deer
· January 24, 2000
,/Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Bruce Freeman (Coralville Police)
v' Navigator: Lisa Mollenhauer (City Manager's Office)
v' Conditions: Temperature -2 warming to 25 degrees F, wind 10 mph S, sky clear and
sunny, snow cover 1" new snow on top of 6" old snow
v' Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only
deer actually viewed (no estimations)
v' Results: 507 total deer
As Chart 1 shows, these counts indicated a 77% increase between 1997 and 1999, and a 6% net
increase between 1999 and 2000, after the 2000 sharpshoot.
DNR Projections
In August, 2000, the Committee requested that the DNR provide a projection of the number of deer
that must be killed in 2000-2001 to continue the progress being made toward the goal of 35 deer per
square mile by area established by the Long-Term Deer Management Plan. In making such projections,
the DNR typically assumes 30 deer per square mile to allow some flexibility so areas are not
constantly stressed with the maximum number of deer. The recommendations the DNR provided (see
Attachment A) indicate the number of does to be killed. In an urban management program, it is typic~al
that one buck is killed for every three does killed.
10
Recommended Number of Deer to Kill
Based on the 2000 helicopter population survey and the projections provided by the DNR, the
Committee developed the following killing guidelines for winter 2000-2001:
Chart 2. Recommendations
Area ] Area # Does to Kill Deer to Kill
Peninsula 2 & 3 50 65
Dubuque St to Dodge St 4 & 5 80 105
Dubuque St to Hwy I (Nof 1-80) 6 90 I 15
Hickory Hill/ACT 7 i 1 O0 135
....................................................................................................................................................................................... r ........................................................................................................................................................
Iowa River South 11 & 12 30 40
Finkbine/U of I 16 30 40
Total 380 500
We computed these numbers by increasing the DNR recommendations for numbers of does to be
killed (380) by approximately 33% (120), to account for the number of bucks that typically are killed
in the process of killing the recommended number of does. It is important to keep in mind that these
are estimates, not precise figures.
Reduction of the herd to the level established in the Long-Term Deer Management Plan will be an
ongoing activity, and its complexities require constant evaluation. The Council relies on the
Committee for the information needed each year to make decisions regarding management of the
herd. But, even with aerial counts, no one can determine exactly how many deer are inside the City
limits or how many will survive and reproduce after each year's count. Survival variables include
weather, traffic speed and volume, available forage, disease, reproductive rates, the success of killing
activity by area, the degree of harassment by activists and others during shoots, development of land,
deer movement, and willingness of residents to allow deer to be killed on their property.
We recommend that, as it was last year, deer meat be processed and distributed free of charge. If
requested, reproductive autopsies should be conducted to increase our knowledge of the deer herd.
11
SUMMARY OF POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERED
No Lethal Action
The Committee considered the option of recommending that no specific lethal action be taken this
year to continue management of the deer population in Iowa City. After discussing a wide range of
issues, listening to citizen comments, studying the effects of the 1999-2000 sharpshoot, and
considering the impact of nonlethal activities that have been undertaken during the past several
years, the Committee rejected inaction as a management method.
Control of Deer Reproduction via Contraception and Sterilization
Most studies of the effectiveness of contraceptives with deer have been conducted on populations
living in enclosed or confined areas, not with free-ranging deer. Because of drug safety issues, the
FDA has not yet approved the use of immunocontraceptives on free-ranging deer. At least one
study suggests that contraception with deer in an enclosed area may have some positive effect on
control of reproduction rates in nearby free-ranging herds. The Committee reaffirms its interest in
the progress and results of tests using immunocontraception and recommends the City continue to
investigate the feasibility of a pilot project in our area. We further recommend contact be made
with test sites in Cayuga Heights, NY, and Amherst, NY, and with others the committee expects
to identify yet this year.
The Committee has also agreed to research the possibility of deer population control through
sterilization and release programs that are similar to techniques being used to humanely manage
colonies of feral cats.
Trap (or Dart) and Relocate
The Committee assumed the use of a box trap.
Is it humane?
A properly-constructed trap is unlikely to injure deer. If the trap is checked with sufficient
frequency, the trapped animal is unlikely to suffer significant trauma from its stay in the trap.
To minimize trauma in transport, trapped animals must not be held for long prior to transport.
Even with prompt transport, experience with trap and relocate methods suggests that a 4%
mortality rate is to be expected during transport, 26% delayed mortality due to stress induced
by the experience, and between 58% and 85% mortality in the following months. At this
time, trap and relocation of deer cannot be considered humane.
Is it safe?
Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people.
Is it effective?
No, considering the high mortality rate of transported deer and the fact that few sites in the
Midwest have the combination of adequate habitat, low deer population, and willing human
stewards this method requires. This method is selective; if only does are to be relocatecl,
bucks caught in a trap may be easily released.
Dart and relocate was considered briefly. We find no distinction between trapping and darting
when relocation is the goal, since the results of relocation are the same, and conclude
trap/dart and relocate is not effective.
13
What does it cost?
The cost depends on trap placement and deer population. Frequency of trap monitoring adds
uncertainty. In the late 1990s, North Oaks, Minnesota reported a cost per deer capture of
9131. Urban trapping for live release has been reported to cost, per deer, 9113 in Wisconsin
and 9800 in Long Island. Total costs, including transport, have been reported in the 9300 to
$1 ,O00 range. Highland Park, IL, reported a cost of 93,074 per deer to relocate 20 deer. Eight
months after transport, 11 of the 20 were reported dead. Frequent trips with small numbers of
deer are more humane but more expensive.
The cost of trapping by dart is comparable to the cost of sharpshooting.
Is it legal?
Currently, the Iowa DNR does not recommend trap and relocate for deer, although it is
routinely used for dealing with waterfowl and small animals. Relocation of wild deer to private
ownership is not currently legal in Iowa.
Committee Conclusion
The Committee does not view trap and relocate as an option because of high mortality, the
possible high cost, and lack of areas to relocate deer.
Bow Hunting
Suggested regulations for bow hunting in urban areas assume the hunter shoots from a fixed
stand, waiting there until the deer comes to the hunter. Stalking or driving deer is not permitted.
While the use of elevated stands is common, it is not required.
The Committee assumed the imposition of strict hunter education and certification standards such
as have been adopted in Waterloo/Cedar Falls in addition to regulations governing hunter behavior.
Such standards address some of the more severe criticisms of the humaneness and effectiveness
of bow hunting.
Is it humane?
Bow hunting rarely leads to instantaneous death. Estimates by hunters indicate that bow
hunting cripples more animals than gun hunting. A crippling injury is defined as one which
does not kill, and after which the hunter fails to find and kill the injured animal.
The Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Dubuque experiences suggest a significant degree of success.
Recent studies appear to confirm the belief that crippling rates from bow hunting in relatively
cramped settings such as those encountered in urban deer management are indeed lower than
the crippling rates reported for bow hunting in general.
The only scientific studies the Committee found to review were conducted by bow-hunting
advocacy groups or funded by archery-related industries.
Is it safe?
Evidence indicates that urban bow hunts pose very little risk to people. No evidence of injury
to humans appears in any of the programs reviewed.
14
Is it effective?
It can be, assuming that sufficient numbers of hunters are willing to comply with the additional
regulations governing hunting within city limits. In a recent year, hunters killed 74 deer insidle
Dubuque city limits and an additional 98 in the area surrounding the city. However, in areas
where killing of large numbers of deer is recommended, bow and arrow hunting alone would
be ineffective in reducing the population.
Bow hunting is moderately selective. The hunting season is before the bucks shed their
antlers, so gender is fairly easy to determine. Hunting traditions place a high value on killing
older bucks--the so-called trophy bucks with large, many-branched antlers. This is of little use
if population control is the goal. If bow hunting is to be used as an effective component of a
population control plan, hunters must be induced to kill does.
What does it cost?
The costs of a DNR-administered hunt are largely borne by the individual hunters who, througlh
license fees, pay for the cost of regulating the hunt. These costs are partially offset by the
value of the meat taken. DNR generally relies on individual hunters to police other hunters.
The cost to the City would be minimal.
Is it legal?
Yes.
Committee Conclusion
The Committee does not recommend bow hunting as an option for killing in the 2000-200~1
Iowa City Deer Management Plan. Some members view bow hunting as inhumane. In
addition, some members do not regard Iowa City's deer management as a recreational activity
or sport for hunters and do not wish to encourage such a concept. The Committse
recognizes, however, that bow hunting is a legal option, and some members have voiced
interest in a bow hunting component in Iowa City's management plan.
Trap and Kill
The Committee assumed the use of a baited box trap or modified clover trap. Trapping is typically
done in mid to late winter. Deer are killed by gunshot to the head; deer meat so acquired is
suitable for human consumption.
Is it humane?
If a trap is properly constructed and checked frequently, deer are unlikely to suffer significa~nt
trauma while in it. The killing methods assumed are instantaneous and therefore humane.
Is it safe?
Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people.
Is it effective?
Yes, but only to remove small numbers of deer. As with trapping and relocation, this method
is selective. Deer may be released if they are not of the desired age and sex. Dart and kill
was briefly considered. The cost of darting is approximately the same as sharpshooting; meat
from darted animals is not considered fit for human consumption.
15
What does it cost?
Costs depend on trap placement, deer population, and weather conditions. The sometimes-
complicated Iogistics of regular trap monitoring add complexity to this method. In the late
1990s, North Oaks, MN, reported a cost per deer capture of $131, not including carcass
disposal or processing. Minnetonka, MN, reported total costs of ~209-~214 per deer, including
meat processing.
Is it legal?
The DNR has authorized use of box traps for the killing of deer in Iowa City.
Committee Conclusion
The Committee does not recommend use of trap and kill. With the high number of deer
recommended to be killed, the costs and staff time associated with trap and kill would not
justify the number of deer killed.
Sharpshooting
Sharpshooting has been used in many residential areas and parks to control deer populations and
has been the kill method recommended by the Committee and approved by the City Council over
the past three years. A brief period of sharpshooting was performed in January of 1999 by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), before a lawsuit halted the project. To conduct the
sharpshoot approved for 1999-2000, the City contracted with the firm of White Buffalo, Inc.
High-powered rifles are the weapon of choice for sharpshooting. Sound suppression devices we,re
used by the USDA but not by White Buffalo, Inc. staff because, at the time, it was illegal for a
private person to possess a suppressed weapon in the State of Iowa. As of July 1, 2000,
suppressors can be used in Iowa by a person shooting a deer pursuant to a state-approved deer
management plan, if the person has a valid federal permit for the device. Also, as of July 1, 2000,
a shooter need only get permission of the owner or tenant to discharge a firearm during a
sanctioned sharpshoot if the shooter is within 50 yards of an inhabited structure. The prior law
prohibited the discharge of a firearm anywhere within 200 yards without permission. The City
requested the legislature make these two changes to the Iowa Code in order to facilitate future
sharpshooting in more developed areas.
In a professional sharpshoot, shooting sites are selected based on safety and access to deer. An
appropriate site includes an orientation relative to the bait station so that shooting occurs from an
elevated location (e.g., a tree stand or from the top of a ridge), which directs the bullet in a
downward trajectory. Site preparation, consisting of clearing underbrush and pre-baiting, lasts for
several weeks. Shooters typically work at night using artificial light.
Is it humane?
A high-powered rifle can cause instantaneous death; from this point of view, no method ,of
killing is more humane. Of all weapons for killing at a distance, high-powered rifles are the
least likely to inflict an inhumane wound, one that cripples, or kills slowly. The likelihood .of
such injuries is reduced even more by using trained sharpshooters and a bait station to attract
and hold deer for the kill.
Is it safe?
All evidence indicates that urban sharpshooting poses little risk to people. No evidence of
injury to people or property was reported in any of the programs we reviewed.
16
Is it effective?
Assuming there is appropriate access, yes. Studies have shown, and DNR advisors concurred,
that sharpshooting is more effective at reducing larger numbers of deer than bow and arrow
hunting.
What does it cost?
The City contracted with the USDA in 1998, and the USDA killed 22 deer at a cost of
$3,850. Ruzicka's Locker charged 835 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 5 Ib
packages.
In 1999, the City contracted with the private firm of White Buffalo, Inc. White Buffalo,
killed 360 deer. Costs incurred were approximately 872,000, including 869,300 to White
Buffalo, Inc. for labor and reimbursable expenses, and about 82,500 for supplies (e.g.,
housing, bait) and other expenses. Ruzicka's Locker charged 945 per deer to field dress and
process the meat into 1 Ib and 5 Ib packages. The Salvation Army received Community
Development Block Grant funding to help defray processing and storage costs.
Is it legal?
This method involves night shooting over bait, with lights and high-powered rifles. The DNR
has approved sharpshooting as a method authorized for the City of Iowa City. The City must
petition the Natural Resource Commission each year to be eligible to utilize sharpshooting. T'o
assist deer management programs, the Iowa legislature amended the Code in spring 2000 to
allow sharpshooters to use devices to decrease the sound and to permit shooting within 50
yards of an inhabited structure, with the owner's permission.
Committee Conclusion
The Committee recommends sharpshooting as the most effective, efficient, and humane
method to continue to make progress toward the population goals established in the Long-
Term Deer Management Plan. The Committee recommends White Buffalo, Inc. be engaged
this year to conduct the sharpshoot.
All public grounds should be assessed for safe and appropriate shooting sites. Private
properties should be allowed as sharpshooting sites with the permission of land owners and
occupants and in conformance with all laws, regulations, and safety concerns. The contractor
engaged to conduct the sharpshoot must arrange with property owners and occupants for use
of their land.
17
TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES
Deer-Vehicle Accident Statistics
The Iowa City Police Department is responsible for collecting deer-vehicle accident information. The
Department prepares maps showing locations and dates of accidents reported from 1996 to the
present. They are available for review at the City Clerk's Office and City Manager's Office.
The deer-vehicle accident reporting process was improved beginning with the 1999 report. Each
accident is assigned a reference number and the date, time, location, property damage amount, and
miscellaneous comments are included. Accident victims are mailed a questionnaire to return to the
City indicating information such as age of driver, weather conditions, speed, etc. to better our
understanding of deer-vehicle accidents.
Chart 3. Deer-Vehicle Accidents 1996-1999
Number Number in Reflector
Reported~ $ Damage Estimate2 Areas3
1996 15 N/A 2
1997 31 $32,505 ~ 7
....................................................................................................................... ~ .......................................................................................................................................
1998 50 ~58,870 4
1999 103 ~ 116,273 i 26
....................................................... ~ .....................................................................................................................
~ Includes deer reported dead along roadways (vehicle left scene of accident).
2 Damage estimates by police staff, not certified repair personnel. Estimates over ~1,000 require
claimant and police to file special state report.
3 Time of accident and position and maintenance of reflectors influence effectiveness.
Reflectors
Reflectors were installed on Dubuque Street (38 posts) in September 1994 and N. Dodge Street (152
posts) in spring 1997. Construction began on N. Dodge Street in summer 1998, temporarilly
displacing many reflectors. Additional reflectors were added to N. Dodge and Dubuque Streets, and a
new system installed on Rochester Avenue in spring 2000. Although reflectors appear to be
successful in reducing the number of accidents, they are effective only when vehicle lights are in use,
and they require regular maintenance.
Traffic Speeds
In a meeting with the Committee in July 1999, Traffic Engineering Planner Doug Riplay summarized
results of traffic speed studies on N. Dubuque Street and Rochester Avenue. He reported the speed a
motorist travels is primarily a function of comfort level, not of the posted speed limit. Eighty-fifth
percentlie speeds were measured; 85~h percentile indicates the general comfort level of drivers and is
generally used for determining appropriate speed limits. Speed limits should be set so there is
compliance by most motorists; otherwise, they create an enforcement problem for police. Artificially
low speed limits are not only difficult to enforce, they may also create general disrespect for spesd
limits, including those in areas where lower limits may be particularly appropriate.
On Dubuque Street, the average speed was 39.5 miles per hour in the 35 mph zone; the 85th
percentlie speeds were 42 mph. On Rochester Avenue, two locations were studied. On the eastern
portion, 85th percentlie speeds were 33 mph. Further west, 85th percentlie speeds were 42 mph.
As a result, the City concluded that the current limits are appropriately set at 35 mph. Jeff Davidson,
Acting Traffic Engineering Planner, met with the Committee in July 2000, and affirmed information
presented one year earlier by Doug Riplay.
19
In light of this information, we concluded that reducing limits below 35 mph would not reduce actual
driving speeds. It should be noted that we found no studies that relate the incidence of deer-vehicle
accidents and vehicle speed (for speeds in the 25 to 45 mph range).
In 1999, the City mounted a defensive driving campaign during October and November, when deer-
vehicle accidents are more frequent. Media releases prompted articles, display ads were run, and a
sequencer on Government Channel 4 warned drivers to be alert.
As a result of Committee recommendations last year, five deer warning signs were installed-one
each of the following locations in conjunction with reflectors: southbound Dubuque Street north of
Foster Road, northbound N. Dodge Street near Saint Matthias Street, southbound N. Dodge Street
near ACT Circle, westbound Rochester Avenue west of Scott Boulevard, and eastbound Rochest,er
Avenue east of First Avenue. Foster Road received consideration for warning signs and/or reflectors,
but the issue was deferred because of renovation planned from mid-July through December 1999.
Recommendations: Because of the high number of deer-vehicle accidents, the Committse
recommends the City:
· Continue to assess the desirability of installing additional reflectors in high-incidence areas. Since
maintenance of the reflectors is essential to their effectiveness, the Committee is pleased the City
has agreed to commit resources to reflector maintenance and asks that this support be continued.
· Continue to monitor developments in the area of road signage so Iowa City regularly uses the
most up-to-date and innovative signage technologies on the market.
· Agree to thoroughly assess, during design and planning phases of new road and road improvement
projects, the impact these projects may have on deer migratory paths and, if appropriate, to
include passageways under roads for deer in such projects.
20
EDUCATION AND OTHER NONLETHAL INITIATIVES FOR IMPROVED HUMAN-DEER
COEXISTENCE
Current Projects
During 1999-2000, the City has undertaken a number of steps toward nonlethal management:
Requested the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to consider Iowa City as a desr
contraception test site.
Began a series of Deer Issues Listening Sessions at which residents can convey to Committee
members and each other their opinions about and experience with Iowa City's deer. These
sessions are taped for broadcast on the Government Channel.
· Began updating the brochure explaining Iowa City's approach to deer management and
emphasizing methods to help residents devise strategies for living with deer.
· Initiated use of the City's website and Government Channel 4 for disseminating information.
The Committee recommends continued expansion of both forums.
· Participated in classroom discussions, presentations, and radio call-in programs.
· Installed additional reflectors as well as five warning signs. Upgraded warning signs with the
highest quality of reflective material available.
· Worked with media on defensive driving campaign during high deer-vehicle accident incidence
time of year.
· Began assessment of impact of N. Dodge Street improvements on deer. An unde=r-
passageway is being considered.
· Made available for checkout and began broadcast of "Whitetails at the Crossroads," a deer
management educational video.
· Began planning for production of a video on deer-traffic issues.
Ideas for Future Consideration
We have developed a long list of possible initiatives for nonlethal management of the interactions
between Iowa City deer and Iowa City people, drawing on our own discussions, resident comments,
correspondence, and the listening sessions. Here is a working draft of that list, which will continue to
guide our deliberations about nonlethal deer management:
· Appoint an ombudsperson to help with resolution of deer-related issues, problems
· Offer financial relief for residents disproportionately affected by deer
· Alter City laws concerning fencing, when possible
· Alter City laws for plantings in areas likely to be subject to deer damage
· Continue development of a comprehensive 'living with deer' brochure. Make it available in
paper, on City website
· Host seminars on gardening, landscaping with wildlife
· Disseminate information about problems produced by deer feeding
· - Gather and consider information on experience with deer contraception/sterilization projects
across the country
· Produce educational video. Could deal with practical or 'philosophical' issues. Provide copies
for checkout at libraries, broadcast on Government Channel 4
· Continue to broadcast "Whitetails at the Crossroads"
· Expand information on City web site. More resources. More links.
· Expand use of Streiter reflectors. Perhaps host a presentation by Dr. Streiter.
· Adopt-a-reflector system or City staff assignment to assure continuous maintenance
· Presentation by Harlo Hadow (Biology Department, Coe College) about results of student
project on deer reproduction and health
· Presentation by HSUS staff or others on immunocontraceptives or other reproductive control
projects
21
· Information sharing with comparable communities
· Host gardening seminars (present live, rebroadcast on public access TV)
· Add a 'deer resistant' garden to the Project GREEN Garden Tours, other gardener activities
· Host presentations by landscapers, professional gardeners about deer-resistant strategies
· Promote safe driving through campaigns on TV, in newspapers--especially in May and
October/November
· Provide newspaper/TV/radio features on timely deer-related issues (traffic, plantings, etc.)
· Expand traffic enforcement in problem areas during problem periods. Install temporary or
flexible signs in problem areas.
· Provide information, etc., at Parade of Homes, Project GREEN and business fairs, Chamber
office
· Visit deer-resistant gardens
22
HISTORY OF DEER MANAGEMENT IN IOWA CITY - 1997-2000
1997-1998
In response to citizen complaints, in 1997 the City Council established a Deer Management
Committee to recommend a management plan. Council appointed members representing the following
interests: Iowa City staff, Iowa City/Coralville Animal Shelter, Iowa City Police Department, hunters,
Project GREEN, residents of areas heavily populated with deer, residents of areas not heavily
populated with deer, animal protection, science/nature/biology, Iowa Wildlife Federation, City of
Coralville staff, residents of Coralville, and Johnson County Board of Supervisors.
