Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-18 Correspondence PLAZA TO~,~,'ERS, LL£ N,|ANAGEMENI-. ~AI,ES ~ REN'i A!.S t05 EASI Cot LEGE STREET IO~AC~I'Y. IOWA q~4n mm~moCn~oup.mm October 3, 2005 Mayor and Iowa City Council City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Plaza Towers (parcel 64-1a) Dear Mayor and Council: I am writing regarding the completion date under the AGREEMENT FOR, IMPROVEMENT AND SALE OF LAND FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT of parcel 64-1a. Part I, Section 5 of that agreement provides: "Section 5. Time for Commencement and Completion of Minimum Improvements. The :construction of the Project and Minimum Improvements referred to in Section 301 of Part II hereof shall commence not later than November 1, 2003, and shall be completed on or before November 1, 2005." With agreement of the City, the commencement date of this project was extended. In addition, there are a number of complex interior commercial buildouts in this project which involve extensive mechanical engineering and design. Our goal is to have the building complete, including interior buildouts, by December 31st with occupancy in early January, 2006. However, in an abundance of caution, we request an extension of the completion date to and including February 1, 2006. We sincerely appreciate your cooperation in this request. Should there be questions please do not hesitate to contact me. O ~ ' ...... cell:319.430.3010 ~ C'~ C,q Marian Karr From: Marcia Klingaman Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:51 PM To: *City Council Subject: FW: Scott & Court Street From: E. Oltmanns [mailto:e.oltmanns@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:21 AM To: Ma rcia-Klingaman@iowa-city.org Subject: Scott & Court Street Dear Marcia, I live in Windsor Ridge and was one of many, as I understand, who wrote earlier requesting that the proposed traffic light be installed at the intersection of Court and Scott streets. Now that the project has been completed, I want to write a huge THANK YOU to you and all who were involved in the implementation of the traffic light. I frequently use that intersection, and I will feel so much safer now crossing the street. It was a dangerous intersection, and I want you to know how much I will appreciate having a traffic light there. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Sincerely, Ellen Oltmanns 9/29/2005 Forum Marian Karr From: Gerald Ott [ButlerConsulting@mchsi,com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:48 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Forum Institute for Tomorrow's Workforce · · Invitational Opinion Leader Forums ... Addressing Iowa's greatest imperative. October 2005 Greetings: The Institute for Tomorrow's Workforce was created by the Iowa legislature as a "forum" for new and bold pathways for improving Iowa school system. As part of the Institute's work, members of the foundation's Board of Directors are hosting invitational forums across the state. At these forums, moderators will ask Iowa opinion leaders what they believe to be Iowa's greatest imperatives for youth. For ITW, the greatest imperative is that all young people gain benefit from postsecondary learning and acquire a degree, professional license, apprenticeship or certificate of employability soon after graduating from high school - and find productive employment, preferably in Iowa. With help from other Iowans, educational experts and the public, ITW wants to figure out how we can achieve our goal. Please join us for a discussion of this imperative. Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Area Forum Date: October 18, 2005 Time: 4:00-6:30 p.m. Iowa City Chamber of Commerce Board Room Located in the Commerce Center 10/11/2005 Forum Page 2 of 3 305 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Please join us for this important forum. A discussion guide has been mailed to you. Butler Consulting LLC of Des Moines is handing the RSVPs. Please respond to this e-mail indicating your availability to participate in this forum. Thank you. P. S. Because of space limitations, this is an invitational forum. If demand and interest necessitate, we can hold an additional forum in the area. ITW Board of Directors Co-chairman Marvin Pomerantz, Chairman and CEO, Mid-America Group Robert Koob, Ph.D., President, University of Northern Iowa Members Som Baccam, Des Moines, Citizen, Former Des Moines CSD Board Member Diane Crookham-Johnson, Oskaloosa, MUSCO Sports Lighting Jerry Downin, Ankeny, Iowa Farm Bureau Debbie Durham, Sioux City, Chamber of Commerce Doug Gross, Des Moines, Attorney at Law Patricia Keir, Ph.D., Davenport, Chancellor, Eastern Iowa Comm. College Charles Link, MD, Ames, Oncologist, NewLink Genetics Corporation Carol Montz, Ph..D., Riverside, Superintendent of Schools Linda Nelson, Council Bluffs, Teacher, President of ISEA Harold Prior, Ph.D., Algona, Superintendent of Schools Brent Siegrist, Council Bluffs, Area Education Agencies of Iowa David Roe, Ph.D.., Pella, President of Central College 10/11/2005 Forum Page 3 of 3 Daron Wilson, Emmetsburg, Voyager Ethanol William L. Lepley, Ed.D, Executive Director BUTLER CONSULTING LLC 2854 Druid Hill Dr. Des Moines, lA 50315 515.221.9711 Phone 515.979.2823 Cell Phone 515.440.3673 Jodie's Office ButlerConsulting~mchsi.com 10/11/2005 Marian Karr From: Bcbsierk@aol.com Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:07 AM To: council@iowa-city.org; steve-atkins@iowa-city.org Subject: Vehicles, N. First Ave., Signage, N. Dubuque St. Council and Steve, In addition to the numerous vehicles, there is now the semi tractor parked at the North First Avenue residence. The latter has been in the same spot for several weeks. We, as a city, have the reputation for having a pretty tough sign ordinance. I butted up against it a couple of times when I was a businessperson. The