The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-05-08 Correspondence City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2001 TO: Steven Kanner ~ ~ 'zZ,,j .~,,. FROM: City Manager ~'j2~y' RE: Wage/Salary Information Requested The following information is based on our projections for Fiscal Year 02. The number of employees indicated for the various categories will vary slightly, depending on turnover, etc. 375 AFSCME bargaining unit employees will receive a 3.25% across-the-board cost-of- living wage increase in July 2001. This adjustment will be applied to each step in the pay plan matrix. In addition, each of the approximately 152 AFSCME employees who are not at the top step of their range will be eligible for a merit increase averaging 3.5% on their annual evaluation date. This unit has a total budgeted payroll for FY02 of $13,429,200 which includes projected overtime, longevity, uniform cleaning, and safety shoe and safety eyewear allowances. 59 police officers in the Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City bargaining unit will receive a 3.25% across-the-board cost-of-living increase in July 2001. This adjustment will be applied to each step in the pay plan. In addition, each of the approximately 23 officers who are not at the top step of the pay plan will be eligible for a merit increase averaging 10% on their annual evaluation date. This unit has a total budgeted payroll for FY02 of $2,610,755 which includes projected ovedime, longevity, and allowances for uniform cleaning or special allowances for plainclothes officers. 46 firefighters, lieutenants, and captains in the International Association of Firefighters bargaining unit will receive a 3.25% across-the-board cost-of-living wage increase in July 2001. This adjustment will be applied to each step in the pay plan. In addition, each of the approximately 21 fire department personnel who are not at the top step of the pay plan, along with 6 new firefighters to be added after July 1, will be eligible for a merit increase averaging 4.4% on their regular evaluation date. This unit has a total budgeted payroll for FY02 of $2,302,612 which includes projected overtime, longevity, annual payment (formerly a food allowance), uniform cleaning, EMT-B premium pay and payment in lieu of overtime for holidays. Each step of the pay plan matrix for 85 administrative and 25 confidential employees will be adjusted by 3.25% in July 2001. These employees will be eligible for this increase at that time, but only with approval of their supervisor. In addition, each of the approximately 84 administrative and confidential employees who are not at the top step of the pay plan will be eligible for a merit increase averaging 3.5% on their annual evaluation date. The minimum and maximum amounts for the two pay ranges for 10 executive employees (department directors and the assistant city manager) will be adjusted by 3.25% on July 1, 2001. Any salary increases for these employees are at the discretion of Wage/Salary Information Requested May 4, 2001 Page 2 the city manager and are totally merit-based. None of these employees will be compensated beyond the maximum amount for their pay range. The total budgeted payroll for FY02 for administrative, confidential, and executive employees is $7,191,239 which includes overtime, longevity, and allowances for cleaning, safety shoes, and eyewear for those employees who are eligible. Temporary employees are generally paid between $8.50 and $10.00 per hour. The total FY02 budget for temporary wages is $2,157,472. Attached to this memo please find the schedule of longevity pay for all City employees. Hopefully this information will meet your need. You can contact me or Dale if you need any clarification. Attachment cc: City Council Assistant City Manager mgr/mem/wagec~oc LONGEVITY PAY AFSCME: 5 years $275 CURRENT $325 EFFECTIVE 7/1/01 10 years $450 $500 15 years $600 $650 20 yeam $750 $800 25 years $1,000 $1,050 FIRE: 5 yearn $275 CURRENT 10 years $450 15 years $600 20 yeam $750 25 years $1,000 POLICE: 5 years $300 CURRENT 10 yeam $450 15 years $600 20 years $750 25 yearn $1,000 ADMIN: 5 years $300 CURRENT 10 yeam $450 15 years $600 20 years $750 25 yearn $1,000 CONF: 5 years $300 CURRENT 10 yeam $450 15 years $600 20 years $750 25 years $1,000 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 3, 2001 To: City Council From: Michael Gunn, Chair Historic Preservation Commission Re: Carnegie Library Building The Historic Preservation Commission has begun the process of nominating the Carnegie Library Building as an Iowa City Landmark. The Commission has scheduled a Public Hearing on the nomination on May 10. On May 2 an application for a demolition permit was submitted to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services. Demolition permits are typically issued 7 business days after application is made. On behalf of the Commission the I am requesting that you set a public hearing for your June 12 meeting 1o allow consideration of the landmark nomination. Setting a public hearing would establish a maximum 60-day moratorium on issuance of the demolition permit. If the Council sets the Public hearing it is not obligated to designate the building as a landmark. It simply would allow the commission and the developer to make their case before the Council. It is my understanding that the Council would need to hold a special meeting to set the public hearing if it is to be done before the demolition permit is issued next week. I realize this is an extraordinary request, but I believe it is necessary to assure that a reasonable amount of time is give to consideration of this important issue. Date: May 8, 2001 To: Iowa City Council From: Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Re: Landmark Designation for the Carnegie Library The Historic Preservation Commission met last evening to discuss issues that may influence your decision regarding setting a public hearing for landmark designation of the Carnegie Library. We researched and considered the following opinions as best we could on such short notice. Further research and consideration would surely shed additional light on the issues involved. l. The Carnegie Library is eligible under city ordinance as an Iowa City landmark. It is also eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. A brief inspection of the property revealed no signs of settling such as eraeked masonry or cracked plaster. The building appears to be structurally sound. 