The Committee divided the Iowa City/Coralville community into twenty Deer Management Areas,
using natural and constructed barriers as lines of division and taking into consideration the ability to
implement management techniques in each area.
After reviewing the size of the deer population, numbers of deer-vehicle accidents, the deer
management plans of other communities, comments from citizens, and advice from the DNR, the
Committee recommended and Council approved a multi-component management plan. The plan
consisted of initiating an education program, using reflectors and warning signs, consideration of de.er
when constructing/renovating arterial streets, and the killing of 180 deer by sharpshooting over bait
and by trap and kill.
To arrive at consensus about killing methods, we considered the costs, legality, risks to humans, and
humaneness of each method of killing.
For deer management purposes, the most commonly accepted number of deer an urban setting can
sustain is 20 to 25 per square mile. Based on recommendations from the DNR and review of
management plans from other communities, the 1997 Deer Management Committee established the
following guidelines for the City's long-range management plan:
0-24 deer/square mile: Educate residents about living with deer.
25-34deer/square mile: Review on an area-by-area basis. Educational material may be
recommended or killing methods implemented depending on the
management area, number of complaints, and/or evidence of types of
damage.
35 + deer/square mile: Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to tile
ecosystem.
Upon reviewing the 1997-1998 plan, the DNR rejected sharpshooting as an option for urban deer
management. But after making a comprehensive assessment of Iowa City's situation, DNR officials
concurred that bow and arrow hunting (a kill method that would be permissible) would not be an
effective method to reduce the herd according to our guidelines. Staff recommended and, on
February 12, 1998, the Natural Resource Commission approved, Iowa City's request to sharpshoot
deer. City officials worked with legislators to amend the State of Iowa Code to allow the use of
artificial light over bait for the purpose of urban deer management. There was not enough time
remaining in the season to initiate a sharpshooting program for 1997-1998; however, a permit was
authorized for September 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999.
1998-1999
On October 21, 1998, the Deer Management Committee resubmitted the original plan to the City
Council for approval, setting the number of deer to be killed at 240, as a result of increases in the size
23
of the deer herd. Council approved the plan on December 1. The City contracted with the USDA 1:o
conduct the sharpshoot. In the south Peninsula area, 19 deer (8 adult does, 6 fawn does, and 5 fawn
males) were shot on January 20, and 3 deer (1 adult doe and 2 fawn males) were shot on January
21, 1999. All adult does were pregnant. On January 20, one deer was shot and dropped, but ran off
and was not recovered.
A group of local animal rights activists backed by national groups filed a request in federal court for an
injunction against the USDA, thereby halting shooting activity until a federal judge could review the
points of contention. The request for injunctive relief alleged that the USDA had failed to meet federal
procedural requirements before the sharpshoot. The window of shooting authorization expired before
mediation eventually settled the litigation.
1999-2000
The 1999-2000 Deer Management Committee met from April 21 through August 16, 1999,
formulating a plan similar to the first two and increasing the number of deer to be killed to no more
than 733. The Committee examined the credentials of three agencies that submitted proposals 1:o
conduct the sharpshoot. The Committee recommended and the City agreed that the sharpshooting
contract should be awarded to White Buffalo, Inc., of Hamden, Connecticut. (See Attachment B for
White Buffalo, Inc. Summary)
The 1999-2000 sharpshoot included a preliminary kill of 11 deer on November 9 to coordinate
Iogistics. Extensive preparation of 29 bait sites took place between December 12 and 31.
Between January 1 and January 11, White Buffalo, Inc. killed 349 deer by sharpshooting [215
females (60%) and 145 males (40%)/65 (18%) had visible antlers and 295 deer (82%) were
antlerless. Including the 11 killed in November, 350 deer were killed and transported to Ruzicka's
Locker in Solon for processing and packaging. Graduate students from Coe College performed
reproductive autopsies and collected blood samples to test for evidence of Lyme disease. Blood
analyses revealed the incidence of Lyme antibodies in the samples studied was consistent with the
statewide average of 5 percent.
Deer meat was distributed to local residents by the Salvation Army. Approximately 6,600 pounds
were distributed to 1,574 households (4,331 individuals), the Free Lunch Program (Wesley House=),
the SE Linn Community Food Reservoir (for Johnson County families), churches and community
groups, and the Salvation Army Evening Meal Program. Qualifications for receiving meat included:
Johnson County resident, collect meat only once a month, choose either but not both the Salvation
Army or the Crisis Center as preferred pick-up location, and five pounds per family/one pound per
individual. Recipes were provided with the meat.
The City initiated an educational program, including display ads in local newspapers, the use of
Government Channel 4 to convey high risk periods for deer-vehicle collisions, a brochure discussing
Iowa City deer issues and suggesting ways to coexist with deer, and a deer management vidso
broadcast on Government Channel 4 and available for checkout at the public library.
Additional Streiter reflectors were added to the N. Dubuque Street and N. Dodge Street systems, arid
a new system was installed on Rochester Avenue. Deer warning signs manufactured with improvsd
reflective material were placed at the beginning of the reflector systems along each traffic lane. In
March, the City's website launched a deer information page including frequently asked questions, a
listing of deer resistant plantings, a map indicating deer-vehicle accidents for 1999, and a public
comment board. Content of the website will be expanded as the program progresses.
After assessing the local situation, White Buffalo staff did not recommend Iowa City as a potential site
for a contraceptive study at this time. The City has requested a similar analysis and recommendation
from HSUS but has not yet received a response.
24
CITIZEN COMMENTS
In 1999, a voice-recorded "deer line" was established to enable callers to make a request, ask a
question, record a concern, or make a statement about Iowa City's deer. This line was replaced in
2000 by a comment section on the City website. (See Attachment C)
COMMONLY-ASKED QUESTIONS AND COMMITTEE ANSWERS
Don't I have the right to enjoy the deer in my neighborhood or the park I visit?
Absolutely yes! It has never been the intent of the Committee to eradicate Iowa City's deer herd.
I don't understand the discussion of a deer no-feed policy. If we can have bird feeders, why can't we
feed cracked corn to deer in the backyard?
Our desire to observe wildlife and to know they are present in our surroundings is understandablE;.
However, the well-being of wild creatures is best maintained by watching from a distance and not
by attempting to entice them to our immediate living area. Even bird feeders can have undesirable
consequences if placement or poor maintenance alters migration timing, spreads disease, or causes
an irabalance in species distribution. Given the large deer population in Iowa City, supplemental
feeding is an invitation to negative deer-human interactions that further promote the call for lethal
deer removal. Deer movement to and from a supplemental feeding site or salt block frequently
involves street crossings and consequent automobile accidents. Concentration of deer at a feeding
site causes increased browse damage, soil erosion, and excrement in the feeding area and on
neighboring properties. Given their varied diet, it is wrong to assume deer will eat only the corn
and ignore vegetation in the area. Routine backyard feedings alter deer behavior patterns such that
they no longer fear humans.
With repeated invitations to human surroundings, deer that should otherwise be shy and dispersed
away from humans spend their time looking for handouts and tasty plantings in more densely
developed areas. The desire to feed and view deer up-close should be tempered by the realization
that this activity is a primary cause for deer-human conflicts. You can be assured that the deer wiill
ultimately be the loser in these conflicts. A good general reference is Living with Wildlife, by the
California Center for Wildlife; a Sierra Club Book, 1994. The book is available at the Iowa City
Public Library.
Why do we need to kill deer? Can't you recommend only nonlethal methods of managing the deer to
prevent human-deer conflict and let nature take its course?
Fortunately, nonlethal methods can assist in minimizing human-deer conflict; however, these
methods appear to be less effective as the deer population increases. Unfortunately, nonlethal
methods do nothing to stop the deer herd from increasing. What most experts--including those in
animal welfare-tell us is if we allow nature to take its course, deer typically die from disease,
starvation, cold weather, or stress. While such causes may be "natural," the Committee did not
view them as acceptable or humane as a means of population control in an urban setting.
Unfortunately, in an urban setting, traffic accidents are the most common "natural" cause of deer
death.
What gives you the right to kill them?
Deer in the State of Iowa do not belong to individual cities or residents. Rather, the State of Iowa
has title and ownership of deer pursuant to Section 481A.2, Code of Iowa (1999). In order to kill
deer, the City of Iowa City is required to obtain permission from the State of Iowa through the
Natural Resource Commission.
25
How can you justify the killing of deer without conducting scientific studies in Iowa City?
This is a topic the Committee discussed in length. Results of scientific studies conducted in other
areas of Iowa, including Kent Park and the Coralville Reservoir, confirm the environmental impact of
large numbers of deer. We did not believe we would "create new science" in Iowa City; it has
been clear from the studies of other areas that results are consistent throughout the Midwest.
Deer living in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri eat approximately the same amount and
types of vegetation as deer in Iowa City.
If no population control methods were implemented, what would likely occur to other plant and animal
life in the city?
The effect of deer on other plant and animal life depends greatly on the number of deer present and
the length of time numbers stay at a given level. Although at even low levels (10-20 deer/sq. mi.),
the effects on species composition of the plant and animal communities are measurable, they are
quickly reversed when deer levels are reduced. At high levels (25 or more deer/sq. mi.), the effects
over the short-term are likely reversible; over the long term, however, many native plant species
will be eliminated locally, and they will not likely reestablish even if deer numbers are reduced. In
addition, animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, that depend on those plants will be driven
locally extinct. The result is a species-poor community consisting only of a few plants, often non-
native, that are avoided by deer because of their thorns or distastefulness. For example, the area
behind the Mayflower Apartments contained a full complement of spring flora species 25 years
ago, but today nearly all non-woody vegetation between ground level and approximately 6 to 8 feet
above ground has been eliminated.
If you include killing as a part of deer management, aren't you going to have to kill deer every year?
The Committee recognizes that deer will probably to be killed each year, particularly the first
several years. A harsh winter, disease, or other factor may affect the number of deer to kill.
If you kill deer, won't the remaining does just start having more fawns?
When a deer population is decreased, there is a more abundant food supply for those remaining. In
areas where deer have been underfed, such an increased food supply leads to a higher birth rats.
But this is not typical of Iowa, which has one of the highest deer reproductive rates in the nation.
Seventy percent of first-year fawns become pregnant; each year, most adult does have twins and
10 percent have triplets. Iowa City's abundant natural and planted vegetation provides ample
nutrients to sustain such a birth rate. It is doubtful that killing deer here will lead to a significant
increase in the birth rate.
Why don't you provide more educational programs and materials?
It appears the most cost-effective method of educating the public is to respond to citizen requests
for information by providing items such as a brochure. Information from the 2000-2001 plan will
be available on the City's website. The Committee is committed to regularly recommend and
develop new educational materials and resources. We also encourage all those interested in
educating the public about ways to live with deer to do so. This effort does not necessarily have
to be organized through the City.
Can't the peninsula be preserved to provide a refuge for the deer in Iowa City?
No. Deer frequently swim across the Iowa River and cross the highways to feed in other areas of
town. Creating a safe haven for deer there would require fencing the peninsula and would
eventually lead to destruction of all vegetation there.
26
Are you killing deer on the peninsula because of the planned development?
The City purchased portions of the peninsula in 1995 for 92,000,000, using general funds (91.3nn)
and HUD Supplemental CDBG Flood Relief Funds (t/.Tm). The lower peninsula, situated in the
floodplain, is already designed as both a natural woodland, prairie, and wetland park as well as .a
well field for the City's water supply.
To reimburse the general fund, the 70-acre upper peninsula has been sold to a developer. The
Peninsula neighborhood is intended to provide a well-designed and environmentally sensitiv,e
development in the special setting of land overlooking a natural park and the Iowa River. The goals
of the project are to provide housing for a variety of types of households and people, to show how
different housing types can be proximate to each other and succeed through careful design, to
complete an urban neighborhood in an infill site, and to provide a model of an alternative to
conventional subdivisions for the development community in Iowa City.
The recommendation to kill deer on the peninsula was made without reference to plannecl
development and, according to City staff, the planned development was made without reference to
the deer. The peninsula was one of the most appropriate areas to implement the reduction program
because it has the highest number of deer per square mile and it provides several natural sites for
sharpshooting.
Why aren't you recommending that bow and arrow hunting be included in the plan, particularly since
it is cheaper than hiring sharpshooters?
A majority of members believe that sharpshooting is the most humane and effective method of
reducing Iowa City's large deer herd. The Committee does not regard deer management as a
recreational activity or sport and does not wish to encourage such a concept. If sharpshooting were
to be stopped due to litigation, bow hunting would probably become the fallback method to kill
deer. We recognize that costs are minimal with bow hunting but believe the community finds
sharpshooting a more acceptable method than bowhunting for killing deer for management
purposes.
Is sharpshooting safe?
There is substantial evidence that sharpshooting is safe when appropriate regulations an,d
procedures are followed. The 1999-2000 sharpshoot was conducted without any breaches of
safety procedures and, in looking at other communities where sharpshooting has been utilized, we
have heard no reports of injury or property damage.
Won't I hear the sound of gunshots again this year?
Possibly. Last Vear, some residents living a distance awaV from shooting activity did hear the
sound of gunshots. At the time, it was illegal for a private individual to possess a suppressed
weapon in the state of Iowa. As of July 1, 2000, suppressors can be used in Iowa by a person
shooting a deer pursuant to a state-approved deer management plan, if the person has a valid
federal permit for the device. The agency recommended for 2000-2001 is authorized to use sound
suppressors that will reduce some of the noise associated with firing of a weapon, so we hope that
fewer people will be bothered by the sound of shooting during the 2000-2001 program.
What happens if sharpshooting activity frightens deer and they run across a busy street or the
interstate, get hit by a vehicle, and someone gets hurt?
Deer-vehicle accidents are already occurring. Sharpshooting activity on the peninsula, for example;,
was carried out at substantial distance from roadways. The use of suppressors further reduces the
likelihood that many deer will startle and run. Most sharpshooting will occur in late evening and
early morning hours, when traffic volumes are lower.
27
Why do you think killing deer is an appropriate response to the complaints of residents whose gardeqs
and ornamental plants are being eaten? After all, it only takes one deer to cause damage to a garden..
Many of the people who made comments on the Deer Line and the Deer Comment section of the
City website said they did not notice substantial damage to ornamental and garden plants until
recently, as the deer population increased. Residents in areas of 0-25 deer per square mile are not
complaining that their plants are being eaten. But those in areas with 70 deer per square mile are
telling us deer are eating through plastic fencing and consuming plants thought to be toxic or very
undesirable to deer. A single deer may consume seven pounds of vegetation a day, so it is obvious
how the impact of deer is magnified as their numbers increase.
How have other communities handled deer management?
Programs for deer management vary widely. Communities we contacted in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and New York have tried a variety of methods:
City officials implementing a plan without citizen input.
City officials appointing a citizens' task force to review options and recommend a plan.
· Leaving the issue of killing deer up to the citizens via a non-binding referendum (it is
interesting to note the residents voted to kill deer and the Council ultimately decided not to kill
deer.)
· Use of bow hunting only (both extremely regulated and nearly unregulated restrictions).
· Use of sharpshooting only (local law enforcement, federal agents, or private contractors).
· Use of a combination of methods to kill deer (bow hunting and sharpshooting).
The Committee did not locate one community in which deer were not killed and the population
stabilized or decreased naturally. One community in Illinois represented that they did not kill deer
and were no longer having a "deer problem;" however, the surrounding communities were actively
managing deer using an annual kill.
When considering methods of killing deer, the Committee has been guided by three criteria: publlic
safety, community acceptance, and effectiveness in maintaining the desired number of deer. These
criteria governed our choice of sharpshooting. Other communities in Iowa have utilized bow
hunting as the killing method. Iowa City is the first community in Iowa to receive authorization
from the State to sharpshoot.
28
ATTACHMENT A - DNR Projected Number of Deer to be Removed
by Willie Suchy
Wildlife Biologist, IDNR
The simulations developed here are based upon the number of deer observed during the helicopter
surveys conducted in 1997, 1999 and 2000. The simulation assumes that about 60% of the initial
number counted were does and about 1/3 of the does were fawns. The annual cycle begins with
dispersal and reproduction. Then the number of deer present after normal mortality through the end of
December are calculated. Removals occur during January and February and are additive to normal
mortality. Then the cycle repeats.
First I evaluated the productivity information gathered from the deer removed by White Buffalo.
According to the summary report, doe fawns had an average of 0.20 fawns and does 1 ~ years of
age or older had an average of 1.20 fawns. This was lower than the productivity used for the original
simulations where doe fawns produced an average of 0.95 fawns and adult does produced an average
of 1.83 fawns. The simulations using the higher level of productivity tended to "fit" the counts better
(Fig 1 ). Simulations using the lower level of productivity (Fig 2) needed to have significantly more deer
present than indicated by the counts to "fit" changes that should occur with the removals. It appears
that the productivity data collected are probably low which is not unexpected given the timing of the
removals. Therefore I used the higher rates of productivity for the simulations and tried to align the
simulations to the latest counts.
Table I lists the estimated number of does that need to be removed to reach the objective of less than
30 deer per square mile in 1 year. The simulations "fit" the counts observed on the Peninsula, the
Dubuque to Dodge Street, the Iowa River south and Finkbine areas fairly well. For the other areas I
made 2 estimates of the number of does to remove, one using the initial counts and one that heed
somewhat higher numbers. Both estimates were similar for most areas.
Table 1. The number of deer that would need to be removed this year to reduce simulated populations to less
than 30/square mile. The number in parenthesis is a "lower" estimate based upon a more conservative estimate
of the deer counts.
Deer Goal Number of
Deer Sighted Removed (30 deer/ Does to
Area Area Sq. Mi. 1997 1999 2000 In 2000 sq. mi) Reme. ve
W of Dubuque St/North of 1-80 1 0.36 NA NA NA 15 11 NA
Peninsula 2&3 0.92 69 154 81 186 28 50
Dubuque St to Dodge St 4&5 1.22 78 90 99 57 37 80
Dubuque St to Hwy 1/North of 1-80 6 0.88 37 60 74 0 26 90 (80)
Hickory Hill/ACT 7 2.00 65 127 140 102 60 100 (70)
SE Iowa City 10 1.13 NA NA 7 0 34 0
Iowa River (South) 11&12 1.13 11 15 48 0 34 30
Finkbine (U of I) 16 0.58 6 31 48 0 17 30
Willow Creek 17 0.44 3 0 4 0 13 0
Manville Heights 20 0.78 NA NA 6 0 23 0
Total 9,42 269 477 507 382 249 380 (340)
29
Figure 1. Results of simulation of deer numbers in Areas 2 and 3 (the Peninsula) using productivity from Kent Perk
model where doe fawns produce 0.95 fawns and adults 1.83 fawns.
200
- - - Simulation
4~ Aerial Counts
! //4~\ ......... Goal
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/
100 - / \
\
I
d \
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Figure 2. Results of simulation of deer numbers in Areas 2 and 3 (the Peninsula) using productivity from d~;er
killed by White Buffalo where doe fawns produce 0.20 fawns and adults 1.20 fawns.
200
,~ - - - Simulation
/ \ 4. Aerial Counts
I \
/ Goal
/ ~ \ .........
.,I \
100 \
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
August 2000
30
ATTACHMENT B - WHITE BUFFALO SUMMARY REPORT
SUMMARY REPORT
2000 Deer Management Program
by
White Buffalo, Inc.
Site Description
Iowa City contains a matrix of suburban/commercial development, agricultural fields, parks and
open grasslands. As a result of no legal hunting opportunities and fertile soils, the deer
population had increased to a level incompatible with some land uses 'and human activities.
Although deer physical condition was not an issue, there was concern regarding numerous
deer/vehicle collisions and damage to garden and landscape plantings. As part of the
1999/2000 comprehensive deer management program under the authorization of the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources this is the first year in which an aggressive population
reduction program was implemented.
Deer Manaqement Pro.qram Overview
Initial site preparation and prebaiting were conducted from 12-31 December 1999. A
preliminary harvest to coordinate Iogistics was implemented on 9 November 1999. Deer
removal activities began on I January 2000 and continued through 11 January. During the
12-day removal pedod, 11 days of fieldwork were required to achieve the harvest of 360 deer,
with 11 of those deer harvested on 9 November 1999.
Field Methods
We followed the operations protocol outlined in the contract and changes agreed to verbally
prior to the onset of site preparations. Twenty-nine bait sites were selected throughout the
area of operation. One bait site was shut down during the program because of its proximity to
Hickory Hill Park and potential conflicts with users of the park.
Deer were shot on a first opportunity basis. This means that deer were shot only when, 1 ) a
safe opportunity presented itself, and 2) maximal harvest efficiency would be achieved. Most of
the harvested deer were within 40 yards of the shooter. Carcasses were then tagged and
delivered to Ruzicka's Meats for processing and data collection.
31
Harvest Demographics
The entire data set generated from harvested deer is represented in the spreadsheet entitled
"Iowa City Harvest By Tag Number - 2000". The number of deer harvested by day is shown in
Figure 1. When using the "first opportunity" approach, the harvest demographics are usually
representative of the population as a whole. We harvested 215 females (60%) and 145 males
(40%). Sixty-five deer (18%) had visible antlers, whereas 295 deer (82%) were antlerless.
Eighty male fawns were included in the antlerless harvest.