large political sign at the residence on North Dubuque has been up for a year. Please know that my concern is not a political one. As someone who works to put the best face on our community, I find these both to be quite offensive. No need to resond. Bob Sierk 9/30/2005 Marian Karr From: Barker, Joyce A [joyce-barker@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:41 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org I think maybe this is where the city has gone wrong with trying to help the homeless shelter. I have attached the city of Boulder, CO. recent approval of a homeless shelter application. I think Boulder makes a good comparison to us. They tried to include everyone not ostracize them. And the city only approved the plan not with the design but the MANAGEMENT plan .... Sincerely, Joyce Barker *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders 10/3/2005 March 22, 2002 Contact: Jane Nelson, Planning/Public Works, (303) 441-3200 Jana Petersen, Media Relations, (303) 441-3090 City Web site: www.ci.boulder.co.us Homeless Shelter City approves home]ess shelter application The city today approved the Conditional Use application and management plan for a new homeless shelter, proposed for ~4869 N. Broadway. The findings stated that, "Management policies proposed by the shelter operator emphasize getting the homeless off the streets as an effective way to minimize impacts while simultaneously delivering the services within its mission." The plan was submitted by the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless after a round of neighborhood meetings that gathered input and suggestions about the management plan. During the city's review process, city staff consisting of representatives from Planning and Development Services, Housing and Human Services, the Police Department and the City Attorney's Office evaluated the management plan to see if the proposed shelter met city code conditions for occupancy, parking, staffing and waiting areas. City staff also considered all comments about potential impacts and mitigation submitted by the public, including comments that were structured as an alternative management plan. Planning Director Peter Pollock said, "I have been pleased that the process laid out in the shelter code, namely the Good Neighbor meetings, led to the incorporation of many of the neighbor's ideas into the management plan submitted for our review. The shelter's plan clearly met and in some cases exceeded the code's standards. The plan was improved upon as a result of the Good Neighbor meetings, and we encourage the shelter to continue to work with the neighbors to ensure concerns can be aired and addressed." The decision found that the management plan met all city code requirements. In noting that the application and good neighbor meetings exceeded city code requirements, the findings praised the "effective dialogue between the shelter operators and neighbors." Specifically, the decision encourages the shelter to "reasonably implement other neighbor suggestions, for example the shelter's responsibility as a good neighbor, employee education, and neighborhood outreach." The shelter is also encouraged to pay special attention to safety concerns raised regarding lighting and to consider a neighborhood trash and litter pickup. These suggestions could be incorporated into the management plan at any time. "Even after the shelter opens, there is the opportunity for the shelter to revise and resubmit the management plan to reflect knowledge and insight gained through the operating experience," Pollock said. According to city code, anyone proposing a homeless shelter must prepare and present a management plan to residents of the neighborhood in which the proposed shelter is located. The neighborhood meetings allow interested citizens to provide input and suggest changes before the plan is submitted to the city for conditional use review. No public hearings or appeals are allowed in the conditional use process. Once approved, the homeless shelter must operate under the terms of the approved management plan or be in violation. City code requires that a management plan be resubmitted every three years at a minimum, in this case by March 22, 2005. Prior to the resubmittal, a Good Neighbor meeting must be held. The Decision and Findings for the Proposed Shelter for the Homeless can be found online at http ://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/shelter/index.htm. Decision and Findings Proposed Boulder Shelter for the Homeless 4869 North Broadway Application #ADR-2002-00028 Decision Date: March 21, 2002 Introduction: This document provides the decision and findings for the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless application. It provides an overview of the process and code requirements as context for the decision and findings. Additional related information is provided at the end of the document, including the role that ongoing public comment could have in the shelter's future management. Decision: Conditional Use application ADR2002-00028, an overnight shelter to be located at 4869 North Broadway, with associated transitional housing and accessory services, is APPROVED, based on the attached Findings. Pursuant to the applicant's written statement and management plan, occupancy of the facility will not exceed 160 residents, including transitional housing, unless a new management plan is submitted and approved by the city of Boulder. In compliance with Section 9-3.4-25, the management plan shall be resubmitted for approval not later than March 22, 2005. The shelter operator is encouraged to continue working with surrounding neighbors to seek continuous improvement of the management plan and resolve remaining differences with neighbors. The shelter operator shall host at least one Good Neighbor Meeting, in compliance with code