3. The mechanical systems appear to be in need of substantial repair or complete replacement. 4. The degree of handicap accessibility would depend upon the use of the building. For government offices, access would be required nearly everywhere. However, for an apartment building, access would be required to only certain parts including the lobby and a percentage of the apartments. There are exemptions in the ADA guidelines that apply to landmark buildings. 5. TheHist~ri~Preservati~nC~mmissi~nw~u~dpr~bab~yagreet~thedem~liti~n~ftheadditi~nst~the original structure. 6. TheC~mmissi~nw~uld~ike~yagreet~thec~nstru~ti~n~fanewadditi~nifitwerec~mpatiblewiththe original library. 7. The Commission reviews changes to the exterior only. Landmark designation would have little effect on the interior of the building. 8. Current guidelines do not include an economic hardship clause. In the past, discussions of an economic hardship clause have focused on the hardship created for a property owner who must make expensive repairs at the request of the Commission. This issue of demolition and redevelopment is different. 9. Courts have repeatedly upheld a city's right to designate landmarks and prevent their demolition. 10. Federal income tax credits are available for properties designated as landmarks. If tax credits were taken for interior work, then the interior work would have to comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. 11. An apartment block is not the only possibility for the site. There have been inquiries by people with the means to purchase and reuse the Carnegie Library. Other Carnegie libraries have been used for retail sales in Minneapolis and for apartments in Sioux City. 12. It is our understanding that when the City sold the library, it required that the purchaser invest considerable sums to upgrade and preserve the building. The City attempted to ensure a viable future for the building. Unfortunately, the investment was never made by the purchaser. Marian Karr From: Christopher Johns [Christopher-johns@uiowa,edu] Sent: Thursday, May 03.2001 4:23 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Carnegie Library To The Members of the Council: I would like to add my voice to those who are urging you to preserve the Carnegie Library. It is a splendid building that adds much to iowa City~s highly appealing downtown {I moved here from Charlottesville, Virginia where preservation efforts have created a small urban masterpiece). Surely this building could be used for profitable purposes without being razed for more mindless postmodern horrors. In any event, the building is a link to a past that is rapidly evaporating before the bulldozer of progress. Please stop the machine in this crucial instance and preserve this gracious building for future Iowans. Sincerely, Christopher M. S. Johns 919 S. Van Buren Street Marian Karr From: katherine tachau [katherine-tachau@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:28 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Our Carnegie Library Dear Council members, Please do not allow our beautiful Carnegie Library to be demolished! It is not only a historic building -- witness to a time when the wealthiest entrepreneurs believed in giving fundamental services to communities of ordinary citizens -- but it is a beautiful, classical building, a fine work of architecture suitable for many obvious adaptive re-uses. When we are losing downtown business locations to bars (and the accompanying problems with which you're currently wrestling) and building parking decks to attract people downtown to shop and work, it is shortsighted in the extreme to tear down such an important, useful, and fundamentally sound building to put up yet another apartment building. (This will merely bring more student residents downtown, with corresponding pressure for more bars.) What kind of philistines are we to destroy a distinctive, classical, and visually interesting part of our history? (Prof.) Katherine H. Tachau 127 Ferson Avenue Iowa City, 52246 338-1308 Marjan Karr From: Lisa Heineman [lisa-heineman@uiowa,edu] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:54 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Old Public Library Dear City Councillors, I would like to weigh in on the matter of the Old Public Library. Assuming the demolition permit is suspended long enough for you to take action, I urge you to be save the building for "adaptive reuse" and grant it landmark status. The building is one of the few classical structures left in Iowa City, and at the time of its building, it was a mark of great honor and prestige to have a Carnegie library. To tear this down for an apartment building would be to sacrifice Iowa City's unique historical heritage in order to build an apartment building which is not in the least unique: it would be like hundreds of other complexes, and it could be built on many other sites that do not currently house historic structures. Another Carnegie Library was saved in Sioux City, Iowa in 1994 for affordable housing for low income individuals and families. Our Carnegie Library could be put to similar use, or it could be transformed into office space for much lower cost than building new office space. Please do all you can to retain Iowa City's special character. This is not an "either-or" matter; there is no reason apartments can not be built elsewhere. Let's have it both ways: development in locations that do not house unique historic structures, and historic preservation in spots that make Iowa City such a unique and special place. Respectfully yours, Lisa Heineman Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr --'t~//z/ From: DLSCHOEN@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 11:07 AM To: Connie-champion@iowa-city.org; Ibfab@avalon.net; dvanderhoef@iowa-city.org; ross-wilburn@iowa-city.org; Council@iowa-city.org Subject: old public library Dear Council