Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-30 Info Packet of 10/25 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET october2 ,200 NOVEMBER 13 FORMAL MEETING ITEMS IP1 An Ordinance to Rezone from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) to Conservation District Overlay (RS-8/OCD) for the Designation of the Clark Street Conservation District within the Longfellow Neighborhood [including staff report] IP2 Minutes: August 9 Historic Preservation Commission [to be accepted on Council's November 13 Consent Calendar] MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IP3 Meeting Schedule and Tentative Work Session Agendas IP4 ICAD Existing Industry Company Interviews IP5 City of Iowa City Quarterly Investment Report - June 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001 IP6 Article: Residents Embrace Utility's Energy Program [Kanner] IP7 Article: Steering Committee Looks at TEA-21, Other Transportation Projects [Vanderhoef] IP8 Agenda: October 25 East Central Iowa Council of Governments [Vanderhoef] IP9 Minutes: September 27 East Central Iowa Council of Governments [Vanderhoef] Invitation to news conference regarding Effects of Government Budget Cuts on Johnson County Human Services (Distributed at Special Council meeting of 10/30) Prepared by: Shelley McCaffer~y, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE CLARK STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan. contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. recommends consideration of the designation of conservation and historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods. or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhood and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Clark Street Conservation District within the Longfellow neighborhood will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said properties for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed conservation district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Clark Street Conservation District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) Zone and subject to the guidelines of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook including Appendix A, District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood hereto attached, incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Court and Summit Streets; Thence southerly along said centerline 168 feet; Thence easterly 202 feet to the point of beginning; Thence easterly 160.24 feet to a point on the centerline of Clark Street; Thence southerly along said centerline 9.83; Thence easterly 265 feet to the northeast corner of lot 37 of Oakes Second Addition; Thence southerly 654.9 feet to a point on the west boundary of the property belonging to Longfeilow School; Thence westerly 61 feet to the northeast corner of lot 15 in Coldren's Addition; Thence southerly 156 feet to the southeast corner of lot 14 in Coldren's Addition; Thence westerly 12 feet to the northeast corner of lot 13 in Coldren's Addition; Thence southerly 500 feet to a point on the centerline of the alley just east of Clark Street between Sheridan Avenue and Seymour Avenue; Thence westerly 10 feet to the northeast corner of lot 5 in Reagan's First Addition; Continuing westerly 60 feet along the north boundary of said lot 5; Thence southerly 220 feet to a point on the north line of lot 2 in Reagan's First Addition; Thence easterly 70 feet to the centerline of the 20 foot alley between Clark and Roosevelt Streets; Thence southerly to a point on said centerline intersecting the westward projected south boundary of lot 2, block 2 in Reagan's Second Addition; Thence easterly 10 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence easterly 170 feet to the centerline of Roosevelt Street; Thence northerly 60 feet to a point on said centerline intersecting the projected south boundary of lot 1, block 2 in Reagan's Second Addition; Thence easterly 291.1 feet to the centerline of Maggard Street; Thence southerly along said centerline to the north boundary of the RO.W. of the Heartland Rail Corporation, also known as Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence northwesterly along north boundary of said RO.W. to a point on the intersection of the railroad R.O.W. and the projected centerline of the original 20 foot alley between Summit and Clark Streets, now the projected east boundary of lot 5, block 1 in Reagan's First Addition; Thence northerly 601 feet; Thence easterly 33.5 feet; Thence northerly 200 feet; Thence easterly 11 feet; Thence northerly 60 feet; Thence easterly 20 feet; Thence northerly 211.75 feet to a point on the south boundary of lot 1, block 4 in Summit Hill Addition, which is also the north boundary of the Bowery Street R.O.W.; Thence westerly 61 feet; Thence northerly 200 feet; Thence easterly 35.0 feet; thence nodherly 100.48 feet; Thence westerly 26.56 feet; Thence northerly 58.09 feet; Thence easterly 27.63 feet; Thence northerly 58.1 feet; Thence easterly 32.0 feet; Thence northerly 52.5 feet; Thence westerly 2.0 feet; Thence northerly 53.84 feet; Thence westerly 16.6 feet; Thence northerly 80.33 feet; Thence westerly 12.0 feet; Thence northerly 45.0 feet; Thence westerly 2.0 feet; Thence northerly 107.88 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER All ordinances and par~s of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by Clark Street Conservation District Exhibit B COURT S]' 't MAPLE ST ") 4a~ 42s RAN~T CT __--]_ s~Y m HENRY s~5 LONGFELLOW ' ' ~ SCHOOL CENTER A\ 6~s SEYMOUR AVE ,7~5~ 710 d~ ::' O SHERIDA 1~1 1027 8~ 1111 ~ V ~ ' ' ~4 %,_/~r~ ~ '~ , - Au~sl 2001 Contr~uting st~clre Noncon~ib~ing st~cmre ~ Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-81OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE DEARBORN STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of conservation and historic districts within the LongfeJ[ow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhood and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feers that designation of the Dearborn Street Conservation District within the Longfellow neighborhood will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said properties for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed conservation district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL, The Dearborn Street Conservation District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) Zone and subject to the guidelines of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook including Appendix