requirements in effect at that time, prior to resubmission of the management plan in 2005. Overview: The Boulder Revised Code, Chapter Nine, Land Use Regulation (hereafter "the code") provides three primary categories of land uses. These categories are 1) allowed uses, 2) conditional uses, and 3) use review uses. 1) Allowed uses are permitted without review. Some allowed uses may have standards, such as size or hours of operation, which are always applicable in a specific zone or geographic location. No review is required to determine if the use is acceptable for a given location, and additional standards or conditions beyond those identified in the code cannot be administratively applied. There is no call-up or appeal process for allowed uses. CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor · P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 · fax 303-441-3241 · email plandevelop@ci.boulder, co.us www.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/ 2) Conditional uses are similar to allowed uses. They are allowed on any site zoned for such uses. However, code section 9-3.4 specifies additional standards that are always applicable to conditional uses. The additional standards specified by the code are applicable irrespective of the individual proposal. A simple administrative review process is provided to verify that a proposed conditional use complies with the additional standards of Section 9-3.4. Review of conditional uses is not discretionary- if the standards specified in the code are.met, the use will be approved. Other standards not specified in the code for these uses cannot be applied. There is no call-up or appeal process for conditional uses. 3) Use review uses may be permitted at a specific location, if found to be acceptable through discretionary review. The code provides a combination of objective and subjective criteria to evaluate whether a specific proposed use and its operating characteristics have acceptable impacts for a specific location and area context. The code generally does not provide specific standards to control these uses; rather, the appropriate standards are determined through the review process and may be applied as conditions of approval. Use review us6s approved by city staffmay be called up by or appealed to the Planning Board for further review. Planning Board decisions may be called up by City Council. The site of the proposed Boulder Shelter for the Homeless (hereafter "the shelter") at 4869 North Broadway is zoned Transitional Business - Established (TB-E). The proposed shelter is classified by the code as an overnight shelter and is a conditional use (see #2 above) in the TB-E zone. The proposed shelter is therefore reviewed through the conditional use process and if found to comply with the standards for overnight shelters, will be approved. The Application: The Conditional Use application is for an overnight shelter with associated transitional units and accessory services for the homeless, such as breakfast and laundry, telephone and mail access. The application included a revised management plan that incorporated changes made as a result of public comment. The plan used text highlighting to demonstrate the changes and additions made since the first Good Neighbor meeting. Also included in the application were the Good Neighbor meeting minutes, a written statement with supporting information about the shelter, its mission, organization, history, clients, facility options as well as an analysis of issues presented by public with the operators' responses. Although not required, a preliminary site plan and preliminary drainage report were also submitted. The drainage report does not contain information pertinent to the Conditional Use review. The management plan specifies that the operator will limit maximum occupancy to 160 residents (including transitional units) even though the code permits 193 residents. Additional occupancy will not occur without city of Boulder approval of a new management plan. Conditional Use Standards for Overnight Shelters: The conditional use process for overnight shelters requires the operator to seek neighborhood input before submitting an application to the city. At least one "Good Neighbor" meeting is required. The purpose of the meeting is for the operator to learn about potential impacts of the facility on the surrounding area. Public comment is intended to help the operator learn about ways to mitigate, reduce, or eliminate potential impacts on neighboring properties. The Good Neighbor meeting also is intended to provide neighbors an opportunity to comment to the operator on the management plan for the shelter. The operator must present the proposed management plan to the neighbors prior to the meeting. Neighbors can comment on the plan and provide suggestions for improvements. The intent is for a working relationship to be established between the shelter and neighbors, so that the management plan can reflect a collaborative effort of the shelter and its neighbors, to the extent possible. The management plan is subsequently submitted to the city of Boulder for approval with the Conditional Use application. Management Plan Elements The code requires the management plan to contain the following components that address the mitigation of potential adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, to the extent necessary: Hours of operation Client arrival and departure times Coordinated times for deliveries and trash collection Mitigation of noise impacts Security The facility's drug and alcohol policy Loitering Employee education The facility's responsibility as a good neighbor Neighborhood outreach and methods of future communication, and Dispute resolution with the surrounding neighborhood Management Plan Review Boulder Revised Code states in Section 9-3.4-25(b): "The approved management plan shall