Members, I've lived in Iowa City since 1967 with time out for interim residences in Newport, RI, Washington, DC, Freiburg, Bonn and Berlin, Germany, Bologna, Italy, and Wassenaar, The Netherlands. Each of these is a very different place. But real urban zip and a real local character is common to all of them. The reason I have returned to Iowa City, after singing its praises in all the other places, is that Iowa City too has a character, urbanity, not to mention a public space aka downtown, that makes it charming, livable, humane, attractive and theenvy of innumerable other places. Much ofthischarm, in turn. has to do with buildings older than we are, and not built from Lego kits. One of these buildings, of course, is the old public library. I don't know how many old Carnegie libraries still exist. But there are surely not so many that any of them are expendable, and in any case am appalled at the idea of gratuitously demolishing this one. I therefore write as respectfully but emphatically as I can to ask that everything possible be done to save it for adaptive reuse and historic landmark status. David Schoenbaum 5/4/01 Marjan Karr From: Julie Hochstrasser [iulie-hochstrasser@uiowa.edu] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 11:07 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Carnegie Library Dear Iowa City Council Members: PLEASE do not rob Iowa City of one of its historic treasures. Be creative with reuse and DON'T TEAR DOWN THE LIBRARY!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION---IT'S YOUR TOWN TOO!!! Sincerely, Julie Berger Hochstrasser, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Early Modern Northern European Art School of Art and Art History The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 office phone (319)335-1744 department fax (319)335-1774 e-mail julie-hochstrasser@uiowa.edu Marian Karr From: Ischwalm [Ischwalm@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 2:53 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Our Carnegie Library Dear Council Members: As a historian and a resident of Iowa City for 10 years, I am writing to ask that you protect the Old Public Library from demolition, and consider granting it landmark status. The old Carnegie libraries represent a very important part of America's intellctual and architectural histories, and Iowa City should be proud to have once been the site of one--and willing to protect it as part of our city's unique heritage. Furthermore, this is a beautiful as well as meaningful historic building; given its historic value, its great location, and the importance of preserving the historical integrity of our city, can't we consider some adaptive use for this building--whether office space or low-income housing? I am tremendously concerned about our willingness to demolish our older buildings, because it signals a disregard for our past. Please, don't act in haste here--once our historic buildings have been demolished, we can't ever get them back again. I hope we can take a cue from Sioux City and protect (and invest in!) our past by granting landmark status to this building. Sincerely, Leslie A. Schwalm Leslie A. Schwalm Associate Professor of History University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 leslie-schwalm@uiowa.edu Marian Karr From: Michael Buchler [mbuchler@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 6:18 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Old Public Library I just heard that the Council is considering a petition to tear down the Carnegie Library downtown. In any case, to demolish such a historical structure--a piece of our nation's history--would be a horrific thought. In Iowa City, it seems doubly tragic given the very small number of such older building that we have. Obviously, you must weigh both sides of this issue, but in the end, I very strongly hope that you'll decide that this sort of development--far from helping our community grow--diminishes its value and strips its cultural heritage. Please don't approve the petition. Thank you, Michael Buchler 412 Garden St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr ~,~Z From: MadelineMSul@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:14 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Cc: jackiebriggs@earthlink. net Subject: Reconsideration of demolition of Carnegie Library Bldg This message requests that you as persons interested in the historic and aesthetic future of down town delay as long as possible the demolition of the Carnegie Library Building ... Serious thought should be given to the possibilities of adaptive reuse before the bulldozers once again destroy our past. This has been happening much too frequently the past few years and I believe that it is time to make landmarks safe before developers get their shovels in the ground. Thank you for your sensitivity, Madeline M Sullivan 39 Green Mtn Drive 52245 5/6/01 Marjan Karr From: Sue Hettmansperger [shettman@blue.weeguiowa.edu] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:13 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Old Public Library Dear Council Members, As a Professor in the Art Department and citizen of Iowa City since 1977 I am distressed to learn of the demolition plans for this structurally sound and beautiful historic building. Please reconsider siting a new generic apartment building there. I favor saving it for adaptive reuse and granting it landmark status. I have a personal history with this building, as I have occupied a studio there for at least ten years. I consider it to be a unique asset to the downtown area which will be lost forever if it is razed. Sincerely, Sue Hettmansperger Marjan Karr From: Lesley Men ninger [lesley@avalon. net] Sent: Saturday. May 05. 