The overall harvest demographics are summarized in Table 1. One hundred and forty-foUr
(40%) fawns, 57 (16%) yearlings, and 159 (44%) adults were harvested.
Table 1. Age class and sex distribution of deer harvested in Iowa City, Iowa from 1-11
January 2000.
AGE # MALE (%) # FEMALE (%) # COMBINED
Fawn 80 (22) 64 (18) 144 (40)
1.5 27 (7) 30 (8) 57 (16)
Adult 38 (11) 121 (34) 159 (44)
Harvest by Deer Management Zone
To allow for a more comprehensive population management program, we summarized all the
harvest data by management zone (Table 2) relative to the zones of deer concentration
identified by the City's 1999 aerial snow count. Zone I covered the City's new water treatment
facility property, north of Route 80 and west of Dubuque Street. Zone 2 was delineated on the
west and south by the Iowa River, on the east by Dubuque Street and on the north by Route
80. Zone 3 was located east of Dubuque Street, south of Route 80 and northwest of Dodge
Street; and Zone 4 included land southeast of Dodge Street, north of Rochester Ave and west
of Scott Boulevard. In total the program was conducted in 4 square miles of the city. The most
productive sites were within Zones 2 and 4 where 186 and 102 were culled respectively.
Table 2. Age class and sex distribution of deer harvested by management zone (bait sites) in
Iowa City, Iowa from 1-11 January 2000.
ZONE I (_Q = 15)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 4 27 2 13
1.5 I 7 -
Adult 3 20 5 33
Table 2. cont'd.
ZONE 2 (9_ = 186)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 36 19 36 19
1.5 13 7 23 12
Adult 14 8 64 34
ZONE 3 (D = 57)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 14 25 6 11
1.5 5 8 4 7
Adult 9 16 19 33
ZONE 4 (D, = 102)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 26 25 20 20
1.5 8 8 3 3
Adult 12 11 33 32
Nine (31%) bait sites were accessed by vehicle only, 13 (45%) were used as stand sites, and 7
(24%) were used for both approaches. One hundred and seventy-one deer (48%) were shot
from a vehicle and 189 (53%) were shot from a stand. All sites denoted as '"S" (stand) in the
spreadsheet entitled "Iowa City Harvest By Tag Number - 2000" were utilized dudng the "sit
and shoot" period of 1430-1900 hrs. All sites designated as '"V" were approached via vehicle
between 1900 and 0200 hr.
Discussion
Nearly 5 times as many adult females as adult males were harvested. This is likely
representative of the population as a whole as males typically incur higher annual rates of
mortality and dispersal.
We summarized the harvest data by Deer Management Zone so comparisons of harvest data
to past and future helicopter snow counts can be conducted and future harvest efforts can be
refined. Zone 3 and portions of Zone 4 should be considered for more intensive efforts in
upcoming years.
Overall herd health was based on whole body weights, fetal counts and yearling antler beam
diameters. Dr. Harlo Hadow of Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa collected these data. Deer
sampled were determined to be in generally good health. Table 3 summarizes the pregnancy
status of a portion of the female deer harvested. Thirty percent of the deer sampled had
multiple letuses and 49% were not pregnant. Some of these animals may have conceived late
in the season and these pregnancies may not have been detectable because of the time of
removal.
Table 3. Pregnancy status of female deer harvested (n = 155) in Iowa City, Iowa from 1-11
January 2000.
AGE NOT SINGLE TWINS TRIPLETS
PREGNANT
Fawn 47 5 3 0
Adult 29 35 36 7
Future Proclram Adjustments
As mentioned earlier, we may want to consider searching for additional bait sites in Zone 3 and
4. The availability of suppressors for future annual harvests would serve several purposes.
Most importantly, there would be a significant reduction in disturbances to the public adjacent to
bait sites. This would result in an improved public perception of the deer management program.
There also may be more bait sites available in proximity to homes were unsuppressed weapon
would not be deemed acceptable. In addition, there is the potential for increased harvest
efficiency, particularly at stand sites. Eliminating the 200-yard safety rule would also enhance
the success of future programs by creating more opportunities for accessing deer in areas
closer to homes.
Feasibility of Mana.clement with Anti-fertility A~ents
Having had the opportunity to work within the city limits on the deer management program and
witness deer behavior, density and distribution we have confirmed our earlier suspicions that
deer management/research with anti-fertility agents is not practical nor feasible at this time.
The lack of isolated habitats for which contraceptive technology is still constrained are not
present in Iowa City. In addition, relatively high deer densities persist in many areas of the city,
which would preclude the use of fertility control as a potential population level management
tool.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Lisa Mollenhauer of the Iowa City/Coralville Deer Commission, Lt. Ron
Fort, Iowa City Police Department, Dr. Harlo Hadow and his students, and all the participating
landowners for their cooperation and support.
Figure 1. Distribution of the number of deer harvested over the entire removal period, January
I - January 11, 2000.
120
105
90
75
60
45
30
15
0
1/1/00
1/2/00 1/3/00 1/4/00 1/5/00 1/6/00 1/7/00 1/8/00 1/9100 1/10/00
Date of harvest
1/11/00
Iowa City Deer Harvest by Tag Number - 2000
Tag# ZONE Date Sex Age Stand/Vehicle
A 41429 2 9-Nov F A V
A 41430 2 9-Nov F A V
A 41431 2 9-Nov F A V
A 41432 2 9-Nov F A V
A 41433 2 9-Nov F A V
A 41434 2 9-Nov F F V
A 41435 2 9-Nov M F V
A 41436 2 9-Nov M F V
A 41437 2 9-Nov M F V
A 41438 2 9-Nov M Y V
A 41439 2 9-Nov F A V
A 41445 4 1-jan M A S
A 41446 4 1-Jan M A S
A 41447 4 1-Jan M A S
A 41448 1 1-Jan M A S
A 41449 1 1-Jan M F S
A 41450 1 1-jan M A S
A 41451 1 1-Jan M A S
A 41452 1 1-Jan F A S
A 41453 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41426 1 1-Jan F F V
A 41427 1 1-Jan F A V
A 41428 1 1-Jan F A V
A 41429 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41430 4 1-Jan M F V
A 41431 4 1-Jan M F V
A 41432 4 1-Jan M F V
A 41433 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41434 4 1-Jan M Y S
A 41435 4 1-Jan M Y S
A 41436 4 1-Jan F F S
A 41437 .4 1-Jan F F S
A 41438 4 1-Jan F A S
A 41439 4 1-Jan M Y S
A 41440 4 1-Jan F A S
A 41441 4 1-Jan M Y S
A 41442 4 1-Jan F A S
A 41443 4 1-jan M A S
A 41444 4 1-Jan M A S
A 41445 4 1-Jan M Y S
A 41446 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41447 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41448 4 1-Jan M Y V
A 41449 4 1-Jan M F V
A 41454 4 1-Jan M A V
A 41455 4 1-Jan F F V
A 41456 4 1-Jan F F V
A 41457 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41458 4 1-Jan M Y V
A 41459 4 1-Jan F F V
A 41516 4 1-Jan F F V
A 41517 4 1-Jan M F V
A 41518 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41519 4 1-Jan M F V
A 41520 4 1-Jan M F V
A 41521 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41522 4 1-Jan F F V
A 41523 4 1-Jan F F V
A 41524 4 1-Jan F A V
A 41525 4 1-Jan F F V
A 41460 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41461 2 2-jan M Y S
A 41462 2 2-Jan F A S
A 41463 2 2-Jan M A S
A 41464 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41465 2 2-Jan F A S
A 41466 2 2-Jan M Y S
A 41467 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41468 2 2-Jan F A S
A 41469 2 2-Jan F A S
A 41470 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41471 2 2-Jan F F S
A 41472 2 2-Jan F A S
A 41473 2 2-Jan F F S
A 41474 2 2-Jan M A S
A 41475 2 2-Jan M F S
A 41476 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41477 2 2-Jan M F S
A 41478 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41479 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41480 2 2-Jan M F S
A 41481 2 2-Jan M F S
A 41482 2 2-Jan M F S
A 41483 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41484 2 2-Jan F Y S
A 41485 2 2-Jan' M F S
A 41486 2 2-jan F A S
A 41487 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41488 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41489 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41490 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41491 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41492 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41493 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41494 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41495 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41496 2 2-Jan M A V
A 41497 2 2-Jan M A V
A 41498 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41499 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41500 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41501 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41502 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41503 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41504 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41505 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41506 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41507 2 2-Jan M Y V
A 41508 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41509 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41510 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41511 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41512 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41513 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41514 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41515 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41550 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41551 2 2-Jan M A V
A 41552 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41553 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41554 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41555 2 2-Jan M Y V
A 41556 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41557 2 2-jan M F V
A 41558 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41559 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41560 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41561 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41562 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41563 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41564 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41565 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41566 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41567 2 2-Jan M Y V
A 41568 2 2-Jan M Y V
A 41569 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41570 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41571 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41572 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41573 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41574 2 2-Jan M Y V
A 41575 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41576 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41577 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41578 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41579 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41580 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41581 2 2-Jan M A V
A 41582 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41583 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41584 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41585 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41586 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41587 2 2-Jan F Y V
A 41588 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41589 2 2-Jan M A V
A 41590 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41591 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41592 2 2-Jan F F V
A 41593 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41594 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41595 2 2-Jan M F V
A 41596 2 2-Jan F A V
A 41597 2 4-Jan M Y S
A 41598 2 4-Jan F A S
A 41599 2 4-Jan M A S
A 41600 2 4-Jan M F - S
A 41601 2 4-Jan F A S
A 41602 2 4-Jan M F S
A 41603 2 4-Jan F A S
A 41604 2 4-Jan F A S
A 41605 2 4-Jan F A S
A 41606 2 4-Jan F Y S
A 41607 2 4-Jan F A S
A 41608 2 4-Jan F A S
A 41609 2 4-Jan F F S
A 41610 2 4-Jan F F S
A 41611 3 4-Jan M F S
A 41612 3 4-Jan M F S
A 41613 3 4-Jan F Y S
A 41614 3 4-Jan M F S
A 41615 3 4-Jan F A S
A 41616 3 4-Jan F A S
A 41617 3 4-Jan F A S
A 41618 3 4-Jan M F S
A 41619 3 4-Jan F F S
A 41620 3 4-Jan F F S
A 41621 3 4-Jan M A ~
A 41622 3 4-Jan F Y S
A 41623 3 4-Jan F A S
A 41624 4 4-Jan F A S
A 41625 4 4-Jan F A S
A 41626 3 4-Jan M A S
A 41627 3 4-Jan M A S
A 41628 3 4-Jan F A S
A 41629 3 4-Jan F A S
A 41630 3 4-Jan F A S
A 41631 3 4-Jan M Y S
A 41632 3 4-Jan M Y S
A 41633 3 4-Jan M F S
A 41634 3 4-Jan M F S
A 41635 3 4-Jan M A S
A 41636 4 4-Jan F F V
A 41637 4 4-Jan F Y V
A 41638 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41639 4 4-jan M A V
A 41640 4 4-Jan F F V
A 41641 4 4-Jan F F V
A 41642 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41643 4 4-Jan M F V
A 41644 1 4-Jan F A V
A 41645 1 4-Jan F A V
A 41646 1 4-Jan M F V
A 41647 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41648 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41649 4 4-Jan M F V
A 41650 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41651 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41652 4 4-Jan M F ' V
A 41653 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41654 4 4-Jan M A V
A 41655 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41656 4 4-Jan F A V
A 41657 4 4-Jan M F V
A 41673 4 4-Jan F F V
A 41674 4 4-Jan M F V
A 41675 4 4-Jan F Y V
A 41658 3 5-Jan M F S
A 41659 3 5-Jan M Y S
A 41660 3 5-Jan M F S
A 41661 3 5-Jan M F S
A 41662 3 5-Jan F A S
A 41663 3 5-Jan M F S
A 41664 TAG NOT VALID NO TOP PORTION
A 41665 3 5-Jan F F S
A 41666 3 5-Jan F A S
A 41667 3 5-Jan F A S
A 41668 4 5-Jan M F S
A 41669 4 5-Jan F A S
A 41670 4 5-Jan M A S
A 41671 4 5-Jan F F S
A 41672 4 5-Jan M F S
A 41747 1 5-Jan M Y V
A 41748 1 5-Jan M F V
A 41749 2 5-Jan F A V
A 41750 2 5-Jan F A V
A 41751 2 5-Jan F F V
A 41752 2 5-jan F Y V
A 41753 2 5-Jan F F V
A 41754 2 5-Jan F A V
A 41755 2 5-Jan F Y V
A 41756 2 5-Jan F F V
A 41757 2 5-Jan M A V
A 41758 2 5-Jan M A V
A 41759 2 5-Jan M F V
A 41760 2 5-Jan M F V
A 41761 2 5oJan F Y V
A 41762 2 5-Jan F A V
A 41763 3 5-Jan F A S
A 41764 3 5-Jan F F S
A 41765 3 5-Jan M Y S
A 41766 4 5-Jan M F S
A 41767 4 5-Jan F A S
A 41768 4 5-Jan M Y S
A 41769 4 5-Jan F A S
A 41770 4 5-Jan M F S
A 41771 4 5-Jan M F S
A 41772 4 5-Jan F F S
A 41773 4 5-Jan M F S
A 41774 4 5-Jan F F S
A 41676 4 6-Jan F F S
A 41677 4 6-Jan M A S
A 41678 4 6-Jan M F S
A 41679 4 6-Jan M F S
A 41680 4 6-Jan F A S
A 41681 4 6-Jan M F S
A 41682 3 6-Jan F Y S
A 41683 3 6-Jan F F S
A 41684 3 6-Jan M Y S
A 41685 3 6-Jan F A S
A 41686 3 6-Jan F A S
A 41687 3 6-Jan M A S
A 41745 3 6-Jan M A S
A 41746 3 6-Jan F Y S
A 41688 3 7-Jan F A S
A 41689 3 7-Jan M A S
A 41690 3 7-Jan F A S
A 41691 3 7-Jan F A S
A 41692 3 7-Jan F A S
A 41693 3 7-Jan M F S
A 41694 3 7-Jan F A S
A 41695 3 7-Jan M F S
A 41696 3 7-Jan M A S
A 41697 4 7-Jan F A S
A 41698 4 7-Jan F F S
A 41699 .4 7-Jan F F S
A 41700 4 7-Jan M F S
A 41701 4 7-Jan M A S
A 41702 1 8-Jan F A S
A 41703 1 8-Jan M f S
A 41704 2 8-Jan M A S
A 4170.5 2 8-Jan F F S
A 41706 2 8-Jan F F S
A 41707 2 8-Jan F F S
A 41724 2 8-Jan F A S
A 41725 2 8-Jan F A S
A 41726 2 8-Jan F A S
A 41727 2 8-Jan M F S
A 41728 2 8-Jan F A S
A 41729 2 8-Jan F A S
A 41730 2 8-Jan M F S
A 41731 2 8-jan F A S
A 41732 2 8-Jan M F S
A 41733 2 8-Jan F F S
A 41734 2 8-Jan M F S
A 41735 2 8-Jan M F S
A 41736 2 8-Jan M F V
A 41737 2 8-Jan F F V
A 41738 2 8-Jan M F V
A 41739 2 8-Jan F A V
A 41740 2 8-Jan F A - V
A 41741 2 8-Jan M A V
A 41742 2 8-Jan M A V
A 41743 2 8-Jan F A V
A 41744 2 8-jan F A V
A 41708 3 9-Jan M F S
A 41709 3 9-Jan F F S
A 41710 3 9-Jan F A S
A 41711 4 9-Jan F A V
A 41712 4 9-Jan F A V
A 41713 4 9-Jan F A V
A 41714 3 10-Jan M F S
A 41715 3 10-Jan M A S
A 41716 2 10-Jan F A S
A 41717 2 10-Jan M F S
A 41718 2 10-Jan M Y S
A 41719 2 10-Jan M Y S
A 41720 2 10-Jan M A S
A 41721 2 10-Jan F F S
A 41722 2 10-Jan M F S
A 41723 2 10-Jan M Y S
A 41775 2 10-Jan F A S
A 41776 2 10-Jan~ F F S
A 41777 2 10-Jan M F S
A 41778 2 10-Jan M Y S
A 41779 2 10-Jan M F S
A 41780 2 ll-Jan F A S
A 41781 2 ll-Jan F A V
A 41782 2 ll-Jan F F S
A 41783 2 ll-Jan F A S
A 41784 2 ll-jan F F S
A 41785 2 ll-Jan F A S
A 41786 4 ll-Jan F A S
A 41787 4 ll-Jan F A S
A 41788 4 ll-Jan F A S
A 41789 4 ll-Jan M F S
A 41790 4 ll-Jan M F S
A 41791 4 ll-Jan M F S
A 41792 4 ll-Jan F F S
A 41793 4 ll-Jan M F S
A 41794 4 ll-Jan M A S
From: Tony DeNicola and Deb Cuddy [mailto:wbuffalo@gateway.net]
Lisa,
Our harvest very accurately represented the population as a whole. We
harvested 82% antlerless deer, which is completely consistent with every
unhurtted, suburban, deer population that has been studied. With a male fawn
in hand you have to FEEL its head for "buttons" or check the genitalia. It
would be nearly impossible to sex a fawn just by looking at it. Fawns fall
into the "antlerless" category until they are sorted out during handling.
Therefore, 3 times as many does (adult) were killed as bucks (adult - > 1.5
years old). We were very aware of the status of all adult and yearling
males harvest. It was 18% of the total, again, as would be expected in an
unhunted population. We kill all the antlerless deer at the bait site, if
an antlered deer remains and presents us with a safe shot, we take it.
We harvested 121 adult does and 38 adult males, that is 3.2 times as
many adult does as adult bucks. It was a typographical error. We
apologize. If there are any further questions, please forward them along.
Tony
City of Iowa City
1999-2000 Urban Deer Management Program
- Breakdown of White Buffalo, Inc. Hours -
PERSONNEL HOURS HOURS SUBTOTAL
Nov. 9, 1999 - Nov. 13, 1999: travel,
organizational meetings, bulk bait and
harvested 11 deer ( 2 people) ' 71
Dec. 12, 1999 - Dec. 31, 1999: daily
prebaiting; clearing and preparing sites; and
organizational meetings ( 4 people) 370
Jan. 1, 2000 - Jan. 14, 2000: implemented
deer reduction program, harvested 349
deer; daily baiting; transport carcasses;
maintenance of weapons and gear;
organizational meetings (landowners and
media); and travel. (5 people) 649
HOURLY TOTAL 1090
ATTACHMENT C - WEBSITE DEER COMMENT BOARD
(as of September 73 2000
1906 Bittersweet Dr. Champaign, IL 61821
(217) 351-8016
Upon submiffing my last ent~, I mad what I had written, and maliz~ that I had fo~o~en a few major point...
Another method of control that has b~n Iook~ into is hidng a sha~h~ter. This solution is quite expe~ive,
c~ng up to a few thousand dollam ~r deer. I also wanted to make another point about why I suppoR hun~ng
of deer as a meth~ of control. Them is a pr~mm in many s~t~, including Illino~, that allows huntera to donate
pa~all of their ha~t to the s~te, to feed homel~ and unde~dvil~ed famili~. Now, if anybody can say that
this p~mm has a downside, it would su~dse me greatly. The popula~on of deer is being regulated, the
govemment is making money from sala of lisce~ and pe~i~, many people am still able to pa~icipate in their
favodffi pastime, and we are using the meat to feed those people who have no other soume of food. This
pr~mm is unbelievablel When I fimt read about it, I knew that I wanted to get involved. For the past th~ yearn,
I have made it a point to donate at least pa~ of my deer to the program, and it is quite a fullfilling experience.
Finally, people complain about deer~ar related acciden~ all the time. Many people base their entire opinion of this
problem on the frequency of crash~ related to thee cmatu~, comple~ly neglec~ng the envimnmen~l aspecB
of this ove~pulation. The only thing that I can say about these crashes: Anytime two s~cies t~ to inhabit the
same space, unpleasant meetin~ am bound to hap~n. Let's not complain when we ~ke the life of a deer on a
roadway that divid~ previously undistuffied habi~t. It is ddiculo~ to think that we have any morn right to be in
that area than the deer. Once again, piece get involved in your community. Don't be afraid to ~ke a step, eve~
little bit makes a difference~ Comment submitted on: Mon Sep 4, 2000 16:12:03
1906 Bittersweet Dr. Champaign, IL 61821
(217) 351-8016
Fimt off, I would like to say that although I'm not a ~ident of Iowa, the d~r problem is ve~ similar hem in
Central Illinois. ~st year, as a senior in high school, I did a groat deal of ~eamh on the deer ~pula~on in
Illinois, and made a vade~ of ve~ intems~ng discoverts. The fimt: Humans am the root of our problem. We
have encroached upon the deer's natural habi~t with house, malls, and ~ing Io~... We haved moved in on
their land, planted our ga~e~ full of ~sty vege~bles, and made food readily available in many offier fo~s as
well. It only makes seine that the d~r would take advan~ge of the food soume that we've provided. Frankly it
ir~ me that anybody has the ne~e to complain that them am deer in their backyard, when the blame really falls
u~n thee making the commen~. We claim that we am all animal dgh~ ac~vis~, and then we go back to our
hom~ that were built on pmvio~ly wooded areas, via highways that were built by clear~uffing/buming acres of
naomi habi~t. It this situation, humans am the hypocrites...