address how the applicant will mitigate the potential adverse impacts that a facility may have on the surrounding neighborhood. The approving authority will not approve a management plan unless it adequately addresses such impacts." To evaluate whether the management plan adequately addresses off-site impacts, the city review staff considered the complete public record of this application. Included in the record are minutes from the Good Neighbor meetings, and information and comments submitted from the public in the form of letters, e-mail and phone calls. In addition, neighborhood comments were submitted in the form of an alternative management plan to highlight differences from the application. The alternative plan also included an overview of key proposals, information about research into problems of the homeless and homeless shelters, police call and crime statistics, and portions of the record from a past Us~e Review application for the shelter at a different site. To hear the neighborhood issues first hand, staff attended all Good Neighbor meetings and at least two "working group" meetings of the shelter operator and neighborhood residents. The purpose of the working group meetings was for the operator and neighbors to actively discuss issues and explore ways to improve the management plan. The working group also identified issues where agreement could not likely be reached. In addition to the public record, staff considered whether the management plan: addresses off-site impacts in ways that could be reasonably and effectively implemented by the shelter operator; has significant omissions in addressing impacts that are reasonably in the operators control; incorporates techniques that have been effective in similar circumstances. Other Conditional Use Standards In addition to holding a meeting and submitting a management plan, the shelter must meet several other objective standards. The operator must provide staff on site whenever the facility is open; must provide a waiting area adequately sized and located to prevent clients from "queuing" in the public right-of-way; and must provide parking in a specific ratio based on the number of staff, clients and transitional housing units. The shelter must also comply with specific occupancy limits based on property size and proximity to residential zones. The shelter operator addressed these additional standards in the written statement and supporting information. Findings 1. The shelter application meets and exceeds code requirements for a Good Neighbor meeting. Three such meetings were held, where the code requires at least one. The meetings were well attended, facilitated by professional facilitators. Public comments were documented in writing, and meeting minutes were prepared. The meetings accomplished the purpose of creating an effective dialogue between the shelter operator and neighbors. As a result, several more meetings were held between shelter staff and a "working group" from the Dakota Ridge and North Briar neighborhoods in an effort to resolve remaining issues. 2. All notice requirements for the Good Neighbor meetings have been met and exceeded. The applicant distributed notices of meetings throughout surrounding neighborhoods, in excess of the minimum 600-foot radius required by the code. Draft copies of the proposed management plan were distributed to neighbors prior to the meetings. 3. The management plan includes all required elements and addresses off-site impacts. These include hours of operation, client arrival and departure times, coordinated times for deliveries and trash collection, mitigation of noise impacts, security, the facility's drug and alcohol policy, loitering, employee education, the facility's responsibilities as a good neighbor, neighborhood outreach and methods for future communication, and dispute resolution with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The application documents the Good Neighbor meetings and related neighborhood working group meetings. The minutes document the variety of potential impacts of the facility and diversity of opinions among the surrounding neighbors about potential methods of mitigation. 5. As a result of the Good Neighbor meetings, working group meetings, and other neighborhood comment, the shelter operator substantially modified the management plan. All elements of the plan were modified, with extensive improvements to: hours of operation, security, drug and alcohol policies, loitering, and neighborhood outreach. The shelter operator documented the specific changes to the plan to address neighborhood issues and explained why other changes requested by neighbors could not be made. The management plan addressed the variety of impacts identified as within the operator's control. Disagreements remain between the shelter operator and many neighbors about proposed management policies. Neighbors have suggested additional policies concerning but not limited to identification, screening and background checks of shelter clients, limitations on the range of related services that may be offered at the shelter, staffing levels and security training, and limitation of occupancy. 6. The shelter operator has effectively implemented similar management policies in a similar context. The existing facility is located approximately two blocks south of the proposed site. The land use context is similar between the existing and proposed locations; however, there are more existing dwelling units in proximity to the proposed site. Residential areas are separated from the proposed site by redeveloping industrial sites. Data about police calls, included in the record, show that complaints have been made related to behavior of homeless persons, primarily along the North Broadway commercial corridor. Complaints from the public about the activities at the shelter itself have been minimal. The shelter does have an incidence of police calls higher than other nearby properties. This appears to reflect the stated shelter management policy to call police if behavior problems are observed, before they become serious. The higher rate of police calls to the shelter does not indicate a higher incidence of crimes in nearby residential areas. Data in the record show that nearby residential areas have crime rates similar to other residential areas of Boulder. The experience of the existing shelter has been substantially positive, indicating the potential effectiveness of the management plan to mitigate off-site impacts. 