2001 1:47 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Carnegie Library Dear Iowa City Council members: It is hard to believe we are again being faced with the loss of one of Iowa City's few remaining true landmarks for yet another huge apartment building. Please act now to designate the Old Carnegie Library as a landmark to prevent its loss. This is a piece of our local history and also of the national heritage and a time when Andrew Carnegie's generosity gave so many towns across the country a library housed in a classical building Other than Old Capitol this is the only building of classical design in town. There are so many uses for which the Carnegie Library could be adapted with imagination and skill. It doesn't take much of either to build yet another gargantuan non-descript structure. It is unfortunate that the old library was ever allowed to get into private hands without restrictions on its preservation. Please do what you can now so we at least have one preservation victory to point to in Iowa City. Many, many residents - and history- will thank you. Sincerely, Lesley Menninger 130 Ferson Ave. Iowa City, IA 52246 Marian Karr From: paula o. brandt [pobrandt@avalon.net] Sent: Sunday, May 06. 2001 5:07 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: <no subiect> Dear Council Members--I would like to encourage the City Council to do whatever it can to support the efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission to have the Old Public Library designated as an Iowa City Landmark. The possibility that the Library could be demolished before Marlys Svendsen can complete her survey of the downtown buildings and make her recommendations for which buildings deserve landmark status is outrageous. It would be terribly short-sighted for the City to allow the demolition of this historic Carnegie Library, one of the iowa City buildings discussed in the Society of Architectural Historians' book, BUILDINGS OF IOWA (Oxford University Press, 1993). Already the downtown area has lost too many terrific old buildings to massive new apartment buildings, parking ramps, and a nearly empty shopping mall. The old downtown buildings that have been maintained and re-used have served the City well for over a hundred years. There are numerous examples of adaptive reuse by imaginative developers and owners that could certainly be applied to the Old Public Library. Hardly any downtown building functions the way it did when it was originally built, yet think of how much poorer our downtown area would be without Brewery Square, the Old Post Office, and the Press-Citizen Building. As a sixteen year resident of the North Side of Iowa City, I am becoming increasingly discouraged with how the downtown is rapidly losing that mix that once drew "locals" as well as students to the downtown area. The increase in bars and large apartment complexes that cater strictly to students, and the increase of Anywhere U.S.A. buildings does nothing to attract other people downtown. The Old Public Library could be used for other things, adapted and re-adapted over the next 100 years or more. But there is no flexibility with another large apartment complex downtown. It can only be another large apartment building full of students and their cars--nothing else. The City Council has shown how forward-thinking it can be in developing something like the Peninsula Project, which encourages a mix of housing and residents. This proposed apartment complex is a step backwards and only adds to the herding of students downtown in a slightly more attractive student ghetto than was developed on S. Johnson Street. There is nothing about this proposal that is good for Iowa City as a whole--we deserve better. When thinking about this issue, please think beyond tax revenue and think about your responsibility to the citizens of Iowa City to be guardians of its past and its future. Thank you. Sincerely, Paula Brandt 824 N. Gilbert 354-6948 Marjan Karr From: judith pascoe [judith-pascoe@excite.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 1:43 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: public hearing for old Public Library Dear City Councilors: Please agree to hold public hearings concerning the planned destruction of the old Public Library building. I believe there are a wide variety of opinions on this issue and the these should all be heard and considered. Thank You, Judith Pascoe 820 Fairchild St. Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ Marian Karr From: james perry howell [jamesperryhoweil@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 07.2001 1:31 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: public hearings Dear Iowa City Councilor: Please vote to hold public hearings concerning the planned demolition of the Old Public Library building. I am most concerned that the community impact of this plan be considered before any irreversible action is taken on the part of the current building owner. Sincerely, Perry Howell 820 Fairchild St. Iowa City, IA 52245 354-8768 jamesperryhowellehotmail.com Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Marian Karr From: Eric Gidal [eric-gidal@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 8:13 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Carnegie Library Dear City Council Members, I am writing to urge you to consider the Carnegie Library for landmark status, holding off a demolition permit until the public can reflect on its historical significance and importance to the downtown. It is my understanding that the city has wisely hired a consultant to complete an architectural survey of the downtown that is to be presented to the council later this month. It would seem only reasonable to delay demolition of the library building until this report can be placed on the public record: otherwise, what is the point of such a survey? But you don't really need a survey to understand that the Carnegie Library represents a crucial asset to the downtown. It's one of the most aesthetically pleasing buildings, despite its partial dismantling over the last few decades, in a downtown increasingly given over to flat and ugly development. It provides an historical continuity with our past as a community, of crucial importance for maintaining a civic culture. And, as its current use demonstrates, it can certainly be utilized as office space for a number of private professionals. I am not suggesting that the city re-purchase this building; only that the city enable its preservation and re-utilization by giving it landmark status. A Carnegie Library building in our downtown helps to provide the kind of ambience and value