As far as a solu~on go~, it is really ve~ simple. Reloca~on is not pmcti~l. Moving a problem around d~s not
fix anything. It is expensive, and has been proven ineffective in many case studies. Contmcep~on is also out of
the question. If the populoB is unwilling to pay another pement or two for improved schools, don't expect them
to pay for stefiliza~on of deer~ Hunting seems to be the m~t effective method of control at this point. It is a
soume of income for the govemment to put back into habi~t r~omtion, is a popular pas~me for many people,
and has proven i~elf effective in many areas. I will admit that, through my research, I've uncovered many studi~
that found that hunting had visually no effect on the deer population. In thee cases, another method of
population control might be morn effective, if the ~pulous will agree to pay for it. The sho~ of it: It is going to
be imp~ible to please eve~dy, all the time... Until we am able to do that, eve~ option will be su~unded by
contmvemy. If we allow that controvemy to keep us from ~king immediate ac~on, we may have a much bigger
problem on our han~ that we could have ever expected. In areas where deer am severely ove~pulated, (60
deerlacm, or thema~ut) we am s~ing entire plant species being put out of commition. Let's not also ~
ms~Bible for obliterating en~m plant species hem in the MidwestH}
To sum it up, the longer we wait for a "better" answer, the morn money it will cost us. The deer am only t~ing
to su~ive on what they have left, and we owe it to the sp~ies to help them. I urge you to become active in a
wildlife~abi~t control group, and do your pa~ as ms~mible human bein~ I would also encourage you to give
deer hun~ng a t~ before you criticize those who condone it as a meth~ of con~ol, as well as a ve~ enjoyable
pas~me. If we all woffi together, it will only be a maffer of time before the popula~on of white-~il~ d~r in the
Midwest is back within nodal limit. This IS a p~ible goal, so keep up the groat work}~} Comment submitted on
: Mon Sep 4, 2000 15:56:40
45
4149 INdependence Ave.. Waterloo, la. 50703
(319)2916398
If the people would quit building their houses in the habitat of the deer they would not have the problem they
have now...they do have to live somewhere and useless killing of them is not the answer...Our moneys from
sports equipment and other moneys are what ha8 allowed the deer to reproduce as they have .... I can remember
when it was quite unusual to see a deer in Iowa and now the public is crying about them .... We the sportsman
Feel let them live and the people that have built their houses in their habitat is the real problem and have them
move and let the deer have back their homes .... Comment submitted on: Fri Aug 11, 2000 17:34:06
536 8 Dodge Iowa City, IA 52240
319 354-0772
History teaches us, again and again, that absolute solutions are the most effective and the easiest ways of
dealing with problems. If a dictator feels threatened by a race of people, he can put an end to the problem by
exterminatin the entire race; if a powerful country can't get a weaker country to comply, it can just bomb, invade
and wipe out all resistance. Why resort to diplomacy when you have at your disposal the power to exterminate
the other?. In dealing with the deer over-population problem, Iowa City has opted for the quickest, easiest
solution, the one option that requires the least amount of thought. Why waste mental energy on other
alternatives, when you have the power to kill? Now, in a truly democratic fashion, the city has created a web site
eliciting responses to the way it has handled the problem. Well, I don't see any deer registering a dissenting
vote. So, let's continue with our extermination. Comment submitted on: Tue Aug 8, 2000 13:16:41
2430 10th Street Coralville, la 52241
Safety is certainly a valid concern and the Deer Committee is to be commended for addressing the deer-car
acident problem. However, unfortunately I'm certain that the "experts" from out of town who have taken our
seventy thousand dollars are laughing all the way back home. Unless all the deer are killed this "thinning" of the
herd will make no difference in the "deer problem". The size of the herd is determined by food supply, weather,
and disease. Lack of predators has no bearing and hunting will make no difference. Predators kill the old and sick
and in fact increase the health and size of the herd. The fact we no longer have predators has not caused the
deer herd to increase. If hunting controls and limits the herd, why are there now more deer in Iowa than ever
before? We have had deer hunting in Iowa for over fifty years. Have you noticed that the "experts" who are
taking our money have now adjusted their story. Now expanded thinning is needed at greater expense. We need
to become better educated. Comment submitted on: Mon Aug 7, 2000 11:15:31
1627 College Court Place Iowa City, IA 52245
As a user of Hickory Hill Park, a lifelong resident of the east side, and a person who works on the north side of
town, I encourage the commission to discontinue the shooting program in areas within a quarter mile of
residential homes or public parks--namely Hickory Hill Park. The opportunity for an accident is far too great for the
task trying to be accomplished. I realize this proposal puts a significant damper on the planned shootings this fall
and winter, which is precisely my intention.
I have friends who heard gunshots last year in hearing range of Hickory Hill Park between 7 and 8 p.m. There
were no posted warnings nor any verbal warnings. Events like this are potentially too dangerous to continue with
the pro~Jram as planned. Shooting should not be contemplated in places near to where people live or recreate. The
only shooting that can be justified is in areas far away from people--at least a quarter of mile.
Let's reason together to discover non-lethal ways to deal with deer in the city residential areas. Comment
submitted on: Sun Aug 6, 2000 20:37:42
Comments removed due to lack of name and address.
Comment submitted on: Sun Aug 6, 2000 1:51:35
46
Brad Sladek
good question, give me a month
Iowa City, IA 52245
first let me say i'm sad that the question have you ever seen deer in your backyard or not isn't an option, those
who live with the problem should be asked first, and then all these on the south side don't have to worry
anyway.
in response to someone saying iowa city has a "killing mentalitiy" i have to say WHAT? theirs airs so many middle
age hippies in this city, do you think they airs about killing? we have a problem with the deer population, at least
we can all agree on this...doing nothing will only make things worse for those DIRECTLY involved. i vote for the
capture and selling to game farms that was voiced eadier.
and those deer whistles, due to the laws of physics, i doubt they have much impact on saving deer lives. they
won't hear the whistle until its almest too late anyway, and at night they would still be "deer in the headlights."
Comment submitted on: Thu Aug 3, 2000 20:35:06
1327 Burns Ave
Iowa City, IA 52240
I wonder if the DNR would allow an increased number of Deer tags to hunters in and around the
IowaCity/Coralville area, That the deer numbers may be reduced in the rural areas so that the city deer may move
outside residential areas back into rural areas? Comment submitted on: Wed Aug 2, 2000 6:50:05
17699 Newport Rd. Anamosa, Is. 52205
I don"t live in is. city but i work theirs and have for the last 11 years. our company does seaveral million'e of
dollar"s worth the work theirs each year. and we have noticed an explesion of deer in the past few years. for
example we had deer come into the construsion fence at the main antsty at the u of i main entrance, also at
mercy hespital, we had a buck come in the fence and crash into glass we had just set. i aggre with Jamie
Washburns tacktick on helping with the problem. it seem outrageous for homeowners to have to put up 8 foot
fence so they can have a flower bed or a garden. i do know what its like i treefarm on my property and so far i
have planted ~4000 trees and every year half what i plant gets eaten or killed by deer. i also agree with jamie this
is slot more humane then having them shooting them with high power guns. also slug hunting wouldn"t help alot i
know it didn't on my properly because after season we still counted 18 deer in a pastuer next to our house and
we let in more hunters last year. also the law states you can"t shoot within 8o many feet of a house so in which
case these deer will hide in screeches back yard. i do deer farm also in which i am just getting started and have
gotten deer from jamie and have had to dart the deer and he is very true in his words he is very good and very
good at transporting the deer. i can't see spending all this money to shot and kill these deer when he is offering
to take these deer to his farm or mlocatlng these deer at a reasonable fee. plus where is this money for sharp
shooters coming from the tax payers. well thank-you for your time f.w.a. Comment submitted on: Mon Jul 31,
2000 19:50:00
1427 Davenport Street Iowa City, la 52245
338-4383
We would like to respond to Nancy Menning's request for thoughts about constructive propesals with the
following suggestions:
1. changes in the city codes that regulate fence-heights;
2. stricter seasonal enforcement (properly posted and notified) speeds on segments of Dubuque, Dodge and
other arterial roads, where the densities of accidents have been highest;
3. identification of particular areas of the city where application of contraceptive programs to relatively
controlled populations may be most feasible in the near future.
We believe of course that cessation of sharpshooting is also constructive. It also occurred to us when the owner
of Friendly Farms spoke at the epen meeting last week that outright contributions toward fencing costs for the
few people in the city whose livelihood is at stake might be more cast-effective than the sharpshooting programs
the city has undertaken, as well as more effective. Comment submitted on: Mon Jul 31. 2000 15:51:07
47
Andy Weigel <aweiael~.uiowa.edu>
2802 Muscatine Ave Iowa City, IA 52240
I understand how a high deer population can be a problem, not just for humans but also for deer (lack or
resources). However I think it is important to consider how our decisions are impacting the people, deer, and the
environment. Part of the problem has to do with land being developed which is taking away land from the deer. I
think that when decisions are made about land development, an effort should be made to determine how this will
affect people, animals, and the enviomment. For example, I recently lived on Foster Road where there used to be
many deer visible. Recently many of the trees there have been tom down, reducing the amount of safe land for
deer, increasing the traffic in the area, and increasing the potential for erosion. I would like to see more solutions
that are lees dsky to people (and to deer). Some examples are deer whistlee, walls/fences, and birth control. We
should make an effort to learn about how to live with nature rather than destroying it everytime it gets in our
way. Comment submitted on: Sun Jul 30, 2000 17:30:19
580 Foster Road A4 Iowa City, IIA 52245
319 354-4210
I am very against the killing of deer. I was very upset last year when the killings occured. I really enjoy seeing the
deer in the area. It provides a very peaceful, calm, wildlife effect to the normal city atomosphere. Once the deer
were killed, I really miesed the deer. It is sad to hear that people advocate killing the deer because they are an
annoyance. If people are annoying, we don't shoot them (at least not most of us). We try to live with them the
best way that we can. So it may mean that you need to put up fences to separate you from your "annoying
neighbor" or drive slower. The fact is that killing is not the answer. Deer have as much right to live as we do.
People report all kinds of problems including over population, yet we continue to build and expand into their
habitat. What makes humans so superior that we can take over and claim rights to land that was probably the
deere to begin with. Let's stop killing and leam to live with nature rather than slowly wiping out the environment.
Comment submitted on: Sun Jul 30, 2000 17:10:23
3663 Toddville Road Toddville, la 52341
319-393-7820
First let me introduce myself. My name is Jamie Washburn and I am the sole owner and propdeter of Flying "W"
Whitetails located in Toddville Iowa. I have been in the business of raising whitetails for resale to individual
hobbyist, game breeders, and shooting preserves since 1990. Also I have supplied photographic opportunities to
nationlly known photographer Lance Kruger. In the past several years I have offered my asiestance to the DNR
and the city governments of Iowa City, Marion and Cedar Rapids. I was 9iven an opportunity to show my skills
and the effectiveness of the way I traqualize and capture deer in the fall of 1999. The Pinicon Ridge Park in
Central City Iowa and the Black Hawk Park in LaPort Iowa, were in need of deer removal services. I successfully
captured three deer in Central City and one in LaPort without any losses. The park rangere were very impressed
at the short amount of time it took to capture these deer and at the ease at which it was done. I have in the past
offered my services to the city of Iowa City and am doing so again. I would be willing to capture deer in your
problem areas no matter how many that you would request to be captured. I offer you my services at NO
CHARGE, as I have in the past. The only stimpulations that I have is that I, dbe as Flying "W" Whitails, would be
given unrestricted ownership of all deer that I or my subordinates capture. This can be started on a trial basis if
the commitee wishes. If this is not acceptable by your peers or the DNR, a fee for hire can be arranged for
capturing and relocatin9 services. I would like to take the opportunity to inform the commitee that the DNR
opposes these methods for reasons that are not viable. They will argue that this is not a lawful means of takin9
of whitetail deer in Iowa, but let me remind the commitee that the taking of deer with highpower rifles, at night,
within city limits is also against the laws of Iowa. The difference between most laws and game laws is that the
DNR has the authority to set the method of take just as they did with the sharpshooters. The DNR will also tell
the commitee that private individuals may not take ownership of whitetail taken from the wild. This is not true!
When an individual sets up a shooting preserve in Iowa, they must have the DNR count all deer within the
boundaries of such a preserve before it can operate as such. The deer that are found to be within these fenced
areas are then sold by the DNR to that preserve owner at inflated prices. These prices can range anywhere from
$1000.00 to $4000.00 per deer. So it becomes apparent that the DNR will allow other methods of capture of
wild deer, so Ion9 as the price is right! I would also like to recommend that the commitee read parts of the game
laws of Wisconsin. Section 29.871 paragragh 4g should be of interest to the commitee. This paragragh refers to
the selling of live wild deer in the state of Wisconsin. The fees, interestingly enough, are only $25.00 per deer
found in these newly created pdvate perserves. I am looking forward to your inquiries. Sincerely, Jamie Wasburn
Comment submitted on: Sat Jul 29, 2000 19:07:51
48
Jim Cramer
602 - 5th Iowa City, IA 52245
I don't claim to know a lot about deer, but I seem to know more than most, so here are my thoughts. The news
media reported comments made by citizens. Many showed ignorance. Misconceptions add to the problem. One
person said the deer in Iowa City are starving. Yet newspapers reported that the examination of deer slaughtered
last year were healthy. The "no predator-to-deer argument" was once again raised. First of all predators never did
control the deer before their extermination. There were not neady as many deer then, as there are now, since the
DNR has been managing the herds to capacity to accommodate hunters. I know many hunters who kill coyote,
fox and other predators because they compete for game. So let's cut the "bull" - hunters - before it comes back
to bite you in the rear. The deer accident argument was brought up. I see by the map posted that many accidents
occurred around the peninsula area. It would be interesting to examine when those accidents took place. How do
the numbers relate to the time of killing and immediately afterward when the surviving deer were dispersing into
areas unfamiliar to them. I understand that according to insurance compeniee the accident rates involving deer
shoot up many times the normal number on the first day of the hunting season. How many accidents were a
direct result of the sharpshooting program? If the commitee is typical of govemment-created entities, then its
members were selected because the majodty concur with the decision already reached by the council. If you
don't want to be mindless puppets of the "regime" you should be investigating ways to help people live with the
deer or be prepared to increase the budget each year to kill an increasing number of deer. Supposedly there is a
6% increase in the population since last year's massacre. Rational people have to think that there is a reason
killing doesn't work. Could it be that "mother nature" won't allow it to - no matter human arrogance? It was
reported that only approximtely half of the does killed were pregnant. That indicates self-regulation. Did the killing
of deer help the "old" people (if not in chronological years, then in outlook) who worship every leaf and flower in
their yards to the extent that they are demanding the needless killing of deer with public money? Of course not. It
didn't because it can't. Instead of thinking in terms of how to kill and/or justify killing deer, the committee should
be expanding its energy on educating people how to take steps that will truly help them. How about creating a
Web site where successful, repensible gardners can share information on what has worked for them in living with
the local deer?. Such positive action would be like a fresh breeze in a city polluted with a "killing" mentality.
Comment submitted on: Sat Jul 29, 2000 14:22:12
419 Woodridge Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245
338-9586
I had many things to say, but Mark Dowdy, Lory VanAllen Thomas Roderick,Amy Blessing and Florence and
William Boos have all echoed our sentiments. There are far too many "yuppies" in Iowa City at this time and they
should be thinned. I get so damn disgusted to see the "killer" mentality that exists in this community. We have
the worlds worsed drivers here, and if they would invest in $5.95 deer whistles as we have done many years
ago, when the Iowa State Patrol showed there extreme value, there would not be so much of a conflict between
deer and motor vehicles. We do love the deer and enjoy them in our yard. They do eat some vegitation but it is
no big deal. I think the dog problem in this town is far worse than the deer problem. If some of the non caring
dog lovers would not think the world is in love with their dog and if they would keep their dog droppings off of
other peoples yards, that would be dam nice too. It is a real shame that this all started because of the
"penninsula".Just so they could do something with those damn deer that are in our way of developing,this whole
thing got started. If you want the truth, WE should have had the ADVENTURELAND on the penninsula as it was
planned, instead of Altoona, but Iowa City turned it down, when Standard Oil wanted to build it there,then the
deer would not have had to die in the name of "housing developmente"!!!!! Comment submitted on: Fri Jul 28,
2000 20:10:18
49
Nancy Menning (at-large member, Deer Mgmt. Comm.) <nmennina~students.wisc.edu>
1625 Deforest Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240
339-9408
Discussion seems to have slowed down on this list, so let me suggest a topic/question. After a number of
meetings in which we've focused on NON-LETHAL opportunities for addressing problems associated with Iowa
City's deer herd, the Deer Management Committee will soon move to consider whether lethal measures are ALSO
necessary this winter. Undoubtedly, sharpshooting will be considered. This discussion may begin as soon as
Monday night (at the committee's next regulady scheduled meeting). This, then, is a good time to cleady state
your arguments regarding sharpshooting. In my opinion (as a committee member but not speaking for the
committee as a whole), the committee does NOT need a simple yes-no vote. Rather, the type of input that might
be most helpful to our deliberation would answer one or more of the following questions: (1) What undedying
reasons (values, pdnciples, philosophies) either support or rule-out sharpshooting as a management option? (2)
What are the pros and cons of sharpshooting as a management altemative? (It would be most helpful --
regardless of your personal position on sharpshooting -- if you sought to identify BOTH pros AND cons.) (3) What
do you view as the likely consequences if we choose or do not choose the sharpshooting option? In other words,
what will happen with deer populations and with deer-human conflicts over the next several years (a) if we do
and (b) if we don't have a sharpshooting program this winter?. All choices have consequences; are these
consequences we can (should) live with? Just some suggestions.. Let us know what you think. Comment
submitted on: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:29:21
1859 hollywood ct. iowa xity, ia 52240
319 341 98 15
Its funny, I'm only sixteen years old and even i know that EVERY animal deserves to have a desent life. So here
the deal, I can see how the inteligent minds of Iowa city think, WELL LETS JUST SHOOT THEM, now that sound
like a good solution. Lets see i think the deer are not the problem i think its the citizens, i personaly think a doers
life should be valued more than a flower, and if peoples flowers are so dear to them then they can put up a
feance or spary the flower, now then you might say, what about increased car accedent well theresa device you
can put on your car that sets out a high pitched sound that will make deer stear away from yur car, this seems
alot more logical then killing them. There are other perfectly smart ways the downsize the deer population with
out massicure, you could give female deer birth control or transport the deer to another location, i think its really
dumb for people to take in consideration of the saturation factor whichj is if you have one mile and lets say deer,
birds and any other anilmal live in this mile, well what happens when you build a mad, add a house make a mall?
lets wonder shall? we Now if we are going to follee the wize minds of Iowa city we could just ya know kill of
some people bocasue they cuase car accedents they use our land and destroy it and well they just are
bothersome ........ Now doesn't that makes sence? Comment submitted on: Wed Jul 26, 2000 1:20:47
1335 Oaklawn Ave Iowa City, la 52245
351-0073
We are grateful for the efforts made by the City to control the deer population. Further efforts will still be needed
in order to arrive at a population that is acceptable. Daily there are at a minimum ~ deer in our yard at several
different times. Each year for 4 years twins or tdplets have been hem within 50 yards of our home. There have
been as many as 14 deer come through at one time. The deer droppings in our yard make a constant mess and
mowing the lawn is difficult to do cleanly. The deer have eaten almost everything in the yard, flowere, trees,
garden. Thanks for your past efforts, it seems to have worked in some areas of the City but here in the Shimek
School neighborhood the deer population is still doing very well and more help is needed to bring the level down.
Comment submitted on: Tue Jul 25, 2000 22:09:52
925 Deforest Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 358-9611
There is a product called White Tail Clover which dear love to eat and is reported to draw deer from up to 5 miles
around as they pass up other food to get to it. This White Tail Clover is also full of the minerals that help bucks
grow impressive racks, the kind sought by hunters. It might be worth while to investigate the prospect of planting
White Tail Clover, or a similar product, in the reservior area North of Iowa City toward the Amana Colonies. This
is a game management hunting area and could quickly,(especially with a little advertising) become a very popular
spot for huntsrs. Licensed hunters, in an area outside of the city, would thin the deer herds that would be
attracted out of Iowa City. This would also bdng added business to the Iowa City area in sales of sporting goods,
lodging and meals that the hunters would require. Please let me know what you think of the idea. Thanks Joe
Treloar Comment submitted on: Tue Jul 25, 2000 13:15:27
50
Suzanne Giraudeau < suzanne-airaudeau~.uiowa.edu>
Formerly of Iowa City, IA 52240
Perhaps the option no one has looked into is that of selling the deer to a Hunting Club/Game Preserve. There are
plenty around. The buyer would be responsible for rounding them up and shipping them off. With this alternative
Iowa City doesn't spend a dime, other than perhaps for advertising to the highest bidder, Iowa City can make
some money. And the deer population is dramatically decreased. Comment submitted on: Tue Jul 25, 2000
12:17:56
1625 Deforest Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240
339-9408
I'd like to second Phil UIIrich's commendation of Richard Nelson's book, Heart and Blood. Nelson is a good, wise,
thoughtful human being who has struggled at length with human-deer interrelationships in the United States. He
writes with a clear respect for people and a deep love for deer. On another note, let me contribute the following
comments to this discussion: The more I think about Iowa City's deer management situation, the more I think
there must be a third way. I'm not telking about sharpshooting vs. contraception. I'm talking about heavy-handed
dominion vs. a hands-off "letting nature take its course." We don't need an anthropocentric, dominionistic, this-
world-is-ours-~rst-and-foremost attitude. Neither, however, can we afford to abdicate responsibility for our
interconnected role within nature by "letting nature take its course." We are nature. But we need to play out our
role with wisdom, compassion, and integrity. More and more, as I think about it, the "hands-off" policy feels like
a denial of responsibility and, ultimately, a disconnection of our Selves from the nature to which we so want to
be connected. Dominionistic management places humans outside nature; nature is something we stand outside,
reach in, and manage. But "letting nature take its course" also places humans outside nature; nature is something
we stand outside, don't reach in, and watch to see what happens. What is the third way that maintains humans
as responsible citizens within nature? Any ideas? FYI. I am an at-large member of Iowa City's deer management
committee. Comment submitted on: Tue Jul 25, 2000 10:13:46
5 Westview Acres NE Iowa City, IA 52240
354-2633
We have lived in rural Iowa City for 20 years. For the first 10-12 years, we never saw a deer, and I had a
vegetable garden and flowere. Then we began to see deer occasionally, and as the yeare have passed, the
numbers have increased by leaps and bounds. Every year we see many sets of twin fawns. Any attempt at
gardening is futile, as they will eat all vegetables, any new trees, most flowers, etc. It is very frustrating. I have
seen many dead deer along the road on the way into town, and several friends have had wrecks involving deer.