7. The shelter operator cannot reasonably or effectively implement some of the additional management suggestions, received from neighbors since the application was filed. Some of the suggestions may have the unintended consequence of increasing impacts. It has not been shown for instance, that a shelter operator could reasonably perform criminal background checks on clients or that it would significantly lower off-site impacts. Requiring identification of clients may be problematic if many of the homeless do not have such identification. The shelter operator cannot force homeless persons to stay off public streets in the area. Unintended consequences of some alternative management suggestions are apparent. Public comment indicated potential impacts related to individuals turned away from the shelter. Alternative policies setting a higher standard for admittance would likely increase the number of clients turned away. Management policies proposed by the shelter operator emphasize getting the homeless off the streets as an effective way to minimize impacts while simultaneously delivering the services within its mission. 8. The Management Plan has been found by city staff to include and more than adequately address all the required elements including potential off-site impacts. The management plan has been substantially modified to address neighbor concerns. The shelter operator has documented why many of the additional neighbor suggestions cannot be reasonably or effectively implemented. The shelter in some form might reasonably implement other neighbor suggestions, for example the shelter's responsibility as a good neighbor, employee education, and neighborhood outreach. The shelter's management plan, however, meets the code requirements. 9. The management plan is intended to be a dynamic document that may change over time. The shelter operator is required to update and resubmit the plan for city approval at least every three years. This ongoing requirement provides substantial opportunities for further discussion and resolution of issues between neighbors and the shelter operator, and improvements to the plan. 10. Additional code requirements for on-site staffing, waiting areas, and parking are met based on information supplied with the application. Shelter staff will be present on site whenever the facility is open. Preliminary plans show an interior waiting area, sized to the maximum allowed occupancy. Intake policies require clients to remain in the waiting area before intake, to prevent "queuing" in the public right-of-way. Parking is also shown on the preliminary plan in the quantities required in Section 9-3.4-25, based on the number of employees on site at any time, plus one space for each 20 occupants and one space for each transitional unit. Residents are not on site during the day, leaving sufficient parking for those utilizing morning and accessory services. The code does not require additional parking for these accessory activities. Other Information The quantity of public comment on this application demonstrates a high degree of public interest and willingness to work cooperatively with the shelter operator. The quality of public comment, including significant research into homeless issues in general, shows a commitment by neighbors to help develop solutions. The shelter operator is encouraged to maintain a strong and continuous working relationship with surrounding neighbors. The Good Neighbor process has effectively created a collaborative effort to improve the management plan. The shelter operator should continue this collaborative process, rather than waiting until the next management plan must be submitted. Neighborhood suggestions show relatively small remaining differences in some areas, such as return of open containers of alcohol, neighborhood outreach, the shelter's responsibility as a good neighbor, and employee education. Additional plan improvements may be possible in these areas. If meaningful improvements are identified, a revised management plan can be resubmitted at any time, but in no event longer than three years from the date of this approval. The shelter operator should give special attention to the lighting plan that is required with a building permit application. The lighting plan should provide uniform illumination across the site to further enhance safety and security and minimize glare. The shelter operator should consider additional outreach efforts, such as neighborhood trash and litter pickup. While such efforts may be unrelated to impacts from the shelter, they will help strengthen relationships with neighbors. Specific building and site plans are not required to be submitted with the conditional use application, and no specific plan is approved as a part of this application. Compliance with waiting area and parking requirements will again be checked and verified at time of building permit application. Marian Karr From: pwichmann324@aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:29 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Cc: matt-joh nson @iowa-city.org To the honorable Council of Iowa City: Per the recommendation of the City Manager's office, I am writing to bring to your attention, an issue that has me concerned. Last evening