that our downtown increasingly needs to set it off from the larger and faceless shopping centers in the surrounding areas. Before we shamelessly destroy yet another beautiful piece of downtown, let's at least consider our options. Sincerely, Eric Gidal 714 N. Johnson St. Iowa City Marian Karr From: pnaick [pnaick@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 3:53 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Carnegie Library City Council Hemburs Having moved to Iowa City from Los Angeles in August, what immediately stuck me was the city's charm and character. This initial impression came largely from the the downtown district and the preservation and readaptation of many old buldings. It would be a gross misjustice to demolish the historic Carnegie Library. The city cannot afford to another distinctive historic structure to be replaced by another lackluster apartment building. The Carnegie Library is one of the few classical styles structures in town and one of the few remaining remnants of the old city's streetscape in its vicinity. Having a Carnegie Library was a mark of distinction and was highly valued in its heyday. Let's keep it that way! Please consider that the building be saved for "adaptive rouse' and granting it landmark status. Another Carnegie Library was saved in Sioux City, Iowa in 1994 for affordable housing for low income individuals and families. The continual depletion of these historic buildings will eventually lead to the depletion of a significant portion of Iowa City~s rich history. Take pride in the past and please preserve the library. Truly Yours, Patrick Knick HRY-O?-2001 11:84 CP BURERU 15152820502 P.02 Tl~e Hf.~orlcal Dioision oJ'r, oe l)~par~nt of C~nd 4~atm ~ STATE HISTO CAL SOCIE OF IOWA Where p~t meets J~tre May 4, 2001 ~C')_ Ms. Shelley McCafferty Depm~.,,ent of Manning and Com~-umty Development C)~ 410 Bast Washington Street Amexican 6othic Sqouse IOwa City, IoWa 52240 ~ 213 zdon :X RE: State Review and Comment on L~ndmark Designation of:l~c Io~gCity llh'~od Rua NHL Carnegie Library I2rchwood Dear Ms. McCafferty: Ccntcnnjsl 3utlding Iowa City Tbnnk you for submittillg the nomination for designating the Iowa City Carnegie Library, 413 Market Street, Iowa City, Iowa for the 5tate's review and MaRhcwEdelBlacksrnithShop recommendation. HaverBjll We concur with the Iowa Historic Preservation Cormnission that the the Iowa Abbic Gardner Cabin City Carnegie Library is a si~ni~c. ant property and should be recognized by Arno~ct, Park designation as an Iowa City historic landmark. i.wa Iiiswricnl BBiiding ~f yOU need additional information or have any questions about this review, Des Momc~ please do not hesitate to contact us at the following: Monuuk 6overno~s Home Kerry C. McGrath Ralph Christinn U lXi0n Sunday School Clermont ~4useum 515/98 1-6826 515/28 X-8697 Clcrmon~ 1~I1C~r8,~. state.ia.us rchrislf~rnax. State. ia~u s Plttl3~ Crn)v'e Goveffior's foxca City Sincerely;-------_:~_.. · Toolcsboro Kerry C. McGrath western Historic Trails Center LoCal Governxnents Coordinator Ralph Christian co: Mr. Michael Gunn, Cha/r., Historic Preservation Commission IOWA HISTORICAL BUILDING 600 ~'East Locust · Des Moines. Iowa 5031943290 Pitone: (515) 281 ~ 12 · Fax: (515) 242-6498 or (515) 282 -0'302 ww~. srare.ia.u.s/govenmlenrddca NATIONAL TRUST p,e HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM TO: Shelly McCafibrty FROM: From: Julia H. Miller, Esq. Editor, Preservation Law Reporter DATE: May 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Denial of Permission to Demolish Historic Resources under a Historic Preservation Ordinance Historic preservation ordinances rest on strong legal ground. Since1931 when Charleston, South Carolina become the first city to regulate historic property through zoning, local governments have regulated historic resources. These laws have withstood legal challenge over time, including the denial of permission to demolish historic resources. The seminal case on the regulation of historic property through historic preservation ordinances is Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). In this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the "objective of preserving structures and areas with special historic, architectural, or cultural significance," is a constitutionally permissible goal and the ordinance method of designating landmarks and districts and regulation changes to that property was an appropriate means to achieve that objective. 438 U.S. 129. New York City's ordinance, at issue in Penn Central, is typical of many ordinances in effect today. It includes the authority to review requests for alterations, new construction, demolitions, and additions, and removals or relocations. At the time the Court issued its decision, all 50 states and more than 500 municipalities had enacted preservation laws./d. at 108. By 1990, over 2,300 municipalities had adopted preservation ordinances in the United States. In addition to recognizing the legitimacy of historic preservation ordinances as a viable and constitutional method for preserving historic properties, the Supreme Court also ruled that a regulatory taking results only when it denies an owner all economically viable use of its land. In Penn Central, the Court found that a taking had not occurred in that case because the owner of the Grand Central Terminal, a designated historic landmark, could continue to use the property as a train station. Penn Central is still good law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this high standard in addressing takings challenges in the context of other land use cases. See, e.g. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992); Dolan v. CiO, of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); and Cit. v of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at ll, lontere),, Ltd., 119 S. Ct. 1624 (.1999). To date, countless jurisdictions have withstood challenges to the denial of permission to demolish historic resources as unlawful takings. Indeed, every state court that has considered a takings challenge to a local historic preservation ordinance has upheld the constitutionality of this Protecting the Irreplaceable Tlil: 202.588.6035 · FAX: 202.588.6272' WWW.NAIIONALTRUSI .ORG 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW ' Washington, DC 20036 Page 2 regulatory approach, in the absence of specific facts showing a loss of all economic value.I The vast majority of these decisions have expressly followed the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis in Penn Central. Here is a sumanary of related case law from the states that have addressed this question.2 CONNECTICUT: Figarsk3., v. Historic District Comm 'n, 171 Conn. 198, 368 A.2d 163 (1976). Norwich historic district ordinance was a constitutional exercise of the police power, and denial of a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition permit did not result in a taking. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 900 G Street Associates v. Department of Housing & Community Development, 430 A.2d 1387, 1390 (D.C. App. 1981). The court upheld the denial of a permit for demolition of a landmark, concluding that, if there is a "reasonable alternative economic use for the property after the imposition of the restriction," there is no taking or unreasonable economic hardship "no matter how diminished the property may be in cash value." Kalorama Heights Limited Partnership v. District of Cohtmbia, 655 A.2d 865 (D.C. App. 1995). Denial of permit to demolish historic building upheld where owner failed to establish that permit was necessary to prevent unreasonable economic hardship. ILLINOIS: Zaruba v. Izillage of OakPark, 695 N.E.2d 510 (Ill. App. 1998). Denial of permit to demolish historic house upheld where evidence failed to establish that rehabilitation was not economically feasible. KANSAS: Allen Realty, btc. v. City, of Lawrence, 14 Kan. App. 2d 361,790 P.2d 948 (1990). Denial of a demolition permit for a church located in the "environs" of a historic building, pursuant to a state historic preservation statute, did not result in a taking. "A taking cannot be established by showing that a historic preservation statute prevents a landowner from making a particular use of property that would be more beneficial or profitable than its current use." i E.g., Lutheran Church in America v. New York, 35 N.Y.2d 121,316 N.E.2d 305, 359 N.Y.S.2d 7 (1974). : Although many states have more than one such decision, this list includes only the key decisions. In addition, many state courts have specifically upheld historic preservation regulations as a valid exercise of the police power. See, e.g., Second Baptist Church v. Little Rock Historic Dist. Comm 'n, 293 Ark. 155,732 S.W.2d483 (1987); Cityof New Orleans v. Pergament, 198 La. 852, 5 So. 2d 129 (1941); Faulkner v. Town of Chestertown, 290 Md. 214, 428 A.2d 879 (1981); State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo. 1970); Town of Deering ex rel. Bittenbender v. Tibbets, 105 N.H. 481,202 A.2d 232, 234-35 (1964); City of Santa Fe v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 73 N.M. 410, 389 P.2d 13 (1964); A-S-P Assocs. v. Ci(v of Raleigh, 298 N.C. 207, 258 S.E.2d 444 (1979); Village of Hudson v. ,4lbrecht, Inc., 9 Ohio St. 3d 69, 458 N.E.2d 852 (1984); Haves v. Smith, 92 R.I. 173, 167 A.2d 546 (1961 ); State ex rel. Saveland Park Holding Corp. v. Wieland, 269 Wis. 262, 69 N.W.2d 217, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 841 (1955). Page 3 790 P.2d at 953. MARYLAND: Mayor and Aldermen of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 271 Md. 265,316 A.2d 807, 822 (1974). Denial of a demolition permit by the Annapolis Historic District Commission was not a taking under the state constitution. MISSOURI: Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Board of Adjustment, 599 S.W.2d 61 (Mo. App. 1980). The court upheld the denial of a demolition permit for a townhouse in the Lafayette Park Historic District. The constitutional challenge was framed in terms of the regulation "outweigh[ing] any possible benefit to the public health safety, morals or general welfare." The court concluded that the regulation clearly was in the best interests of the city, and the owner must prove that it is infeasible or impractical to rehabilitate the property, or to use it profitably, or to sell or lease it at a reasonable price, to raise the question of unconstitutional application. Dempsey v. Boys' Club, 558 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. App. 1977). The court reversed a decision by the board of adjustment to grant a permit to demolish nine buildings in a historic district, where "[t]here is in this record no substantial evidence that it would be uneconomic to restore and rehabilitate these buildings -- no evidence that the cost of restoration and rehabilitation precludes the owner from making any reasonable use of the properties." NEW YORK: Lubelle v. RochesterPreservation Board, 158 A.D.2d 975,551 N.Y.S.2d 127, review denied, 75 N.Y.2d 710, 555 N.E.2d 929, 556 N.Y.S.2d 532 (1990). The court upheld the city's denial of a demolition permit for a historic house, even though the building had been damaged by fire. The court specifically rejected as irrelevant the owner's claim that a parking lot would be more profitable, OHIO: BSW Development Group v. City of Dayton, 699 N.E.2d 1971 (Ohio 1998). Ohio Supreme Court rejected claim that denial of permit to demolish historic warehouse is a taking requiring just compensation. PENNSYLVANIA: Park Home v. City of Williamsport, 680 A.2d 835 (Pa. 1996). Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that owner failed to establish that denial of permit to demolish historic building, used as home for the elderly, resulted in a taking. City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Comm 'n v. Weinberg, 676 A.2d 207 (Pa. 1996). Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld City of Pittsburgh's denial of permit to demolish historic house in dilapidated condition against takings claim where owner failed to establish that property could not renovated or sold "as is." Other state court decisions that have upheld a local jurisdiction's authority to regulate historic property include the following: Page 4 CALIFORNIA: Bohannan v. City of San Diego, 30 Cal. App. 3d 416, 106 Cal. Rptr. 333 (1973). An ordinance regulating the architectural design of buildings surrounding the "Old Town" state historic park in San Diego was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and did not substantially lessen the value of buildings within the district. Thus the ordinance did not constitute a taking. FLORIDA: Glisson v. Alachua Coun(v, 558 So. 2d 1030, 1035-36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 570 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1990). The court held that county development restrictions to protect the historic and ecological character of the Cross Creek area did not deny the landowners "all economically viable uses" of their property, because the regulations simply required the owners to "maintain the status quo with respect to land use." Lee Cout~O, v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The court rejected a takings challenge to a downzoning of property on the barrier island of Cayo Costa, even though the downzoning prevented the property owners from developing a restaurant and marina. The purpose of the downzoning was to protect the "unique environmental, archaeological, historical, and recreational resources" on the island. The court stated that the owner is not necessarily entitled to the most profitable use of the property: "just because the property may have higher value under different zoning is simply not a determining factor." HAWAII: In ReKyo-ya Co., No. 8124 (Haw. Dec. 10, 1982). The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the designation of a hotel on the Hawaii Register of Historic Places and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places did not constitute a taking of property. The state designation triggered a three-month delay period restricting alterations to the property. The court rejected all other constitutional challenges as well, including due process, equal protection, unlawful delegation of legislative power, and vagueness claims. ILLINOIS: Foster & Kleiser v. City of Chicago, 146 Ill. App. 3d 928, 497 N.E.2d 459 (1986). The court affirmed the city's authority to prohibit erection of signs adjacent to historic districts, rejecting First Amendment, due process, and inverse condemnation claims. Rebman v. Cit. v of Springfield, 111 111. App. 2d 430, 250 N.E.2d 282 (1969). The plaintiff challenged the denial of a permit to construct a drive-in restaurant in a historic district. The court upheld the ordinance establishing the historic district as a valid exercise of the police power that did not result in a taking. INDIANA: Department of Natural Resources v. Indiana Coal Council, Inc., 542 N.E.2d 1000. 1007 (Ind. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1130 (1990). Designation by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources that an archaeological site was Page 5 "unsuitable" for surface coal mining, did not result in an unconstitutional taking. The action advanced a legitimate state interest and did not deprive the owner of all economically viable use of its property. MASSA- CHUSETTS: Sleeper v. Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Comm 'n, 11 Mass. App. 571,417 N.E.2d 987 (I981). The court upheld the authority of the historic district commission to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the erection of a 69-foot radio antenna in the back yard of a home within the district. The court characterized the takings claims as "wholly devoid of merit," under both the state and federal constitutions. Opinion of the Justices (Beacon Hill), 333 Mass. 783, 128 N.E.2d 563 (1955). The court ruled favorably on the constitutionality of proposed legislation authorizing the control of exterior architectural features in a historic district in Beacon Hill, specifically concluding that the legislation would not amount to a taking under the state constitution. Opinion of the Justices (Nantucket), 333 Mass. 773, 781,128 N.E.2d 557 (1955). In an advisory opinion to the state senate, the Court concluded that a legislative proposal to designate and regulate historic buildings, places, and districts in Nantucket would serve the public welfare and would not constitute a taking without compensation under the state and federal constitutions. MINNESOTA: Thompson v. Cit. v of Red Wing, 455 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. App. 1990). The court rejected a takings challenge to a statute protecting human burial remains from mutilation. A landowner claimed that the statute deprived it of all reasonable use of a 20-acre parcel, on which there were several Indian burial mounds. The land at the time was in agricultural use, but the owner sought to fezone it for gravel mining. The court noted that the takings claim was premature, since there had been no final state action applying the statute to the parcel. The court nonetheless considered the merits, ruling that, since the statute permitted the owners to continue the current use, they were not deprived of "all reasonable use" of the property. NEW YORK: Shubert Organization, Inc. v. Landmarks Preservation Comm'n, 166 A.D.2d 115, 570 N.Y.S.2d 504 (1991), appeal dismissed, 78 N.Y.2d 1006, 580 N.E.2d 1059, 575 N.Y.S.2d 456, review denie& 78 N.Y.2d 751,587 N.E.2d 289, 570 N.Y.S.2d 504 (1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2289 (1992). The court rejected a claim by the owners of 22 Broadway theaters challenging landmark designation of their property as a taking. Society for Ethical Culture v. Spatt, 51 N.Y.2d 449, 415 N.E.2d 922, 434 N.Y.S.2d 932 (1980). Although landmark designation of the Society's Meeting House would prevent the exploitation of the full economic value of the property, the impact on the Society and its activities was not so severe as Page 6 to amount to an unconstitutional confiscation. WASHINGTON: Buttnick v. Ciiy of Seattle, 105 Wash. 2d 857, 719 P.2d 93 (1986). The court upheld a decision by the city that the owner of a building within a historic district must replace a deteriorating parapet under the authority of the Seattle preservation ordinance. The requirement did not amount to an unconstitutional taking, because the parapet replacement would not create an undue economic burden. Federal courts have also followed Penn