One neighbor who has flowers that the deer particularly like {hastas and Illlies) has so many deer droppings in her
yard that it is hazardous to be out there. The same thing happens in my yard when my apples get ripe in the fall.
In the winter they get scrawny, and I'm sure many of them starve to death. I feel this number of deer are a
hazard and the numbers definitely need to be thinned out. Thank you. Evelyn Scott Comment submitted on: Tue
Jul 25, 2000 9:23:08
Cedar St Iowa City, IA 52245
If there is good evidence that sharl~hooting can help prevent deer from suffering from starvation or becoming
involved in traffic accidents, then I am in favor of sharl~hooting. It is my understanding that sh~q~hooting is one
of the better methods for controlling deer pepulations. For thee in the community in favor of non-lethal methodic,
or opposed to lethality on moral grounds, I encourage you to read Richard Nelson's "Heart & Bla~xh Living with
Deer in America"'. This I~ok may persuade you that non-lethal meth~l~ of deer population control are ineffective,
and that sharpshooting may be the most moral solulion to troubles associated with deer-human interactions.
Better yet, read the city's deer FAQ found elsewhere on this website. Comment submitted on: Tue Jul 25, 2000
8:47:13
51
JP Craig <ipcraig~.earthlink.net>
207 N. Governor Iowa City, IA 52245
I have no problem with deer-hunting or culling herds of deer when they are suffering from the problems of
overpopulation. But in this case, it's unlikely that a one-time "treatment" will be effective; culling will have to be
done on an ongoing basis. Overpopulation is a very real problem caused in this case by the encroachment of
humans who have frightened away or exterminated predators and who have created a perfect deer environment
in the suburbs. I agree with othere that the perception of Iowa City's deer population "problem" seems more
closely linked to development. Yes, deer are going to eat your ornamental shrubs. They like them. They like your
yard too, with its partial shade, etc,--it's just like their natural habitat. Getting angry at deer in your yard is like
getting angry at the squirrel who robs your feeder. Don't put out the feeder, move into the city center etc. For
those who have trouble hitting deer, obey this city's slow speed limit. If there are high speed limits on some of
these roads, then lower them to 25. Enforce these speed limits--I never see cops anywhere but in the poor parts
of town and on the interstate ramps. Finally, the sharpshooters. They are too expensive. Allowing shooting in city
limits with high-powered rifles by hunters or sharpshooters is too risky anyway. These guns are dangerous for
miles. Allowing bowhunting won't work. The deer generally gets to trot for 30-40 yards while leaving a blood
trail; that won't go over well. Slug guns? maybe. Shooting these deer is not going to fix the problem. Deer will
still be attracted to these prime areas {they like them as much as the urban professionals do)--no matter how
small their numbers get. But why not just refuse to grant more subdivision plattes in these areas? Fight urban
sprawl, etc? Who owns this land? Who are their friends; are they on the council? This town has plenty of room
for high-quality single-dwelling in~ll--why not stop rezoning every time a member of the city council or some other
local big-wig wants to put up a new hive of drunken undergraduates, further depressing property values in its
imediate area? I've studied urban design and worked in a local civil engineering firm where I had easy access to
city development plans. It was easy to see that the city bent over backwards to dump cash into upper-middle-
class burbclaves. This is just another instance of it. Comment submitted on: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:27:11
Formerly of Iowa City, IA 52246
Someone posted a quote from the DNR that pretty much sums up this issue. In short -- the deer have no natural
predators and their population is explosive, which is both physically and genetically unhealthy for them. An
unchecked deer herd is a 'bad thing' for numerous reasons, and not only because of monetary {car accidents,
destruction of property/crops) concerns. A large herd of animals confined to a small area will suffer more from
sickness, be less physically healthy in terms of weight, and be more susceptible to starvation and widespread
disease. Additionally, the less healthy of the deer, normally the ones that hunters (beth natural and mankind) are
most prone to kill off, will be allowed to reproduce. This has the effect of genetically weakening the herd. People
whose only defense is "but deer are so pretty~" really need to take a step back at the issue and look at it from an
ecological standpoint. Likewise, people whose only concern is "Dude, a deer hit my car, now I'm broke!" should
also look at the big picture, not their personal issues. Essentially, something has to be done, whether it's lethal or
non-lethal. Non-lethal methods, while some may consider them 'more humane' are highly expensive and will take
longer to put in place. Maybe some of you doos over at UIHC should come up with a birth control pill for
members of the Cervidae family (deer). Comment submitted on: Mon Jul 24, 2000 21:16:59
916 E Burlington St Iowa City, IA 52245
wow! a message board where my opinion really matters! we should have more of these for local i~suesl in my
previous abede on north kimball rd, deer were frequently in my backyard and allways in the road. I believe
residents who don't live on the north side have no idea the extent of the deer population. however, hiring
sharl~hootere to fire in town seems a bad idea...perhaps traps and bow-hunting are the best options. alot of the
problem could be solved by having sharpshooters operate just outside of town, behind the elks country club and
shimek park. in response to someone's post about shooting dumb pedestrians with the deer, does this even seem
like any type of option? can you communicate with deer to tell them that standing in the road is not acceptable?
can you set up fences to keep them out? just ask my old neighbars who had to install an '8' foot fence to keep
them out! after having one that only went up to 5 feet. that seemed a little harsh. Comment submitted on: Mon
Jul 24, 2000 20:56:20
414 Brown Street #7 Iowa City, IA 52245
(319)341-8491
Iowa City has some of the least attentive ddvers I've ever witnessed in the United States. I've seen courttiers
close calls around town in which careless motorists heady ran over pedestrians. Does thi~ mean we should shoot
pedestriar~ too? Comment submitted on: Mon Jul 24, 2000 17:08:54
52
Lory Van Allen
1639 Morningside Dr. Iowa City, la. 52245
354-6380
I believe the notion that there is a "deer problem" is an invention of developers, who wish to destroy the deer's
habitat. I feel that people who have the good fortune to live in wooded areas around Iowa City need to
reciprocate and be tolerant toward the animals they have displaced. We as humans have much to learn from the
gentle, graceful and beautiful deer. I sincerely hops that Iowa City will enact a moratodum on any lethal methods,
espscially as non4ethal methods have never been allowed a full chance to succeed. Comment submitted on:
Mon Jul 24, 2000 15:33:23
536 S. Dodge St iowa City, IA 52240
Sharp-shooting deer is a quick, drastic attempt to mask a long-term issue-namely how to create a balance
between human beings and nature in our community. Deer are part of nature, just like trees, flowers, shrubs, and
bushes. As such they should be treated with as much consideration. Let's leam to rely on non-lethal methods! I
want my children to learn peaceful co-existence, not violent intolerance of other beings. Comment submitted on:
Mon Jul 24, 2000 13:41:43
130 E. Jefferson Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-8830
Let me quote the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resoumes:
httD :/Iwww.state.ia.uslgovernmentldnrlor.clanizalfwblwildlifelDagesldrhist.htm
"Careful management of deer populations by man has also played a crucial role in allowing deer numbers to retum
to the levels enjoyed today. Management consists of carefully regulating the harvest since hunting provides the
only major source of mortality for deer today. Unchecked, Iowa's deer herd could grow at a rate of 20% to 40%
each year. At this rate, deer numbers would double in as few as 3 years. With Iowa's abundant agdcultual crops
providing food, densities could potentially reach 100 or more deer per square mile before natural regulatory
mechanisms would begin to affect deer health and slow the rate of growth. Deer numbers this high would cause
economic hardship to Iowa's landowners as well as alter the natural vegetative community. Maintaining a deer
population in balance with the wants and needs of the people in the state is a difficult task, but hunting them is
the only viable management option to achieve this goal." Since not too many people will be hunting the deer in
Iowa City during the season, I think that sharpshooting is a viable option. Granted, deer are beautiful animals, but
I start to have a different opinion when one of these "beautiful animals" runs in front of my car and causes
thousands of dollars worth of damage. Comment submitted on: Mon Jul 24, 2000 13:24:34
1042 Mulberry PI Coralville, IA 52241
31g-358-188g
I dont think there is a problem with over population of deer. Re~ember, we are taking their land. The deer have
just as much dght to be on that land as we do, and humans have no right to kill off some deer just to put up
some ugly houses that all look alike, or pave miles of road to destroy nature. You should really think about wildlife
and how much of it you are destoying. Anyway, people love to look at deer, love to watch deer in the wild. Dont
take this option away from people. Let the deer live peacefully. Maybe we should give the deer some guns and let
them take care of the over popualtion of humans in the area. Comment submitted on: Mon Jul 24, 2000
8:54:02
418 Brown St. Iowa City, IA 52245
338-gSgg
I'm disturbed to see that, again this year, Iowa City hopes to senselessly kill hundreds of deer without exploring
non-lethal options. ~ot only is the slaughter of deer inhumane, it's a big waste of money, ae well. If the city
wants a more attractive reputation, it needs to maintain the nstural resources we have here - including the deer.
Building more ho~ses, roads, golf courses, etc. is clearly not a means of beeutifying Iowa City; rather, these
things serve to line the pockets of "developers"" while destroying an already etressed environment. How about
some public education campaigns on deer-resistant foilage and wildlife? More deer reflectors, as well as
maintenance of the ones we have, could serve as another starting point in a search for progressive and humane
city improvement options. I enjoy seeing the deer in the woods behind my home - sadly, the numbers were
drastically reduced after last winters slaughter. IOWA CITY, DO~"T SLAUGHTER THE DEll! Comment
submitted on: Sun Jul 23, 2000 lg:22:14
53
Ray Davies < Davies69~Aol.com>
9 Regal Lane Iowa City, ia 52240
338-8670
I think the thinning is a good idea, especially since the meat gets eaten. There are few things as tasty as a Bambi
Meat Loaf. On the more sedous side, I believe them are shootera in and are und Iowa City who could do the job of
thinning the herd for a lot lees than what we paid last year. The DNR could supervise and the techniquee could be
the same. A tree stand at night. Comment submitted on: Sun Jul 23, 2000 8:11:54
Florence and William Boos <florence-boos~.uiowa.edu>
1427 Davenport Street Iowa City, la 52245
338-4383
Deer have lived peacefuly in Iowa City for decades, adapting to its mvinee and woods. Only with recent
development in the "northem corridor" has there been a push to kill them. We believe the claim of
"overpopulation" used to justify sharpshooting is a myth. Let's expand our use of non-lethal methods, especially
targeted signs and enforcement of speeds at appre pdate times of year in zonee where accidents have occumd.
Comment submitted on: Sun Jul 23, 2000 0:57:27
3700 White Oak Road SE Cedar Rapids, IA 52403
319-286-0059
The deer eat our plants and flowera; however, we feel the deer am much morn important and using lethal
methods to contre l them is wrong, so lets use non-lethal methods instead. Comment submitted on: Sat Jul 22,
2000 10:32:21
2917 Washington St. Iowa City, la 52245
Two yearn ago, during the winter, we had up to 10 deer in our backyard. They deetre yed several bird feedera, ate
from trees, and left a mess of droppings all over the yard. Last year, after the deer kill, we only had 2 deer. There
has to be some way of thinning the deer population, we don't care how it's done. Comment submitted on: Fri
Jul 21, 2000 11:13:57
410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240
356-5010
Welcome. This comment board was established to provide a convenient forum for membem of our community to
comment on Iowa City's deer. The Deer Management Committee is very interested in providing ways to generate
discussion. Your comments will be available to the City Council and Deer Management Committee as well as
anyone who views this Board. Comment submitted on: Fri Jul 21, 2000 9:56:05
54
NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Notice is hereby given that a public discussion will be held by the
City Council of Iowa City, Iowa at 7:00 p.m. on the 12t" day of
September, 2000, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E
Washington St, Iowa City, Iowa or if said meeting is cancelled, at the
next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City
Clerk; at which discussion the Council will consider:
A resolution approving the Winter 2000/2001 Deer Management
Plan.
Copies of the Plan are on file for public examination in the office
of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to
make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to
appear at the above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
DEAN M. RAMMELSBERG
313 Ronald St.
Iowa City, IA 52245-1943
(319) 351-6752
Page 1 of 3
Marian Karr
From: Florence Boos [florence-boos@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 3:38 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Corrected letter (please use this instead of the text sent earlier this afternoon)
September 10th, 2000
To the Members of the City Council (cc. members of the Deer Committee):
As you consider the Deer Committee report and recommendations, we would like to
point out some of its limitations.
1. The Proposal to Kill Five Hundred Deer:
When the city killed 360 deer last year, some council members suggested that more
shooting might be unnecessary. Nothing has changed in the past two years which would
suggest that the deer are urgent enemies to be extirpated, but the Deer Management
Committee has now escalated the number to 500.
No other city has undertaken to kill deer systematically on such a massive scale, and
even E] management companies[~ typically argue for the sharpshooting of more limited
numbers of deer in more well-defined areas. There is much to suggest that some city
officials and the DNR have sought to implement extreme policies because such actions
may influence policy elsewhere.
Do we really want Iowa City to []innovateE~ in the rapid and violent extirpation of
twenty-first-century wildlife ?
2. Safety issues:
The committee has also proposed to kill 135 deer in Hickory Hill Park; use gun-
silencers (E3suppressorsE3) as permitted by [~existing lawE3 which the city management itself
solicited; and shoot in closer proximity to residences.
All these changes pose imminent prima facie threats to safety. Skepticism about the
scores of permissions which must be sought from residence-owners is in order. Children,
moreover, other unknowing persons and even careless owners might well wander within
range of one of the truck-beds used for more than half of last years killing.
In opposition to all this, we ask the Council once again to consider that the citys duty to
protect public safety overrides alleged obligations to protect some residents unfenced
gardens. Should another professional trained in the use of licensed firearms accidentally
injure or kill someone--something which has happened in recent memory--the city would
9/11/00
Page 2 of 3
have a grave responsibility on its hands. It would then have created a very real and major
problem in its haste to eliminate a very minor one.
3. A Glaring Omission:
The report devotes only two brief dismissive paragraphs to contraception, a significant
omission.
We have talked in recent weeks with officials who have begun a contraception
program in Amherst, New York (the site of SUNY Buffalo), and in Upper St. Clair,
Pennsylvania, where one is planned; and with Dr. Paul Curtis of Cornell University, who has
made studies of contraception of male as well as female contraception. As city officials
know, more information about contraception is also available at websites such as
www.wild lifeprotection. net, www.fairharbor.com/fhca_deer_immu nocontr. htm (Fire Island),
www.fairharbor.com/fhca_deer_immunocontr. htm (Hilton head), and
www. n ist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/deer. htm (NIST).
As you can also see from the enclosed copy of a letter from Dr. Curtis,
immunocontraception of female deer is indeed expensive and subject to potential lawsuits
from hunters groups (one of the principal deterrents in the way of the studies of the
Humane Society of the United States), but such procedures would be feasible in
populations of up to 200 deer (in Hickory Hill Park, for example). Sterilization, by contrast,
would be much less expensive: Dr. Curtiss services, for example, would cost about $50,000
plus $60 per deer, or about $65,000 to sterilize 250 does.
We ask you therefore in good faith to eliminate or reduce the killing of more deer, and
set aside $100,000 of the budget which would otherwise be earmarked for sharpshooting to
undertake a pilot contraceptive project. The present report makes a mockery of the citys
claim to have investigated thoroughly the implementation of non-lethal methods.
4. Public accountability:
According to the committee's charge, reflected in its report, the policy adopted by
the Council should be broadly acceptable to the citizens of Iowa City. Nothing recorded in
the citys electronic noticeboard or said in two E~listening sessionsr~ (both of which we
attended) has given serious evidence that either a majority or representative cross-section
of the citys residents favor its sharpshooting policy, then or now.
The Press Citizen and the Gazette did indeed endorse last years sharpshooting, but
both also advocated more serious investigation of contraceptive methods, and the Press
Citizen expressed pointed opposition to use of the new [~suppressor[~ law. A significant
part of the citys establishment has expressed its openness to more extensive use of non-
lethal methods.
> The committee, by contrast, discussed non-lethal methods at some length in abstract
and hypothetical terms, but committed itself to nothing concrete more costly than the
9/11/00
Page 3 of 3
posting of a web site. We urge you therefore to put money and effort, not lip service, into
more peaceful resolutions of a management-[SproblemE~ we have created and imposed on
a few hundred deer.
> Sincerely,
> William and Florence Boos
9/11/00
Marian Karr
From: Florence Boos [florence-boos@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 11,2000 7:45 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: please attach to deer sharpshooting letter
Text of forwarded message
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:49:56 -0500
To: Florence Boos <florence-boos@uiowa.edu>
From: Paul Curtis <pdcl@cornell.edu>
Subject: Deer contraception
Hello Ms. Boos-
Sorry we have not been able to connect by phone. My schedule has
been hectic with field research and new students on campus
I want to provide you with a realistic assessment of deer
immunocontraception (IC), both the successes and potential
limitations. We have been experimenting with two different IC
vaccines with a semi-captive (700 acre enclosure) herd of about 100
deer since 1996. This year is scheduled for project closure, and we
intend to look at long-term effects of IC vaccines on deer health and
physiology in collaboration with NYSDEC- Bureau of Wildlife, and the
Cornell College of Vet Medicine.
First the project successes:
1. We tested two IC vaccines (Porcine zona pelucida- PZP; GnRH-
Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone). PZP has been used for many years by
the Humane Society of the US. Both vaccines reduced fawning rates by
about 90%.
2. PZP can only be used on females. GnRH will work on both sexes,
however, we recommend only treating females. Male deer treated with
GnRH will either shed their antlers in fall, or grow malformed
antlers that freeze and break off in mid-winter.
IC Limitations:
1. No IC vaccines are commercially available. These are experimental
drugs, and are only produced by a few research labs in the U.S.
2. To get access to the IC vaccines requires working under an
approved U.S. Food and Drug Administration INAD Permit
(Investigational New Animal Drug). We currently work in
collaboration with the USDA-National Wildlife Research Center and
work under their INAD permits for PZP and GnRH.
3. Under FDA protocols, ANY free-ranging deer treated with IC
vaccines must currently be marked with warning ear tags stating,
"Experimental Animal- Do Not Consume." This requires trapping and
marking deer prior to treatment. Our experience has been this costs
about $250-300 per deer tagged.
4. To get a sufficient antibody titer and prevent fertility requires
two shots the first year (at least a month apart), and a booster shot
in late summer the second year. To maintain infertility, deer must
then be boosted every other year by dart gun.
5. It is very expensive and difficult to maintain the boosting
schedule. The greatest limitation is finding enough suitable sites
with landowner permission to discharge dart rifles. A study similar
1
to the one you propose was conducted in Irondequoit, NY. Access to
deer was too limited for successful booster treatment, and no
population-level changes in deer abundance were observed. Over 4
years, approximately $200,000 was spent to contracept about 70 deer.
6. Because of cost and access limitations, IC applications would be
most suitable for small areas (<3 square miles) with few deer
(150-200 animals). It seems these conditions are not met in Iowa
City. However, there may be isolated portions of the City (small
municipal parks, airports, etc.) where IC treatment could be feasible.
Given the high cost of boosting deer in future years, limitations on
drug use and availability, and problems with site access, we are
currently looking at surgical sterilization as a management option in
small areas where shooting is not permitted. Sterilization would be
far more cost effective than IC vaccines because:
1. The deer only needs to be trapped once so there is no cost for
booster treatment.
2. No warning tags are needed because we are not using experimental drugs.
3. Our radio-collared female deer have high site fidelity, so it
appears emigration/immigration may not be an issue.
We currently have a proposal in review with our state Bureau of
Wildlife to model the effects and costs of a deer sterilization
program, and field test the model in a small suburban community (2
square miles with 800 homes and about 130 deer). We have assembled a
research team with faculty from the Cornell Vet College, and plan to
perform laproscopic surgery on female deer in the field. Once the
deer is captured, the procedure takes about 10 minutes and the deer
has a 2-3 inch incision that will heal quickly. The cost for
materials is about $50-60/deer (not including staff time or
laproscopic equipment). If the study is approved, we hope to begin
in FY 2001.