around 7:30 pm, I was a passenger in a car waiting to turn WEST onto Burlington Street from the Starbucks parking lot (north side of Burlington street parallel to the Mill Restaurant). The driver and I were both watching the traffic approaching from the EAST so that we could turn west on to Burlington Street. At about the same time that traffic cleared from the east, allowing us to enter Burlington Street, a bicyclist seemed to come (at an apparent increased rate of speed) out of the darkness directly in front of our vehicle. The bicycle was headed east on the north sidewalk on Burlington Street. As you might imagine, had we started to merge onto the street while watching for traffic from the east, we may have hit this bicyclist. Given my estimation of the speed at which he was traveling, the proximity (very close) to our vehicle, and the fact that he did not have on a helmet, I would guess he could have been badly hurt. Obviously I am concerned for the safety of the bicyclist, but as a citizen I have to wonder what would have happened to the driver of the car (not just in my case but in any case with similar circumstances). In a separate incident, I was coming out of the Firestone Burlington Street entrance/exit door (on foot), when a bicycle whizzed past me (at a speed high enough to create a gust of wind on my face!). Fortunately for me and for him, he swerved enough to miss me. While I know the speed at which the bike is traveling is secondary, it clearly creates an even greater risk on impact. I spend quite a bit of time downtown and I see bicyclists on the sidewalks frequently. In a bit of irony, . when I called the City Manager's office today, the woman that answered the phone (Kathy) said the same type of thing happened to her at lunch today. Please be advised that I am not "anti-bicycle" and in fact, love to ride my bicycle, but I believe it should be brought to someone's attention. I know that this issue is clearly not as important as a lot of issues that our police officers deal with, I just felt it worth mentioning. Thanks for your consideration on this issue. Feel free to contact me if you need clarification. Respectfully submitted, Pam Wichmann Work phone 337.3292 Home phone 337.8579 10/6/2005 Marian Karr '- From: Mark Yontz [yontz@charter. net] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:35 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Request for assistance Dear Council Members: First, I want to commend you on your efforts to recruit people to the CR/IA City corridor. I can tell you I appreciate receiving reminders (i.e. postcards) in the mail promoting "Corridor Careers" - it's a nice touch to receive those things here in Michigan! However, as a native Iowan who has been searching for employment opportunities since January, I can tell you there are many Iowa companies that don't seem to be very interested in interviewing and/or working with out-of-state candidates - no matter the well intentioned efforts undertaken by public leaders across the state at both the local and state levels. In fact, I've even had hiring managers tell me they chose not to interview me because of my geographic location, as where others have said they'd be glad to talk to me once I returned. In short, the message I've gotten time and time again is this: move back, then call us. Of course, this is just a sampling of the feedback I've gotten from the companies who even bothered to respond to my application and resume. Others, including some companies in the Iowa City area, simply don't take the time to offer any feedback on your application once it has been submitted. Needless to say, my search is at standstill, which frustrating for someone who doesn't have to "be sold" on the merits of Iowa. However, I'm committed to finding a way to return home and with nearly 15 years of marketing and PR-related experience (including past work for State Farm, IDED, ISU Extension and more) I remain confident in the diverse skills I can offer to any number of companies or organizations in a senior level capacity. Given all this, I'd appreciate any suggestions you all might have regarding companies and/or specific people I might want to contact in the Iowa City area to discuss current opportunities, or even possible future openings. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses. Mark Yontz Rockford, MI (Central Iowa native an:l UNI class of '91) 10/10/2005 Marian Karr From: Jerri LoTempio [jerrilotempio@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:21 PM TO: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Open Burning I was surprised to learn that open burning is permitted within the city limits here in Iowa City. I am sitting in my newly purchased home with red, burning eyes while my neighbor's bonfire is smoking away, filling my house with the stench of their burning yard waste. Over the summer they have had bonfires that smolder for several days, long after they have gone to bed, even during these drought conditions. The issue here is that this kind of public nuisance is apparently okay with Iowa City. The police and the fire department are not able to assist me because the fires are in an approved container. My 15 month old grandson's eyes are red and watering even inside the house with the windows closed. I cannot understand why a city comprised of so many enlightened citizens has such lax regulations for such an environmental disgrace. Here is a link to the Department of Health and Family Services of the state of Wisconsin citing the hazards of even clean wood burning fires, http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/eh/HlthHaz/fs/WoodBrmhtm Even in the rural area of Georgia where we lived previously, NO open burning was permitted in residential areas by private citizens, much less this "recreational" burning in a heavily populated area. Can the city council