Central, without exception, in considering takings challenges to local historic preservation regulation. See District Intown Properties Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia, 198 F. 3d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1999)(denial of permit to construct townhouses on lawn of historic apartment building is not a taking); International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 153 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 1998)(denial of permit to demolish two Chicago landmarks upheld against Illinois takings claim). Rector, Wardens & Members of the Fest~, of St. Bartholomew's Church v. City of New York, 914 F.2d 348 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1103 (1991) (denial of demolition permit did not result in a taking; church failed to show economic hardship); Maher v. Ci0, of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 905 (1976) (Vieux Carr6 ordinance was a permissible exercise of the police power & did not result in a taking; minimum maintenance standards also upheld); Atlanta Ten v. City, of Atlanta, No. 1:88-CV-157-HTW (N.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 1990) (denial of demolition permit did not result in a taking).3 ' Even affirmative maintenance requirements have been specifically upheld against takings challenges. See, e.g., Maher v. Ci(v of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 905 (1976); Buttnick v. Ci(v of Seattle, 105 Wash. 2d 857, 719 P.2d 93 (1986). Shelley McCafferty From: Jackie Briggs [jackiebriggs@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 12:41 PM To: Shelley-McCafferty@iowa-city.org Subject: Carnegie and Takings Shelley - In spite of the grim response from the National Trust's legal department, I am making some headway. I hope this is what the City's legal dept. is coming up with and not a total surprise... The following is an excerpt that explains "takings" and cites a well known Supreme Court case: The definition of a "taking" of private property through preservation regulations was originally made by the US Supreme Court in the landmark Penn Central case. It was the Penn Central Railroad's contention that regulations that prevented it from developing an office tower above Grand Central Station amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its property without proper compensation. Justice Brem~an's decision in the case addressed that contention directly. Around 1990, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled (in the United Artists case) that the mere designation of private property (in this case, a movie theater) as a historic landmark by the City of Philadelphia without the consent of the owner constituted an unconstitutional taking of properly. This was State Justice Larsen's crabbed view of the matter, which he based on his individualistic reading of the Pennsylvania state constitution. When Larsen was deposed in 1992, the rest of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court immediately reversed his decision. Its reversal was based on Federal precedent, especially the Penn Central case. The court's decision included a ve~2~ useful step-by-step analysis of the constitutional issues involved in preservation / takings cases. Michael Eversmeyer Perkins Eastman Architects PC 1100 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 456-0900 (412) 456-0906 (fax) m-eversme_ve~D~.D~peapc.com More later. Jackie Briggs tel: 354.3411 FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION --- jackiebriggs@earthlink.net 5/7/01 MIDWEST OFFICE NATIONAL TRUST May 7, 2001 /0, HxsTo~xc PRESRRVATION Ms. Shelley McCafferty Department of Planning and Community Development 401 P.. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. McCafferty: It is my understanding that at tomorrow's meeting, the City Council will be discussing whether or not to hold a public hearing on preserving the Carnegie Library. If the Council agrees to hold a bearing, a moratorium will be placed on the demolition of the propcYty. The National Trust supports local landmark designation of the library. On behalf of the National Trust, I respectfully urge the City Council to hold a public hearing regarding the fate of this locally significant property. Constructed in 1903, the Carnegie Library, along with the Masonic Temple, the Post Office and the Knights of Columbus Building, makes up what is called the Link Street Civic Corridor. Demolition of this property would be a great loss to your downtown and would destroy an irreplaceablepartoftheintaetCivicCorridor. Communities throughout the country are recognizing the importance of these buildings and are pre~orving them as libraries or are restoring and rehabilitating them---for everything from apartment houses to heritage museums. I would be happy to provide examples of these types of projects, I would also like to take this oppommity to point out that local landmark designation does not necessarily diminish tht value of a property nor does it necessarily make the city liable for a potential dearease in value because of designation, Property owners challenging historic preservation laws sometimes argue that such laws, either generally or in their application in specific case, amount to a "laking' of private property. The term "taking" comes from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Local landmark destgnation does not automatically result in a taking. In finding that a regulatory taking has occurred, the courts have typically required an almost total elimination of value because of governmental regulation. Most courts in recent years have assessed the economic impact of land-use regulation by determining whether the owner is left with a reasonable economic use of the property. Simply denying the highest and best use of a property does not give rise to a taking. I would be happy to provide additional information on "takings" law. Iowa City has a long and impressive preservation history, we hope that the City will con,inue to preserve and protect your rich architectural heritage. Please let me know ill can be of any assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~e~ng the Irreplaceable Field Representative