It has been my experience that a combination of techniques, both
lethal and non-lethal, may have the best chance for success in large
areas with several hundred deer. There is no single deer management
technique that will be suitable in all different habitat types given
social constraints.
To pursue a study in iowa City, I would need to gain permits for
trapping and marking deer from Iowa DNR, and the agency would need to
approve the study plan. Moving an entire research team and equipment
from NY to Iowa would be expensive (>$50,000/year), and the community
would need to determine how to support such a project. I hope this
info is helpful.-Paul Curtis
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:25:15 -0500
To: pdcl@cornell.edu (Paul D Curtis)
From: Florence Boos <florence-boos@uiowa.edu>
Subject: deer contraception
Dear Dr. Curtis,
Thanks for calling my home yesterday. I don't seem to have success
reaching you at the times I am free, so I'm writing by e-mail. I'm
interested in learning about (potentially) successful deer contraception
efforts, in order to inform the Iowa City Council and city government of
their availability, and have been told by a deer specialist for the city of
Amherst, New York that you have been conducting contraception studies. I
would appreciate any information you can give me about your work.
Do you contracept males or females? What are the conditions necessary for
such a study? Could you conduct such a study in the midwest, and if so,
what would you need to know and who should contact you?
Iowa City is a rapidly expanding town in Johnson County, which I think is
estimated to have several thousand deer, and the city itself has about 700
deer, of which the deer management committee desires to sharpshoot 500 this
year. There are two areas of town which are semi-enclosed parkland, and I
think they might possibly be used as limited-range deer enclosures. In the
past, contraception of females has been discussed, which has the problem
that male behavior during rutting will allegedly continue to cause
destruction to gardens, etc., and it has been suggested that neutering
might be a more efficacious method of preventing deer damage. Also, the
Humane Society tells me that they have worked in cities which were the
subject of lawsuits from hunting organizations, who sued to prevent the use
of female contraceptives, and perhaps neutering might be less subject to
hostile lawsuits.
If you could give me any information or clarification on this matter, or
some explanation of your own work, I would be very grateful. Thank you.
Sincerely, Florence S. Boos
Paul D. Curtis, Ph.D.
Extension Wildlife Specialist
Department of Natural Resources
Room 114, Fernow Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-3001
Phone: 607-255-2835
Fax: 607-255-2815
E-mail: pdcl@cornell.edu
Proposed Budget 2000-2001
City of Iowa City
Deer Management Program
PERSONNEL HOURS Subtotal TOTAL
40 hours site selection and initial baiting
(2 people for 2 days, plus travel) $2,400.00
140 hours prebaiting, site preparation
(1 person 14 days (10 hrs/day @ $60.00 hour) $8,400.00
1280 hours 20 days removal
(4 people working 14 hrs/day @ $60.00 hour) $76,800.00
$87,600.00
EXPENSES
Airfare (site selection and initial baiting) $400.00
Lodging/per diem (site selection/initial baiting) $340.00
Lodging (round trip travel) $400.00
Lodging (5-6 weeks Iowa City) $1400.00
Per Diem prebaiting (1 person for 14 days) $490.00
Per Diem removal (4 people for 20 days) $2800.00
Ammunition $300.00
Bait $1500.00
M iscel laneous $250.00
$7,880.00
MILEAGE
9000 miles ( 3 vehicles at $0.33/mile) $2,970.00
TOTAL $98,450.00
RE: lowa City's Deer Management Plan
12 September 2000
Jolene Marie Stritecky
I have carefully reviewed the 2000-2001 Deer Management Plan as submitted by the
Deer Management Committee, and have carefully analyzed the logic therin. The tone of
the Plan is one of unfortunate inevitability, that "it's too bad but there really is no way
around killing off part of the deer population this year." But I argue that the assumed
"inevitability" of ldlling deer is contrived, and reflects City Council and Committee
predisposition toward sharpshooting. The following are a number of points in the Plan
that are logically problematic:
· pg 5 pgph 1 refers to the "necessary duty of the city to maintain the health of the
herd." Pg 5 pgph 3 states that "Inside the city limits, deer have an abundant food
supply and no natural predators. Deaths from starvation and disease seem
unlikely to stem the increasing numbers." According to this second statement, it
seems we in Iowa City have a healthy herd of deer. It also seems that our urban
environment can support the present deer population, and perhaps one even larger
than the 35 deer per square mile "limit" that the City Council set, upon
consultation with the DNR (pg 3 pt 3, pg 23 pgph 5).
· but then of course there is the question of"damage" that a large deer population
might wreak on the environment: Pg 5 pgph 1 refers to the "necessary duty of the
city to... prevent irreparable damage to plant and animal life in the ecosystems of
the natural areas in the City... and to prevent major deer damage to public and
private property." Then pgph 2 states "it is clear that deer in some areas... cause
destruction of landscaping and yard plantings, and further disrupt already altered
ecosystems" (my emphases).
The assumption here is that a larger deer population inevitably will destroy the
natural and cultivated environment in Iowa City. The logical problem with this
assumption is that it overlooks the human impacts on t.b,e environment that have
proved so enticing to deer. Parks and undeveloped areas of the city are not
"natural." And if these cultivated ecosystems are really so endangered, then why
do these healthy deer keep coming back for the rich vegetable diet that our yards
and parks offer? According to ecology consultant Dr. Thomas Eveland, deer do
not drive plant species to extinction, thereby reducing biodiversity. Deer merely
reduce biomass, or the total amount of vegetation. Moreover, their reproduction
rates slow down and level off when less food is available to them. They do not
necessarily have to face starvation or decimation by disease to come into balance
with their food environment.
Let's face the fact that in Iowa City, humans are altering the ecology in a way that
deer happen to like, and that allows them to thri~e and reproduce. Then what is
logically and biologically "inevitable" is that we will have more deer. So then
whether we have the so-called "responsibility" to kill 500 of these healthy deer is
a subjective question of human tolerance, not a scientific question of ecological
sustainability. Let's be honest about that.
· Now regarding the question of car accidents: Pg 5 pgph 1 states that it is also "a
necessary duty of the City to... protect citizen safety and welfare and that (pg 5
pgph 2) "it is clear that the number of deer in some areas may endanger lives
because of deer-vehicle accidents" (my emphases).
Logically, it is never "clear" that something "may" happen, unless one is willing
to allow that it's "clear" that just about anything "may" happen. There are no
cases in Iowa City of humans being killed in car collisions with deer. And if there
were, then one might just as reasonably argue that the death was due to the high
speed of the car when it struck the deer and subsequently crashed.
We drive at our own risk, and we purchase insurance to cover ourselves and our
property in the case of accidents. The City cannot protect citizen safety and
welfare beyond what it already does: 1-posting signs to warn motorists of risks,
2-providing road and highway infrastructure to deter deer (and the Plan
recommends expanding these options, which is a good idea), and 3-enforcing
traffic regulations (the Plan also contains highly problematic logic regarding
speed limits, but time does not permit me to address them here). Beyond these
three provisions, the City cannot protect citizens from every imaginable potential
danger that "clearly may" happen.
But phrasing the alleged threat that deer pose to human lives in these clearly/may
terms is another example of the illogically-contrived assumption that the City
inevitability has the "responsibility" to kill 500 deer.
· The final logical problem with the Plan is the way in which it purports, in the box
on pg 1, to be "a compromise, the product of our attempt to understand and
respect many different voices." Presumably, the Deer Management Committee
conceives this Plan to be a compromise because it provides for "Education and
Other Nonlethal Initiatives for Improved Human-Deer Coexistence" to be
implemented alongside the sharpshooting. However, there are a number of places
in the report that suggest that the Committee never gave serious, rigorous
attention to a truly non-lethal solution one that did not involve killing any
deer--and moreover that there were some voices that the Committee has not
considered.
1) The Plan's Introduction on pg 5 states that the members of the Committee
"affirm our concurrence with the goals of the City's Long-Term Deer
Management Plan." I read the Long-Term Deer Management Plan reproduced on
pg ~.~ The Long-Term Plan is not "merely" a target number of healthy deer per
square mile. Rather, Point 4 the longest, most detailed point in the Long-Term
Plan--is a request to the Natural Resources Commission to sharpshoot deer until
the population is down to 35 deer per square mile. Thus in the Long-Term Plan,
sharpshooting is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, if the Deer Management
Committee affirms its concurrence with this Long-Term Plan, then the Committee
is affirming its concurrence with sharpshooting. Thus it should not purport to be
a compromise, or to have considered a truly non-lethal plan of action.
2) In the Summary of Population Management Options the Committee
Considered, on pg 13, the first option that the Committee claims to have
considered is "No Lethal Action." This very short, vague paragraph opens by
stating that "The Committee considered the option of recommending that no
specific lethal action be taken this year..." Yet the paragraph does not say that
the Committee considered SPECIFIC NON-LETHAL actions. Then the pgph
ends with the statement that "The Committee rejected inaction as a management
method" (my emphasis). If the Committee concludes that "No Lethal Action" is
the same as "inaction," then the committee assumes that all actions must
necessarily be lethal. Again, there is no evidence that the Committee rigorously
considered a wholly non-lethal plan of action to "manage" the deer.
3) Regarding the Committee's openness to other points of view, it seems the one
point of view that the Committee is reluctant to hear is that of animal rights
activists. On pg 11, the Plan refers to "harassment by activists and others during
shoots" (my emphasis). Here the language explicitly frames our civil fight to
protest this controversial plan as "harassment." This language undermines the
nice statement in the box on pg 1 about respecting many voices.
I urge members of the City Council to reject this Deer Management Plan on the grounds
that
1-the Plan contains serious logical flaws
2~sharpshooting deer is not an inevitable necessity if we wish to protect our cultivated
environment
3-the Committee failed to exhaust the possibilities for developing a truly non-lethal plan
(as opposed to a few non-lethal suggestions to be implemented alongside sharpshooting),
4-the Committee holds a problematic allegiance to a Long-Term Plan that already
assumes the need to kill deer by sharpshooting within Iowa City's city limits, and
therefore it cannot purport to offer unbiased recommendations to the City Council
I also urge citizens of Iowa City to inform themselves about this Plan to sharpshoot deer,
and to investigate the Plan's inherent inconsistencies, as well as any political motivations
behind the Plan.
Publish 9/8
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at
7:00 p.m. on the 12th day of September, 2000, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the
City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider:
A Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Private
Redevelopment by and between the City of Iowa City and MGD L.C.
Copies of the proposed resolution and agreement are on file for public examination in the office
of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for
Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN KARR
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 11, 2000
To: Councilor Irvin Pfab ~,~,~~~.,,.._~,~
From: David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator /
Re: Changes to the MGD Agreement
As you requested, the following highlights the changes made to the MGD Agreement since you
received a copy of the agreement early last week. The changes are underlined.
Section 3.3. OccuDancV.
Along with the certifications required under 6.7 hereto, the Developer will
certify that at least one anchor retail store of at least 40,000 square feet is in
operation at the Development Property, and by November 1, 2002, 65% of the
gross leasable floor space of the Development Property is occupied. On
November 1, 2003, the Developer will certify that 75% of the gross leasable floor
space of the Development Property is occupied. Beginning on November 1, 2004,
and until the Termination Date, the Developer will certify that by November 1 of
each year or during ten of the twelve previous months 80% of the gross leasable
floor space of the Development Property is occupied. Failure to so certify, or to
meet these occupancy requirements, shall constitute a default under Article X of
this Agreement.
Section 8.1. Economic Development Grants
(b) The obligation of the City to make an Economic Development Grant
to the Developer in any year as specified above shall be subject to and
conditioned upon the timely filing by the Developer of all previous annual
statements, proofs and certifications required under Section 6.7 hereof and the
City Manager's approval thereof. Beginning with the November 1, 2002
certification, if the Developer's annual statement, proof and certification is timely
filed and contains the information required under Section 6.7 and the City Manager
approves of the same, the City shall certify to the County prior to December 1 of
that year its request for the available Tax Increments resulting from the
assessments imposed by the County as of january 1 of that year, to be collected
by the City as taxes are paid during the following fiscal year and which shall
thereafter be disbursed to the Developer on June I of the following fiscal year.
(For example, if the Developer and the City each so certify on November and
December 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively, the first Economic Development
Grant would be paid to the Developer on June 1,2004).
(d) The total, aggregate amount of all Economic Development Grants
under this Agreement shall not exceed $2,000,000. Each Economic Development
Grant shall be equal to the sum of one hundred percent (100%) of all Tax
Increments collected per fiscal year in respect of the assessments imposed on the
Development Properly and Minimum Improvements as of January 1, 2002, and on
January 1 of each of the following six (6) years, until the total, aggregate of all
such Economic Development Grants equals no more than the sum of $2,000,000.
If a final grant based upon one hundred percent of Tax Increments would result in
total, aggregate Economic Development Grants in an amount exceeding
$2,000,000, the final Economic Development Grant shall be reduced accordingly.
Such Economic Development Grants shall at all times be subject to termination in
accordance with the terms of this Article VIII. Thereafter the taxes levied on the
Development Property and Minimum Improvements shall be divided and applied in
accordance with the Urban Renewal Act and the Ordinance.
The following non-substantive changes (as noted) have been made to the agreement since the
Council received a copy of the agreement in the Council packet
Section 6.4. Non-Discrimination. In operating the Minimum
Improvements, the Developer shall not discriminate against any applicant,
employee or tenant because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, national origin,
sexual orientation prcfcroncc, age, disability, marital status or gender identity. The
Developer shall ensure that applicants, employees and tenants are considered
and are treated without regard to their race, creed, color, religion, sex, national
origin, sexual orientation prcfcrcnoc, age, disability, marital status or gender
identity.
Section 10.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default
referred to in Section 10.1 of this Agreement occurs and is continuing, the City, as
specified below, may take any one or more of the following actions after (except in
the case of an Event of Default under subsections (e) or (f) of said Section 10.1 in
which case action may be taken immediately) the giving of thirty (30) days' written
notice by the City to the Developer and the holder of the First Mortgage (but only
to the extent the City has been informed in writing of the existence of a First
Mortgage and been provided with the address of the holder thereof) of the Event of
Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty (30)
days, or if the Event of Default cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days
and the Developer does not provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the City
that the Event of Default will be cured as soon as reasonably possible:
Cc: City Council
City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney
u:\files\prspct\sycamore first avenue plan\pfab.doc
Prepared by: David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5236
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY AND MGD L.C.
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 00-295 adopted August 15, 2000 this Council found and
determined that certain areas located within the City are eligible and should be designated as an
urban renewal area under Iowa law, and approved and adopted the Sycamore and First Avenue
Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan") for the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal Project Area
(the "Project Area") described therein, which Plan is on file in the office of the Recorder of
Johnson County; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that properties within the Project Area be redeveloped as part of the
overall redevelopment area covered by said Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from MGD L.C. (the "Developer'), in the form of a
proposed Agreement for Private Redevelopment by and between the City and the Developer,
pursuant to which, among other things, the Developer would agree to pursue the construction of
improvements to an existing retail mail to foster the revitalization of commercial activity with the
Project Area; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code Chapters 384 and 403 (the "Urban Renewal Law") and 15A authorize
cities to provide infrastructure for economic development and offer grants, loans or other
incentives for economic development in furtherance of the objectives of an urban renewal project
and to appropriate such funds and make such expenditures as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of said Chapters, and to levy taxes and assessments for such purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Agreement is in the best interests of the City and
the residents thereof and that the performance by the City of its obligations thereunder is a public
undertaking and purpose and in furtherance of the Plan and the Urban Renewal Law and, furlher,
that the Agreement and the City's performance thereunder is in furtherance of appropriate
economic development activities and objectives of the City within the meaning of Chapters 403
and 15A of the Iowa Code taking into account the factors set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice published as required by law, this Council has held a public
meeting and hearing upon the proposal to approve and authorize execution of the Agreement and
has considered the extent of objections received from residents or property owners as to said
proposed Agreement; and, accordingly the following action is now considered to be in the best
interests of the City and residents thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
Section 1. That the performance by the City of its obligations under the Agreement, including but
not limited to making of a grant to the Developer in connection with the development of the
Development Property under the terms set forth in the Agreement, be and is hereby declared to
be a public undertaking and purpose and in furtherance of the Plan and the Urban Renewal Law
Resolution No.
Page 2
and, further, that the Agreement and the City's performance thereunder is in furtherance of
appropriate economic development activities and objectives of the City within the meaning of
Chapters 403 and 15A of the Iowa Code, taking into account the factors set forth therein.
Section 2. That the form and content of the Agreement, the provisions of which are incorporated
herein by reference, be and the same hereby are in all respects authorized, approved and
confirmed, and the Mayor and the City Clerk be and they hereby are authorized, empowered and
directed to execute, attest, seal and deliver the Agreement for and on behalf of the City in
substantially the form and content now before this meeting, but with such changes, modifications,
additions or deletions therein as shall be approved by such officers, and that from and after the
execution and delivery of the Agreement, the Mayor, City Manager, and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such
documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Agreement as
executed.
Passed and approved this day of ,2000.
MAYOR
Approved by
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office
It was moved by and seconded by the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilburn
AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
By and Between
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
AND
MGD L.C.
AGREEMENT FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT (hereinafter called
"Agreement"), is made on or as of the day of , , by
and among the CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, a municipality (hereinafter called "City"),
established pursuant to the Code of Iowa of the State of Iowa and acting under the
authorization of Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa, 1999, as amended (hereinafter called
"Urban Renewal Act") and MGD L.C., an Iowa limited liability company having an
office for the transaction of business in Iowa City, Iowa (the "Developer").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the objectives of the Urban Renewal Act, the City
has undertaken a program for the revitalization of an economic development area in the
City and, in this connection, is engaged in carrying out urban renewal project activities in
an area known as the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal Plan Area, which area
is described in the Urban Renewal Plan approved for such area by Resolution No. ~
dated August 15, 2000; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the foregoing Urban Renewal Plan has been recorded
among the land records in the office of the Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the Developer owns or has the right to occupy certain real property
located in the foregoing Urban Renewal Area as more particularly described in Exhibit A
annexed hereto and made a part hereof (which property as so described is hereinafter
referred to as the "Development Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer will cause certain improvements to be constructed on
the Development Property and will cause the same to be operated in accordance with this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that the development and continued operation of the
Development Property pursuant to this Agreement and the fulfillment generally of this
Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City and in accord with the public
purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under
which the foregoing project has been undertaken and is being assisted.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations
of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as
follows:
ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS
Section 1.1. Definitions. In addition to other definitions set forth in this
Agreement, all capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the
following meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:
Agreement means this Agreement and all appendices hereto, as the same may be
from time to time modified, amended or supplemented.
Certificate of Completion means a certification in the form of the certificate
attached hereto as Exhibit C and hereby made a part of this Agreement, provided to the
Developer pursuant to Section 3.2 of this Agreement.
Ci_ty means the City of Iowa City, Iowa, or any successor to its functions.
Code means the Code of Iowa, 1999, as amended.
Construction Plans means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents
reflecting the construction work to be performed by the Developer on the Development
Property and the other properties upon which the Public Improvements will be located;
the Construction Plans shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and
related documents which are submitted to the building inspector of the City as required by
applicable City codes.
County means the County of Johnson, Iowa.
Developer means MGD L.C., an Iowa limited liability company, and its successors
and assigns.
Development Property means that portion of the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban
Renewal Plan Area of the City described in Exhibit A hereto.
Economic Development Grants mean the Tax Increment payments to be made by
the City to the Developer under Article VIII of this Agreement.
-2-
Event of Default means any of the events described in Section 10. 1 of this
Agreement.
First Mortgage means any Mortgage granted to secure any loan made pursuant to
either a mortgage commitment obtained by the Developer from a commercial lender or
other financial institution to fund any portion of the construction costs and initial
operating capital requirements of the Minimum Improvements, or all such Mortgages as
appropriate.
MGD L.C. TIF Account means a separate account within the Sycamore and First
Avenue Urban Renewal Tax Increment Revenue Fund of the City, in which there shall be
deposited all Tax Increments received by the City with respect to the Minimum
Improvements.
Minimum Improvements shall mean the construction of improvements to existing
structures and new construction, together with all related site improvements as outlined in
Exhibit B hereto. Minimum Improvements shall not include increases in assessed or
actual value due to market factors.
Mortgage means any mortgage or security agreement in which the Developer has
granted a mortgage or other security interest in the Development Property, or any portion
or parcel thereof, or any improvements constructed thereon.
Net Proceeds means any proceeds paid by an insurer to the Developer under a policy
or policies of insurance required to be provided and maintained by the Developer, as the
case may be, pursuant to Article V of this Agreement and remaining after deducting all
expenses (including fees and disbursements of counsel) incurred in the collection of such
proceeds.
Ordinance mean Ordinance No. of the City, under which the taxes
levied on the taxable property in the Project Area shall be divided and a portion paid into
the Iowa City Urban Renewal Tax Increment Revenue Fund.
Project shall mean the construction and operation of the Minimum Improvements on
the Development Property, as described in this Agreement.
State means the State of Iowa.
Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal Tax Increment Fund means the special
fund of the City created under the authority of Section 403.19(2) of the Code and the
Ordinance, which fund was created in order to pay the principal of and interest on loans,
monies advanced to or indebtedness, whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise,
including bonds or other obligations issued under the authority of Section 403.9 or 403.12
of the Code, incurred by the City to finance or refinance in whole or in part projects
undertaken pursuant to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Project Area.