address this situation with some new regulations before this new fad causes serious illness to the many children in our neighborhood? Respectfully yours, Jerri LoTempio 3029 E Court Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over ! million songs. T~ it free. 10/12/2005 Council Members 10/05/2005 410 E Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 Dear Sir We are the parents of a daughter Kaleigh Todd. On August 19t~, even though the DOT paper says August 18t~, our daughter was stopped by a police officer Lippold #36. She was stopped for turning right on a green light, which no one was coming so she turned. The next thing she knows is the police officer that had been following her and she knew he was behind her turns on his lights and then another police officer comes and she is stopped for turning in front of a police car that was not even at the light. Sounds like a set up to me. Had he been there she would not have turned and he would have hit her. So what is up with the harassment that my daughter had to go thru? That is not the worst of it she was taking two intoxicated friends to there apartment because she did not want anything to happen to them walking home, that's Kaleigh from a small town of 1200 always helping others. The police officer, #36, said I smell beer and gives my daughter a breathalyzer which registered .02. So the police officer tells the two intoxicated people in the car to get out and walk, and get out of here. My daughter is in the police car and asks ff she. can call her mother, which is me 265 miles away and is told no. So they go to the police station, do another test and still no phone call. Here comes the part that really pisses me off she never did get to make a call and at 3am she was told she could leave, no phone call, no questions do you need to call someone for a ride, do you need a ride, absolutely nothing. So my 19 year old daughter walks out the door and walks to her apartment which is 7 blocks away on South Dubuque at 3am in the morning, thru downtown and down the dark streets of Iowa City. At School they say do not walk alone at night have someone with you at all times things can happen. Oh no the police station just lets a 19 year old girl leave alone at 3am by herself. That is the part that really upset me, and I do not want another girl or guy to go thru what my daughter did. Just stop and think how you would feel ff you were 265 miles away from your daughter and this happened to her. Also the two intoxicated people in the car get nothing?. If Kaleigh would have been drank, which is .08 1 can see why she would have gotten the DOT charge, but she was a .02, with the zero tolerance she knows that part was wrong and is facing the consequences. Just to let you know I walked the mute with my daughter that she had to take to get to her apartment that night and the harassment we got from some people that were on the street was absolutely scary. So you can imagine what it was like for a 19 year old girl being alone. So maybe when your police officers feel like its time to harass someone lets get the real criminals. The zero tolerance DWI has harsher punishments then a Pedi file. As bad as a DWI without the court costs and she was not even drank. This will be on her record for 12 years. There is a lot more crime going on in this world then a person drinking a beer. I believe people depend on the policemen to protect their lives and property and I know they did not protect a 19 year old girl at 3am in the morning by sending her offby herseff to walk home. I guess officer Lippold does not have a daughter and if he does I hope he never lets something like this happen to his daughter. I still do not understand why the ones in the car that WERE drunk got to leave no questions asked, one was under age and one was 24. This makes no sense to me. This has been the worst experience my daughter and ns have ever had. It will be along time before this is forgotten. Mrs. Julie A~odd ~'D --<: "~ 921 Oakland Ave _~ (-) ~ Oakland IA 51560 --<. F- cc: Tom Miller, Attorney General ~ ~ ~ cc: Iowa City Police Department '- IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 410 EAST WASHINGTON STRFFT. IOWA CITY. IA 52240 (319) 356-5275 FAX # (319) 356-5449 ~~~ "An Accredited Police Department" Mrs. Julie A. Todd 921 Oakland Ave. Oakland, IA 51560 October 13, 2005 Dear Mrs. Todd, I was provided a copy of the letter you directed to Chief Sam Hargadine, dated 10-05- 05. In response to this letter an inquiry was conducted into the circumstances you described in your letter. The results of that inquiry revealed the following: Regarding the inconsistency between the date listed on the Iowa DOT form and the actual date- Our th officer incorrectl~ entered the date as the 18 . That officer's assigned watch started at 11 PM on the 18u'. The traffic stop with your daughter occurred after midnight so the date was actually the 19th. VVhile this error is understandable, accuracy is important to us and I appreciate you pointing it out. You mentioned in your letter that your daughter had been turning right on a green light when she was stopped. What actually happened on this occasion was that your daughter made a left turn on a green light and in doing so, turned into the path of an approaching vehicle, failing to yield to that vehicle. It turned out that the vehicle she turned in front of was a marked Iowa City Police squad car. A second police vehicle and officer, who was proximate to this intersection observed this driving action by your daughter and initiated a traffic stop. That officer's subsequent investigation revealed that your daughter had, in fact, been consuming alcohol and was under 21. Under Iowa law, persons under the age of 21 may not operate a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration of .02 or more. Analysis of your daughter's blood alcohol indicated