Tax Increments means the property tax revenues with respect to the Minimum
Improvements that are divided and made available to the City for deposit in the Sycamore
and First Avenue Urban Renewal Tax Increment Revenue Fund under the provisions of
Section 403.19 of the Code and the Ordinance.
Termination Date means the date of termination of this Agreement, as established in
Section 12.8 of this Agreement.
Unavoidable Delays means delays resulting from acts or occurrences outside the
reasonable control of the party claiming the delay including but not limited to storms,
floods, fires, explosions or other casualty losses, unusual weather conditions, strikes,
boycotts, lockouts or other labor disputes, delays in transportation or delivery of material
or equipment, litigation commenced by third parties, or the acts of any federal, State or
local governmental unit (other than the City).
Urban Renewal Plan means the Urban Renewal Plan, as amended, approved in
respect of the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal Area, described in the
preambles hereof.
ARTICLE II. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties of the City. The City makes the
following representations and warranties:
(a) The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision organized under
the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the State and has the power to enter into
this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, and the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
-4-
conditions of this Agreement are not prevented by, limited by, in conflict with, or result in
a breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions of any contractual restriction, evidence of
indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the City is now a
party or by which it is bound, nor do they constitute a default under any of the foregoing.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties of Developer. The Developer makes
the following representations and warranties:
(a) The Developer is a limited liability company duly organized and validly
existing under the laws of the State of Iowa, and has all requisite power and authority to
own and operate its properties, to carry on its business as now conducted and as presently
proposed to be conducted, and to enter into and perform its obligations under the
Agreement.
(b) This Agreement has been duly and validly authorized, executed and delivered
by the Developer and, assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the City, is
in full force and effect and is a valid and legally binding instrument of the Developer
enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as the same may be limited by
bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other laws relating to or affecting creditors'
rights generally.
(c) The execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consununation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, and the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement are not prevented by, limited by, in conflict with, or result in
a violation or breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions of the articles of organization
and bylaws of the Developer or of any contractual restriction, evidence of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by
which it or its property is bound, nor do they constitute a default under any of the
foregoing.
(d) There are no actions, suits or proceedings pending or threatened against or
affecting the Developer in any court or before any arbitrator or before or by any
governmental body in which there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse decision which
could materially adversely affect the business (present or prospective), financial position
or results of operations of the Developer or which in any manner raises any questions
affecting the validity of the Agreement or the Developer's ability to perform its
obligations under this Agreement.
(e) The Developer will cause the Minimum Improvements to be constructed in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Urban Renewal Plan and all local, State
and federal laws and regulations.
(f) The Developer will use its best efforts to obtain, or cause to be obtained, in a
timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely
manner, all requirements of all applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations
which must be obtained or met in connection with the Project.
(g) The Developer has not received any notice from any local, State or federal
official that the activities of the Developer with respect to the Development Property may
or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation. The Developer is not
currently aware of any State or federal claim filed or planned to be filed by any party
relating to any violation of any local, State or federal environmental law, regulation or
review procedure applicable to the Development Property, and the Developer is not
currently aware of any violation of any local, State or federal environmental law,
regulation or review procedure which would give any person a valid claim under any
State or federal environmental statute with respect thereto.
(h) The Developer will cooperate fully with the City in resolution of any traffic,
parking, trash removal or public safety problems which may arise in connection with the
construction and operation of the Minimum Improvements.
(i) The Developer would not undertake its obligations under this Agreement
without the payment by the City of the Economic Development Grants being made to the
Developer pursuant to this Agreement.
ARTICLE III. DEVELOPMENT AND OCCUPANCY REOUIREMENT
Section 3.1. Minimum Improvements.
The Developer agrees to complete Minimum Improvements generally consisting of
improvements to the existing structures at the Development Property and the construction
of additional structures for use as a retail mall on the Development Property, all as more
fully described on Exhibit B hereto. The construction of the Minimum Improvements
must increase the actual assessed value of the Development Property by at least fifteen
percent (15%) over the actual assessed value on January 1, 2000, as of January 1, 2002.
-6-
The Developer shall submit all exterior changes requiring a building permit for
review and approval by the City staff design review committee. The Developer shall
submit a site plan, for approval by the City Manager, which provides landscaping and
which defines the entryways and other related drive-through traffic patterns through the
use of landscaping and other appropriate streetscape elements.
Section 3.2. Certificate of Completion.
Upon written request of the Developer after issuance of an occupancy permit for the
Minimum Improvements, the City will furnish the Developer with a Certificate of
Completion in recordable form, in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit C attached
hereto. Such Certificate of Completion shall be a conclusive determination of satisfactory
termination of the covenants and conditions of this Agreement with respect to the
obligations of the Developer to construct the Minimum Improvements.
A Certificate of Completion may be recorded in the proper office for the recordation
of deeds and other instruments pertaining to the Development Property at the Developer's
sole expense. If the City shall refuse or fail to provide a Certificate of Completion in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 3.2, the City shall within twenty (20) days
after written request to the Developer, provide the Developer with a written statement
indicating with adequate detail, in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the
Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, or is
otherwise in default under the terms of this Agreement, and what measures or acts will be
necessary in the opinion of the City, to obtain such Certificate of Completion.
Section 3.3. Occupancy.
Along with the certifications required under 6.7 hereto, the Developer will certify
that at least one anchor retail store of at least 40,000 square feet is in operation at the
Development Property, and by November 1, 2002, 65% of the gross leasable floor space
of the Development Property is occupied. On November 1, 2003, the Developer will
certify that 75% of the gross leasable floor space of the Development Property is
occupied. Beginning on November 1, 2004, and until the Termination Date, the
Developer will certify that by November 1 of each year or during ten of the twelve
previous months 80% of the gross leasable floor space of the Development Property is
occupied. Failure to so certify, or to meet these occupancy requirements, shall constitute
a default under Article X of this Agreement.
ARTICLE IV. RESERVED
-7-
ARTICLE V. INSURANCE
Section 5.1. Insurance Requirements.
(a) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and at all
times prior to the Termination Date, the Developer shall maintain, or cause to be
maintained, at its cost and expense (and from time to time at the request of the City shall
fumish proof of the payment of premiums on) insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements
under a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured through property
policies against by similar businesses, including (without limitation the generality of the
foregoing) fire, extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief, explosion, water
damage, demolition cost, debris removal, and collapse in an amount not less than the full
insurable replacement value of the Minimum Improvements, but any such policy may
have a deductible amount of not more than $100,000. No policy of insurance shall be so
written that the proceeds thereof will produce less than the minimum coverage required
by the preceding sentence, by reason of co-insurance provisions or otherwise, without the
prior consent thereto in writing by the City. The term "full insurable replacement value"
shall mean the actual replacement cost of the Minimum Improvements (excluding
foundation and excavation costs and costs of underground flues, pipes, drains and other
uninsurable items) and equipment, and shall be determined from time to time at the
request of the City, but not more frequently than once every three years, by an insurance
consultant or insurer selected and paid for by the Developer and approved by the City.
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal
injury liability for injuries to persons and/or property, including any injuries resulting
from the operation of automobiles or other motorized vehicles on or about the
Development Property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of
$1,000,000 with a deductible of $500,000.
(iii) Such other insurance, including worker's compensation insurance
respecting all employees of the Developer, in such amount as is customarily carded by
like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure;
provided that the Developer may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its
liability for worker's compensation.
-8-
(b) All insurance required by this Article V to be provided prior to the
Termination Date shall be taken out and maintained in responsible insurance companies
selected by the Developer which are authorized under the laws of the State to assume the
risks covered thereby. The Developer will deposit annually with the City copies of
policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or certificates or binders of the
respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise
provided in this Article V, each policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not
cancel or modify it without giving written notice to the Developer and the City at least
thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. Not less than
fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any policy, the Developer shall furnish the City
evidence satisfactory to the City that the policy has been renewed or replaced by another
policy conforming to the provisions of this Article V, or that there is no necessity therefor
under the terms hereof. In lieu of separate policies, the Developer may maintain a single
policy, or blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, which provide the total
coverage required herein, in which event the Developer shall deposit with the City a
certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force
upon the Minimum Improvements.
(c) The Developer agrees to notify the City immediately in the case of damage
exceeding $25,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any
portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. Net Proceeds of any such insurance
shall be paid directly to the Developer, and the Developer will forthwith repair,
reconstruct and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an
improved condition or value as they existed prior to the event causing such damage and,
to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction and restoration, the
Developer will apply the Net Proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received
by the Developer to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof.
(d) The Developer shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the
Minimum Improvements, whether or not the Net Proceeds of insurance received by the
Developer for such purposes are sufficient.
ARTICLE VI. COVENANTS OF THE DEVELOPER
Section 6.1. Maintenance of Properties. The Developer will maintain, preserve
and keep its properties (whether owned in fee or a leasehold interest), including but not
limited to the Minimum Improvements, in good repair and working order, ordinary wear
-9-
and tear accepted, and from time to time will make all necessary repairs, replacements,
renewals and additions.
Section 6.2. Maintenance of Records. The Developer will keep at all times proper
books of record and account in which full, true and correct entries will be made of all
dealings and transactions of or in relation to the business and affairs of the Developer in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, consistently applied
throughout the period involved, and the Developer will provide reasonable protection
against loss or damage to such books of record and account.
Section 6.3. Compliance with Laws. The Developer will comply with all laws,
rules and regulations relating to the Minimum Improvements, other than laws, rules and
regulations the failure to comply with which or the sanctions and penalties resulting
therefrom, would not have a material adverse effect on the business, property, operations,
or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Developer.
Section 6.4. Non-Discrimination. In operating the Minimum Improvements, the
Developer shall not discriminate against any applicant, employee or tenant because of
race, creed, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual preference, age, disability, marital
status or gender identity. The Developer shall ensure that applicants, employees and
tenants are considered and are treated without regard to their race, creed, color, religion,
sex, national origin, sexual preference, age, disability, marital status or gender identity.
Section 6.5. Available Information. The Developer shall upon request provide the
City with a letter of an independent public accountant selected by the Developer to the
effect that they have reviewed financial statements of the Developer which have been
prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, that the
examination of such financial statements by such accountant has been undertaken in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and that the Developer is
financially capable of fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement.
Section 6.6. Continued Operation. Commencing upon the signing of the
Agreement, the Developer agrees that it will operate a community shopping center at the
Development Property and will continue operation of this business until at least the
Termination Date set forth in Section 12.8 hereof.
Section 6.7. Annual Certification. To assist the City in monitoring and
performance of the Developer hereunder, a duly authorized officer of the Developer shall
annually provide to the City: (a) a written statement from the County Auditor showing the
-10-
amount of Tax Increments (as defined in Section 1.1 of this Agreement) in respect of the
Minimum Improvements (excluding increases in assessed or actual value due to market
factors) for the following fiscal year; (b) proof that all ad valorem taxes on the
Development Property have been paid for the prior fiscal year; and (c) certification that
such officer has re-examined the terms and provisions of this Agreement and that at the
date of such certificate, and during the preceding twelve (12) months, the Developer is
not, or was not, in default in the fulfillment of any of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement (including but not limited to the occupancy requirements of Section 3.3
hereto) and that no Event of Default (or event which, with the lapse of time or the giving
of notice, or both, would become an Event of Default) is occurring or has occurred as of
the date of such certificate or during such period, or if the signer is aware of any such
default, event or Event of Default, said officer shall disclose in such statement the nature
thereof, its period of existence and what action, if any, has been taken or is proposed to be
taken with respect thereto. Such statement, proof and certificate shall be provided not
later than November 1 of each year, commencing November 1,2001, and ending on
November 1, 2009, both dates inclusive. Upon certification by the Developer on or
before November 1,2001, the City will certify to establish a base value as of January 1,
2000.
ARTICLE VII. ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER
Section 7.1. Status of the Developer; Transfer of Substantially All Assets. As
security for the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, the Developer
represents and agrees that, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion and prior
to the Termination Date, the Developer will maintain its existence as a limited liability
company and will not wind up or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its assets
or assign their interest in this Agreement to any other party unless (i) the transferee
partnership, corporation, limited liability company or individual assumes in writing all of
the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement and (ii) the City consents thereto
in writing in advance thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, or any other
provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may pledge any and/or all of its assets as
security for any financing of the Minimum Improvements, and the City agrees that
Developer may assign its interest under this Agreement for such purpose.
ARTICLE VIII. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Section 8.1. Economic Development Grants. (a) For and in consideration of the
obligations being assumed by the Developer hereunder, and in furtherance of the goals
and objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan for the Project Area and the Urban Renewal
Act, the City agrees, subject to the Developer having received a Certificate of Completion
-11-
and being and remaining in compliance with the terms of this Agreement and to the terms
of this Article VIII, to assume an obligation to make up to seven (7) consecutive annual
payments to the Developer commencing on June 1, 2004 and ending on June 1, 2010,
pursuant to Section 403.9 of the Urban Renewal Act, equal in amounts to one hundred
percent (100%) per fiscal year of the Tax Increments collected by the City with respect to
the Minimum Improvements on Development Property under the terms of the Ordinance
(without regard to any averaging that may otherwise be utilized under Section 403.19(6)
and excluding any interest that may accrue thereon prior to payment to the Developer)
during the preceding twelve-month period in respect of the Development Property and the
Minimum Improvements, but subject to adjustment and conditions precedent as provided
in this Article (such payments being referred to collectively as the "Economic
Development Grants").
(b) The obligation of the City to make an Economic Development Grant to the
Developer in any year as specified above shall be subject to and conditioned upon the
timely filing by the Developer of all previous annual statements, proofs and certifications
required under Section 6.7 hereof and the City Manager's approval thereof. Beginning
with the November 1, 2002 certification, if the Developer's annual statement, proof and
certification is timely filed and contains the information required under Section 6.7 and
the City Manager approves of the same, the City shall certify to the County prior to
December 1 of that year its request for the available Tax Increments resulting from the
assessments imposed by the County as of January 1 of that year, to be collected by the
City as taxes are paid during the following fiscal year and which shall thereafter be
disbursed to the Developer on June 1 of the following fiscal year. (For example, if the
Developer and the City each so certify on November and December 2001, 2002 and 2003,
respectively, the first Economic Development Grant would be paid to the Developer on
June 1, 2004).
(c) In the event that the annual statement, proof or certificate required to be
delivered by the Developer under Section 6.7 is not delivered to the City by November 1
of any year, the Developer recognizes and agrees that the City may have insufficient time
to review and approve the same and certify its request for Tax Increments to the County
and that, as a result, no Economic Development Grant may be made to the Developer in
respect thereof. The City covenants to act in good faith to appropriately review and
consider any late certification on the part of the Developer, but the City shall not be
obligated to make any certification to the County for the available Tax Increments or
make any corresponding payment of the Economic Development Grant to the Developer
if, in the reasonable judgment of the City, it is not able to give appropriate consideration
to the Developer's certification due to its late filing.
12-
(d) The total, aggregate amount of all Economic Development Grants under this
Agreement shall not exceed $2,000,000. Each Economic Development Grant shall be
equal to the sum of one hundred percent (100%) of all Tax Increments collected per fiscal
year in respect of the assessments imposed on the Development Property and Minimum
Improvements as of January 1, 2002, and on January 1 of each of the following six (6)
years, until the total, aggregate of all such Economic Development Grants equals no more
than the sum of $2,000,000. If a final grant based upon one hundred percent of Tax
Increments would result in total, aggregate Economic Development Grants in an amount
exceeding $2,000,000, the final Economic Development Grant shall be reduced
accordingly. Such Economic Development Grants shall at all times be subject to
termination in accordance with the terms of this Article VIII. Thereafter the taxes levied
on the Development Property and Minimum Improvements shall be divided and applied
in accordance with the Urban Renewal Act and the Ordinance.
(e) In the event that any certificate filed by the Developer under Section 6.7 or
other information available to the City discloses the existence or prior occurrence of an
Event of Default that was not cured or cannot reasonably be cured under the provisions of
Section 10.2 (or an event that, with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, would
become an Event of Default that cannot reasonably be cured under the provisions of
Section 10.2), the City shall have no obligation thereafter to make any further payments to
the Developer in respect of the Economic Development Grants and may proceed to take
one or more of the actions described in Section 10.2 hereof.
Section 8.2. Source of Grant Funds Limited. (a) The Economic Development
Grants shall be payable from and secured solely and only by amounts deposited and held
in the MGD L.C. TIF Account of the City. The City hereby covenants and agrees to
maintain the Ordinance in force during the term hereof and to apply the incremental taxes
collected in respect of the Minimum Improvements and allocated to the MGD L.C. TIF
Account to pay the Economic Development Grants, as and to the extent set forth in
Section 8.1 hereof. The Economic Development Grants shall not be payable in any
manner by other tax increment revenues or by general taxation or from any other City
funds.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.1 hereof, the City shall have no
obligation to make an Economic Development Grant to the Developer if at any time
during the term hereof the City receives an opinion of its legal counsel to the effect that
the use of Tax Increments resulting from the Minimum Improvements to fund an
Economic Development Grant to the Developer, as contemplated under said Section 8.1,
is not authorized or otherwise an appropriate project activity permitted to be undertaken
-13-
by the City under the Urban Renewal Act or other applicable provisions of the Code, as
then constituted, or under a controlling decision of an Iowa court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter hereof. Upon receipt of such an opinion, the City shall promptly
forward a copy of the same to the Developer. If the circumstances or legal constraints
giving rise to the opinion continue for a period during which two (2) Economic
Development Grants would otherwise have been paid to the Developer under the terms of
Section 8.1, the City may terminate this Agreement, without penalty or other liability to
the Developer, by written notice to the Developer.
(c) The City makes no representation with respect to the amounts that may finally
be paid to the Developer as the Economic Development Grants, and under no
circumstances shall the City in any manner be liable to the Developer so long as the City
timely applies the Tax Increments actually collected and held in the MGD L.C. TIF
Account (regardless of the amounts thereof) to the payment of the Economic
Development Grants to the Developer, as and to the extent described in this Article.
Section 8.3. Use of Other Tax Increments. Subject to this Article VIII, the City
shall be free to use any and all Tax Increments collected in respect of increases in
valuation on the Development Property unrelated to construction of the Minimum
Improvements (i.e. increases in assessed or actual value due to market factors) any other
properties within the Project Area, or any available Tax Increments resulting from the
suspension or termination of the Economic Development Grants under Section 8.1 hereof,
for any purpose for which the Tax Increments may lawfully be used pursuant to the
provisions of the Urban Renewal Act, and the City shall have no obligations to the
Developer with respect to the use thereof.
ARTICLE IX. INDEMNIFICATION
Section 9.1. Release and Indemnification Covenants.
(a) The Developer releases the City and the governing body members, officers,
agents, servants and employees thereof (hereinafter, for purposes of this Article IX, the
"indemnified parties") from, covenant and agree that the indemnified parties shall not be
liable for, and agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the indemnified parties
against, any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring
at or about or resulting from any defect in the Minimum Improvements.
- 14-
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct
or any unlawful act of the indemnified parties, the Developer agrees to protect and defend
the indemnified parties, now or forever, and further agree to hold the indemnified parties
harmless, from any claim, demand, suit, action or other proceedings whatsoever by any
person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from (i) any violation of any
agreement or condition of this Agreement (except with respect to any suit, action, demand
or other proceeding brought by the Developer against the City to enforce its fights under
this Agreement), (ii) the acquisition and condition of the Development Property and the
construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Minimum Improvements or
(iii) any hazardous substance or environmental contamination located in or on the
Development Property.
(c) The indemnified parties shall not be liable for any damage or injury to the
persons or property of the Developer or its officers, agents, servants or employees or any
other person who may be about the Minimum Improvements due to any act of negligence
of any person, other than any act of negligence on the part of any such indemnified party
or its officers, agents, servants or employees.
(d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements
and obligations of the City, and not of any governing body member, officer, agent,
servant or employee of the City in the individual capacity thereof.
(e) The provisions of this Article IX shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE X. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
Section 10. 1 . Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of
Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is
used in this Agreement, any one or more of the following events:
(a) Failure by the Developer to cause the construction of the Minimum
Improvements to be commenced and completed pursuant to the terms, conditions and
limitations of Article III of this Agreement;
(b) Transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the assets of the Developer in
violation of the provisions of Article VII of this Agreement;
-15-
(c) Failure by the Developer to substantially observe or perform any covenant,
condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this
Agreement;
(d) The holder of any Mortgage on the Development Property, or any
improvements thereon, or any portion thereof, commences foreclosure proceedings as a
result of any default under the applicable Mortgage documents;
(e) The Developer shall:
(A) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United
States Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended, or under any similar federal or state law; or
(B) make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or
(C) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become
due; or
(D) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent; or if a petition or answer
proposing the adjudication of the Developer as a bankrupt or its reorganization under any
present or future federal bankruptcy act or any similar federal or state law shall be filed in
any court and such petition or answer shall not be discharged or denied within ninety (90)
days after the filing thereof; or a receiver, trustee or liquidator of the Developer or the
Minimum Improvements, or part thereof, shall be appointed in any proceedings brought
against the Developer, and shall not be discharged within ninety (90) days after such
appointment, or if the Developer shall consent to or acquiesce in such appointment; or
(f) Any representation or warranty made by the Developer in this Agreement, or
made by the Developer in any written statement or certificate furnished by the Developer
pursuant to this Agreement, shall prove to have been incorrect, incomplete or misleading
in any material respect on or as of the date of the issuance or making thereof.