that her blood alcohol level was in excess of .02. The revocation period is set by state law. I would add that the officer involved in this case did not cite your daughter for the traffic violation nor was her vehicle impounded. You also expressed some concern that the passengers in your daughter's vehicle were released without arrest. Court decisions have ruled that persons who are passengers in a motor vehicle are not subject to arrest for public intoxication. I will add that, in the opinion of the officers present at the scene of the traffic stop involving your daughter, neither of her passengers appeared to be a danger to themselves or others and were released. The officer involved in the traffic stop with your daughter does not recall her making a request to make a phone call. It is this officer's usual practice and the recommendation of representatives of our County Attorneys's office that persons being processed for alcohol related offenses be allowed to make calls to their attorney or family members. Given this officer's positive history of activity in the detection of ddnking ddver's and his familiarity with the different aspects of processing those drivers, it would be very unusual that he did not allow a call should such a request have been made. You also mentioned concern over your daughter being released without having been afforded the opportunity to secure transportation to her residence. While the officer involved does not have specific recollection of a discussion with your daughter related to this subject, it is his and other officers' usual practice to escort persons out of our facility. As this is done, it is typical that the use of a phone in our lobby is offered to those being released so that they may secure transportation themselves. It is also not unheard of for our officers to provide transportation to people should their own efforts at securing transportation fail. I hope this information is of value to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions or concerns. Sincerely, C~~in Matt Johnson Field Operations Commander Iowa City Police Department (319) 356-5440 cc: City Manager Steve Atkins Chief Hargadine City Council Marian Karr From: Leonard, Judith J [Judith-Leonard@hawkeyesports.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:53 AM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Sidewalk Repair Dear Council Members: I have noticed HOT PINK arrows on some of the sidewalk that borders my residence. Then we received a letter stating that we are responsible for maintaining those sidewalks. This would be an extreme hardship on some home owners and for all of those on a limited fixed income such as our senior citizens. I would like to know if this is something that the council and the city would consider or put into discussion about the city maintaining city sidewalks. I have checked with 15 Iowa cities (including Cedar Rapids) and the city maintains the sidewalks. Let's don't be backwards!! Thank you. ~ I do laugh because I have called the city to maintain the street & curbs which are in bad need of repair (years of snow plows ramming the curbs) and no one seems to pay any attention. I would like to go spray HOT PINK arrows on the section of street and the missing curbs in front of our house. Our neighbors 2917 Washington St just had the sewer line back up into their home (same thing happened to us at 2909 Washington St three years ago. They were told by the city that tree roots were in the city sewer line. I do hope that this is routinely checked out by the city. We hire a plumber once a year to clear out our sewer line to remove tree roots. A few years ago, we had sewer back up in the lower level of our house and it was because there were tree roots where our line met the city line. Unfortunately, I did not pursue having the city pay for the mess. Two years ago we paid over $3000.00 to have our sewer line by the street replaced because the plumber took a camera down to see where the problem was. He said that concrete had fallen on our line by the street & that caused the problem. I think it was from parts of the street caving in. I should have pursued this with the city also. So, the letter from the city demanding the sidewalk repair with a deadline is not setting with me very well. I want you to look into the city doing something good with our tax money like maintain the sidewalks. Thank you. Thank you. .,~ Judith Leonard 2909 Washington St Iowa City, IA 52245 (341-9337) 10/11/2005 Survey questions and stories: Question 1 asked: Do you believe restrooms are needed for the skate park? 83% circled yes, 4% circled no, and 12% said they didn't care Question 2 asked: do you feel that a water fountain is needed? 95% said yes while only 4% said they didn't care Question 3 asked: Do you think that kids would be less likely to go to the Mayflower if they had facilities at the park? 96% answered yes while 8% said no Question 4 asked: Do you think that crossing the street over to the mayflower is dangerous? 83% answered yes and 16% answered no Question 5 asked: Have you or some one else ever been hurt or have come close to being hurt when crossing the street to the Mayflower? 63% answered yes and 37% said no. The 15 people who did circle yes to question 5 were asked to share or explain what had happen. One incident that was recalled many times was when a boy fell crossing the street and a car speed up and almost ran over his foot. This is not unusually for cars to speed up or to even swerve towards us. I myself recall an incident when a car swerved towards me and feeling as though the car was so close I could reach out and touched it. People have reported bus drivers being careless and not looking out for them and almost being hit. Some times things are even thrown. One kid was even hit in the head with a full pop can. Another time someone was hit by a mopped.