Section 10.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in
Section 10. 1 of this Agreement occurs and is continuing, the City, as specified below,
may take any one or more of the following actions after (except in the case of an Event of
Default under subsections (e) or (f) of said Section 10. 1 ) the giving of thirty (30) days'
written notice by the City to the Developer and the holder of the First Mortgage (but only
to the extent the City has been informed in writing of the existence of a First Mortgage
-16-
and been provided with the address of the holder thereof) of the Event of Default, but
only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty (30) days, or if the Event
of Default cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days and the Developer does not
provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the City that the Event of Default will be
cured as soon as reasonably possible:
(a) The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement until it
receives assurances from the Developer, deemed adequate by the City, that the Developer
will cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement;
(b) The City may terminate this Agreement;
(c) The City may withhold the Certificate of Completion;
(d) The City may take any action, including legal, equitable or
administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance
and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer, as the case
may be, under this Agreement; or
(e) The City shall be entitled to recover from the Developer, and the
Developer shall re-pay to the City, an amount equal to the most recent Economic
Development Grant previously made to the Developer under Article VIII hereof, and the
City may take any action, including any legal action it deems necessary, to recover such
amount from the Developer.
Section 10.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved
to the City is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each
and every remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy
given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute.
No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall
impair any such fight or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such
right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed
expedient.
Section 10.4. No Implied Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this
Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by any other party,
such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to
waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
-17-
Section 10.5. Agreement to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Whenever any
Event of Default occurs and the party who is not in default shall employ attorneys or incur
other expenses for the collection of payments due or to become due or for the
enforcement or performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of
the party in default herein contained, the party in default agrees that it shall, on demand
therefor, pay to the part not in default the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other
expenses as may be reasonably and appropriately incurred by the party not in default in
connection therewith.
ARTICLE XI. OPTION TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT
Section 11.1. Option to Terminate. This Agreement may be terminated by the
Developer if (i) the Developer is in compliance with all material terms of this Agreement
and no Event of Default has occurred which has not been cured in accordance with the
provisions of Section 10.2 hereof; and (ii) the City fails to comply with any material term
of this Agreement, and, after written notice by the Developer of such failure, the City has
failed to cure such noncompliance within ninety (90) days of receipt of such notice, or, if
such noncompliance cannot reasonably be cured by the City within ninety (90) days of
receipt of such notice, the City has not provided assurances reasonably satisfactory to the
Developer that such noncompliance will be cured as soon as reasonably possible.
Section 11.2. Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to
this Article XI, this Agreement shall be from such date forward null and void and of no
further effect; provided, however, that the City's fights to indemnification under Article
IX hereof shall in all events survive and provided further that the termination of this
Agreement shall not affect the rights of any party to institute any action, claim or demand
for damages suffered as a result of breach or default of the terms of this Agreement by
another party, or to recover amounts which had accrued and become due and payable as
of the date of such termination. In any such action, the prevailing party shall be entitled
to recover its reasonable attorneys fees and related expenses incurred in connection
therewith (but only, in the case of the City, to the extent permitted by applicable law).
Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Article XI, the Developer shall be
free to proceed with the construction and operation of the Minimum Improvements at its
own expense and without regard to the provisions of this Agreement.
-18-
ARTICLE XII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 12.1. Conflict of Interest. The Developer represents and warrants that, to
its best knowledge and belief after due inquiry, no officer or employee of the City, or its
designees or agents, nor any consultant or member of the governing body of the City, and
no other public official of the City who exercises or has exercised any functions or
responsibilities with respect to the Project during his or her tenure, or who is in a position
to participate in a decision-making process or gain insider information with regard to the
Project, has had or shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or
subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work or services to be performed in connection
with the Project, or in any activity, or benefit therefrom, which is part of the Project at any
time during or after such person's tenure.
Section 12.2. Notices and Demands. A notice, demand or other communication
under this Agreement by any party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it
is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or
delivered personally, and
(a) In the case of the Developer, is addressed or delivered personally to
the Developer at 920 S. Dubuque Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, Attn: Kirsten
Frey;
(b) In the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the
City at Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, 52240, Atm: City
Manager;
or to such other designated individual or officer or to such other address as any party shall
have furnished to the other in writing in accordance herewith.
Section 12.3. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts,
Articles, and Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only
and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 12.4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 12.5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa.
-19-
Section 12.6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto reflect the
entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes
and replaces all prior agreements, negotiations or discussions, whether oral or written.
This Agreement may not be amended except by a subsequent writing signed by all parties
hereto.
Section 12.7. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement is intended to and shall
inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective
successors and assigns.
Section 12.8. Termination Date. This Agreement shall terminate and be of no
further force or effect on and after December 31, 2010.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed
in its name and behalf by its Mayor and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and attested
by its City Clerk, the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its
name and behalf by its Managing Member and Member, all on or as of the day first above
written.
(SEAL) CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
- 20 -
MGD L.C.
By:
, Managing Member
ATTEST:
By:
, Member
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss
COUNTY OF __ )
On this day of __., 20 , before me a Notary Public in and
for said County, personally appeared and to me
personally known, who being duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk,
respectively of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation, created and existing
under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument
is the seal of said Municipal Corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
on behalf of said Municipal Corporation by authority and resolution of its City Council
and said Mayor and City Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed
of said Municipal Corporation by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for Johnson County, Iowa
-21 -
STATE OF )
) ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of ,20__, before me the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared
and , to me personally known, who,
being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Managing Member and Member of
MGD L.C., and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said limited liability
company; and that the said and as such
agents acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of
said limited liability company, by them voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for County,
- 22 -
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
The Development Property is described as consisting of all that certain parcel or
parcels of land located in the City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, State of Iowa, more
particularly described as follows:
All of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and a part of Lots 5 and 6 of Mall First Addition to Iowa
City, Iowa as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 41, Records of
Johnson County, Iowa, and a parcel of land in the Noaheast Quarter of Section 23,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. and being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing as a point of reference at the Noaheast comer of the intersection of
Sycamore Street and U.S. Highway No. 6 in Iowa City, Iowa; thence N 0 degrees
26 minutes East (this is an assumed bearing for purposes of this description)
225.05 feet along said East right-of-way line of Sycamore Street to a point; thence
Noah 04 degrees 09 minutes West 212.68 feet along said East right-of-way line of
Sycamore Street to a point; thence Noah 0 degrees 26 minutes East 168.98 feet
along said East right-of-way line of Sycamore Street to the point of beginning of
tract herein described; thence South 89 degrees 34 minutes East 454.81 feet to a
point; thence South 0 degrees 26 minutes West 610.29 feet to a point of
intersection with the Northerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence
Easterly 685.18 feet along a 3015.0 foot radius curve and the Northerly right-of-
way line of said Highway being concave Southerly to a point of intersection with
the Noahwesterly fight-of-way of First Avenue 287.52 feet along a 804.00 foot
radius curve concave Southeasterly (chord Noah 33 degrees 36 minutes 28
seconds East 285.99 feet) to a point of intersection with the Easterly line of said
Lot 6; thence continuing Northeasterly on the Northwesterly fight-of-way line of
First Avenue, 35.56 feet along an 804.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly
(chord Noah 45 degrees 07 minutes 11 seconds East 35.56 feet) to a point; thence
North 2 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds East 28.51 feet to a point of intersection
with the Southwesterly right-of-way line of Lower Muscatine Road; thence Noah
along the Southwesterly fight-of-way line of Lower Muscatine Road 37.42 feet to
a point of intersection with the Easterly line of Lot 6; thence noah 42 degrees 43
minutes 30 seconds West along the Southwesterly right-of-way line of Lower
Muscatine Road 608.79 feet to a point; thence Noah 42 degrees 33 minutes West
A-1
646.86 feet along the Southwesterly right-of-way of Lower Muscatine Road to a
point of intersection with the East line of Lot One, Part Two, of Marion
Subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 20,
Records of Johnson County, Iowa; thence South 0 degrees 58 minutes West 57.36
feet along the East line of said Marion's Subdivision to a point; thence South 47
degrees 28 minutes West 413.83 feet along the Southeasterly line of said Marion's
Subdivision to a point; thence Noah 89 degrees 34 minutes West 147.61 feet along
the Southerly line of said Marion's Subdivision to a point of intersection with the
Easterly right-of-way line of said Sycamore Street; thence South 0 degrees 26
minutes West 143.0 feet along the Easterly right-of-way of said Sycamore Street to
the point of beginning.
AND
A parcel of land in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., and the Northwest Quarter of
the Noaheast Quarter of Section 23, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th
P.M., Johnson County, Iowa, as more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast comer of the intersection of SyCamore Street and U.S.
Highway No. 6 in Iowa City, Iowa; thence North 0 degrees 26 minutes East 225.05
feet along said east line of Sycamore Street to a point; thence North 4 degrees 09
minutes West 212.68 feet along said East line of Sycamore Street to a point; thence
Noah 0 degrees 26 minutes East 168.98 feet along said east line of Sycamore
Street to a point; thence South 89 degrees 34 minutes East 454.81 feet to a point;
thence South 0 degrees 26 minutes West 610.29 feet to a point of intersection with
the northerly fight-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence Westerly 210. 15
feet along a 3015.0 foot radius curve and the Northerly fight-of-way line of said
Highway, being concave Southerly (said are being subtended by a chord of 210. 10
feet with a bearing of North 87 degrees 58 minutes 12 seconds West) to the end of
the curve; thence Noah 89 degrees 58 minutes West (this is an assumed bearing
for purposes of this description) 227.80 feet along the Northerly right-of-way line
of said highway to a point of beginning.
A-2
EXHIBIT B
MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS
The Minimum Improvements shall consist of the construction of improvements and
additions to an existing 240,000 sq. ft. shopping mall, and improvements and additions to
a 26,900 sq. ft. freestanding building, said Minimum Improvements must result in an
increase in actual assessed value of the Development Property of at least fifteen percent
(15%) as of the first year for which an Economic Development Grant is received, together
with any new construction located on the Development Property.
B-1
EXHIBIT C
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, Iowa (the "City") and MGD L.C., an Iowa
limited liability company having an office for the transaction of business in Iowa City,
Iowa, having an office for the transaction of business at 920 S. Dubuque Street, Iowa
City, Iowa (the "Developer"), did on or about the __day of ,2000,
make, execute and deliver, each to the other, an Agreement for Private Redevelopment
(the "Agreement"), wherein and whereby the Developer agreed, in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement, to develop and maintain certain real property located within the
City and as more particularly described as follows:
All of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and a part of Lots 5 and 6 of Mall First Addition to Iowa
City, Iowa as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 4 !, Records of
Johnson County, Iowa, and a parcel of land in the Northeast Quarter of Section 23,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. and being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing as a point of reference at the Northeast comer of the intersection of
Sycamore Street and U.S. Highway No. 6 in Iowa City, Iowa; thence N 0 degrees
26 minutes East (this is an assumed bearing for purposes of this description)
225.05 feet along said East right-of-way line of Sycamore Street to a point; thence
North 04 degrees 09 minutes West 212.68 feet along said East right-of-way line of
Sycamore Street to a point; thence North 0 degrees 26 minutes East 168.98 feet
along said East right-of-way line of Sycamore Street to the point of beginning of
tract herein described; thence South 89 degrees 34 minutes East 454.81 feet to a
point; thence South 0 degrees 26 minutes West 610.29 feet to a point of
intersection with the Northe fly right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence
Easterly 685.18 feet along a 3015.0 foot radius curve and the Northe~y right-of-
way line of said Highway being concave Southerly to a point of intersection with
the Northwesterly fight-of-way of First Avenue 287.52 feet along a 804.00 foot
radius curve concave Southeasterly (chord North 33 degrees 36 minutes 28
seconds East 285.99 feet) to a point of intersection with the Easterly line of said
Lot 6; thence continuing Northeasterly on the Northweste~y right-of-way line of
First Avenue, 35.56 feet along an 804.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly
(chord Noah 45 degrees 07 minutes 11 seconds East 35.56 feet) to-a point; thence
North 2 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds East 28.51 feet to a point of intersection
C-1
with the Southwesterly fight-of-way line of Lower Muscatine Road; thence North
along the Southwesterly fight-of-way line of Lower Muscatine Road 37.42 feet to
a point of intersection with the Easterly line of Lot 6; thence north 42 degrees 43
minutes 30 seconds West along the Southwesterly fight-of-way line of Lower
Muscatine Road 608.79 feet to a point; thence North 42 degrees 33 minutes West
646.86 feet along the Southwesterly fight-of-way of Lower Muscatine Road to a
point of intersection with the East line of Lot One, Part Two, of Marion
Subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 20,
Records of Johnson County, Iowa; thence South 0 degrees 58 minutes West 57.36
feet along the East line of said Marion's Subdivision to a point; thence South 47
degrees 28 minutes West 413.83 feet along the Southeasterly line of said Mafion's
Subdivision to a point; thence North 89 degrees 34 minutes West 147.61 feet along
the Southerly line of said Marion's Subdivision to a point of intersection with the
Easterly tight-of-way line of said Sycamore Street; thence South 0 degrees 26
minutes West 143.0 feet along the Easterly fight-of-way of said Sycamore Street to
the point of beginning.
AND
A parcel of land in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., and the Noahwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 79 Noah, Range 6 West of the 5th
P.M., Johnson County, Iowa, as more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast comer of the intersection of Sycamore Street and U.S.
Highway No. 6 in Iowa City, Iowa; thence North 0 degrees 26 minutes East 225.05
feet along said east line of Sycamore Street to a point; thence North 4 degrees 09
minutes West 212.68 feet along said East line of Sycamore Street to a point; thence
North 0 degrees 26 minutes East 168.98 feet along said east line of Sycamore
Street to a point; thence South 89 degrees 34 minutes East 454.81 feet to a point;
thence South 0 degrees 26 minutes West 610.29 feet to a point of intersection with
the northerly fight-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence Westerly 210.15
feet along a 3015.0 foot radius curve and the Northe~y fight-of-way line of said
Highway, being concave Southerly (said are being subtended by a chord of 210. 10
feet with a beating of North 87 degrees 58 minutes 12 seconds West) to the end of
the curve; thence Noah 89 degrees 58 minutes West (this is an assumed bearing
for purposes of this description) 227.80 feet along the Northerly fight-of-way line
of said highway to a point of beginning, and
C-2
WHEREAS, the Agreement incorporated and contained certain covenants and
restrictions with respect to the development of the Development Property, and obligated
the Developer to construct certain Minimum Improvements (as defined therein) in
accordance with the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has to the present date performed said covenants and
conditions insofar as they relate to the construction of said Minimum Improvements in a
manner deemed by the City to be in conformance with the approved building plans to
permit the execution and recording of this certification.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Agreement, this is to certify
that all covenants and conditions of the Agreement with respect to the obligations of the
Developer, and its successors and assigns, to construct the Minimum Improvements on
the Development Property have been completed and performed by the Developer and are
hereby released absolutely and forever terminated insofar as they apply to the land
described herein. The County Recorder of Johnson County is hereby authorized to accept
for recording and to record the filing of this instrument, to be a conclusive determination
of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of said Agreement with
respect to the construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property.
All other provisions of the Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect
until termination as provided therein.
(SEAL) CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
C-3
STATE OF IOWA )
)SS
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
On this ~ day of ,2000, before me a Notary Public in and for
said County, personally appeared and ,
to me personally known, who being duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City
Clerk, respectively of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation, created and
existing under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing
instrument is the seal of said Municipal Corporation, and that said instrument was signed
and sealed on behalf of said Municipal Corporation by authority and resolution of its City
Council and said Mayor and City Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act
and deed of said Municipal Corporation by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for Johnson County, Iowa
ecodev/agtjmgd2 doc
C-4
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 7, 2000
To: City Council ~/-
From: David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinat '~
Re: Agreement for Private Redevelopmerit Between the City of Iowa City and MGD L.C.
On the Council's September 12 agenda is a public hearing on a resolution authorizing and
approving an agreement for private redevelopment between the City of Iowa City and MGD L.C.
Consideration of the resolution is scheduled for September 19 along with adoption of the
Sycamore and First Avenue tax increment financing ordinance.
As outlined in the agreement the developer will receive seven consecutive 'annual payments,
each equal to one hundred percent of the tax increment collected by the City based on
improvements to the development property. The available tax increment is only on those
physical improvements the developer makes to the site and does not reflect increases in
assessed or actual value due to market forces. The total annual aggregate amount of all seven
annual payments (the agreement refers to them as "Economic Development Grants") shall not
exceed $2 million. The developer has indicated that the project could increase in assessed
value by as much $10 million due to physical improvements they plan to construct on the site.
Based on that increase in assessed value, the total tax rebate over seven years could equal
almost $2 million. If the assessed value increases by more than $10 million, the tax rebate still
cannot be more than $2 million. However, if the increase in assessed value is less than $10
million, the tax rebate will be proportionately lower.
In return the developer has agreed to the following:
· Annually certify that they are in compliance with the agreement in order to receive the
annual rebate.
· Operate a community shopping center on the development property and construct
improvements and additions to the existing 240,000 sq.ft. shopping mall and to the existing
26,9000 sq.ft. freestanding building.
· Construction of minimum improvements that will increase the actual assessed value of the
property by at least fifteen (15%).
· Exterior changes requiring a building permit will be reviewed and approved by the City staff
design review committee.
· Submit a site plan for approval which provides landscaping and which defines the entryways
and other related drive-through traffic patterns through the use of landscaping and other
appropriate streetscape elements.
· Provide at least one anchor retail store of at least 40,0000 sq.ft.
· Demonstrate that by November 2002, 65% of the gross leasable floor space is occupied; by
November 2003, 75% of the gross leasable floor space is occupied; and by November 2004
and until the end of the agreement, 80% of the gross leasable floor space is occupied or that
during ten of the twelve previous months 80% of the gross leasable floor space is occupied.
· Demonstrate that adequate insurance is provided.
· Maintain the property in good working condition.
· Upon request, provide the City with a letter from an independent public accountant to the
effect that the developer is financially capable of fulfilling its obligations under this
agreement.
I will be present at your formal meeting to answer any questions you may have on the
agreement.
Cc: Kirsten Frey
Mark Corey
u:\files\prspct\sycarnore first avenue plan\cc0912.doc
Marian Karr
From: Karen Kubby [kkubby@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 11:39 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Urban Renewal Plan
September 6, 2000
Dear City Council,
After reading the Private Development Agreement between the City of Iowa
City and the Sycamore Mall, I have a few comments and concerns I'd like to
share with you.
The first concern stems from the absence of any mention of the city's
Economic Development Guidelines in the agreement. It seems that there are
two opportunities to employ this tool in your decision-making. One would be
in the improvement projects that are outlined in the agreement--that those
businesses benefiting from creating these improvements would meet some of
the guidelines. The second opportunity is for the businesses benefiting
from the improvements once completed--the development company and the
individual stores.
I don't want to assume that the guidelines are not being used as a factor
in your decision making, but would like to see this referenced in the
guidelines and benchmarks laid out in the agreement.
Some detail about how the guidelines are being used in your decision making
in this matter would be appreciated. Please contact me to clarify this point.
The second concern is a brief, but important linguistics issue in the
non-discrimination clause of the agreement. This clause includes the
phrase "sexual preference" There is no reference to "sexual preference"
in our Human Rights Ordinance which is where this list comes from.
instead, the appropriate language is "sexual orientation". This change
would make this clause consistent with our ordinance and with other city
documents.
I look forward to the city's response to these concerns.
Karen Kubby
728 2nd Ave.
iowa City, IA 52245-4504
(319) 337-2112 days
(319) 338-1321 evenings
kkubby@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Marian Karr
From: Irvin Pfab [ipfab@avalon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 11:31 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Cc: WFD538@UIHCJES2.UIHC.UIOWA. EDU
Subject: Fw: Mall $2M Subsedy Issue.
This message pretty well speaks for itself.
Irvin
Original Message
From: "WILLIAM F. DOSTAL" ~WFD538@UIHCJES2.UIHC.UIOWA.EDU>
To: <ipfab@AVALON.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 12:58 PM
Subject: Mall $2M Subsedy Issue.
I am opposed to the City allocating a give-away or backing a loan for
Sycamore Mall development.
William F. Dostal
415 Clark Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Janice S. Dostal
Same.
ELNORA SWARTZENDRUBER
2801 Highway 6 East #306
Iowa City IA 52240-2628
Home: 319-354-2952
September 12, 2000
TO: City Council of Iowa City
FROM: Elnora Swartzendruber
RE: Tax Incentive for Sycamore Mall
I will be unable to attend the next reading of the item regarding the tax incentive for the rebuilding
of Sycamore Mall. I encourage the full council to endorse this item. I live in the southeast area of
Iowa City that is now referred to as the "depressed area of Iowa City." Despite what some people
claim, there is absolutely hardly any place to shop in this end of town. By not supporting this item,
you are encouraging people to drive to the Coral Ridge Mall to shop, since they have to get in their
vehicles to drive somewhere to shop anyway. I would think it much better if all Iowa Citians were
able to support their local stores, as opposed to supporting the Coralville mall.
I applaud your decision that this area of our fine City is the next area that needs to have money
pumped into it for revitalization. By not backing this item to the fullest extent possible, you are
showing the people of this depressed locale that you do not really care about us. The incentive will
permit the mall to become the best that it can be. To not support this item, this area will again to be
forced to not have the best that we can have.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I apologize that I am unable to attend your
meetings.
C\offieln\City Council 9-O0.doc