A, District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood hereto attached, incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 24, block 10, Rundell Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, Section Ill, Township 79 North, Range 6 West; Thence 10 feet westerly to the centerline of the 20 foot wide alley between Dearborn and Rundell Street; Thence northerly to the centerline of Muscatine Avenue and the point of beginning; Thence southeasterly along the centerline of Muscatine Avenue to the centerline of Seventh Avenue; Thence southerly to the northern boundary of the R.O.W. of the Heartland Rail Corporation, also known as the Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence northwesterly along said railroad R.O.W. to a point on the intersection of the railroad R.O.W. and the projected centerline of the 16 foot alley west of Rundell Street between the railroad and Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly along said centerline to the intersection of said centerline and the westward projected southern boundary line of lot 18, block 6 in Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 8 feet to the southwest corner of lot 18, block 6 of Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 185 feet to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 8 of Rundell Addition; Thence southerly to the southwest corner of lot 2, block 8 of Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 125 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 2; Thence easterly 8 feet to a point on the centerline of the 16 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets south of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly 100 feet to the intersection of the centerline of said 16 foot alley and the south R.O.W. line of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northeasterly to the centerline of the 20 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets at the north R.O.W. of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly to point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this ~ day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by $hare~'l:~dtnislpres/Ior~fellow/Iongfellow ordinance.doc Dearborn Street Conservation District sxhib~ C GATCT - CEN AVE ~ i.::'~2~ m / _j <~ Z' 731 <~ 732 7~3:2~ ~2 ~ ~ 735 ~ 738 729 SHERIDAN AVE -~- ~ ~ "~ ~ s~ E ST _1 S~ 822 ~ ' S17 ~ / ~ ~ ~ACKS~N~' ~ -~'~-~ ~ ~ 9~S" ~ I "./--,' .~ '--<,, ~a, U ~ '~' August 2~1 Con~b~ing sacture Noncontributing st~cmre ~ (These guidelines will be included within the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook upon designation of these districts. All five districts in the Longfellow neighborhood share many similar characteristics. The guidelines pertain to all districts except where otherwise noted. These guidelines replace, without substantive change, the guidelines already adopted for the GovernoFLucas-Bowery Conservation District.) DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD (Appendix A) (Single-Family and Duplex Buildings) Including: Summit Street Historic District, Longfellow Historic District, Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District. Site and Scale Guidelines (Additions, New Priman/Structures, and Outbuildinc~s) Setback, Front: For new primary structures, the building setback from the street should be established based upon the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent to the proposed building. The setback of the new primary structure should conform with the average of the setbacks of the four nearest primary structures located within the same block and along the same street frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front porches are prevalent on existing buildings within the districts. New buildings may contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property if possible. Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other means. On Summit Street only: The rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure should be no more than 800 square feet. Existing primary structures should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds 800 square feet. For the purposes of enforcing this guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of the building. On Governor, Bowerr, and Coud Streets only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1200 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition. On Summit Street only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1500 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition, and not less than 750 square feet for a new building. A-1 Outbuildings: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the pdmary building whenever possible, Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. In the Summit Street Historic District only: Attached garages are not allowed. Garages must be located at the rear of the property wherever possible. Garages and other outbuildings should be clearly subordinate in size to the primary structure. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces. Parking: Parking spaces are not permitted between the primary structure and the street. Parking should be provided behind the primary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking must be located along the side of an existing or new primary structure, it shall be set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildinqs Building Styles: New outbuildings behind contributing primary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind noncontributing primary structures should reflect historic outbuilding styles in the neighborhood. Garage Doors: Garage doors visible from the street should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Garage door openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Single-stall garage doors are preferred to double-stall garage doora. Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures Building Styles: Architectural style is a defining characteristic for historic and conservation districts. A new primary structure should reflect the historic styles of its neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single style should dictate the height and mass, rooflines, fenestration, and overhangs for the new building. Please refer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City" for examples of historic building styles. The architectural styles representative of each district are given below, In the Summit Street Historic District only: A new building should reflect Italianate, Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, or Eclectic style. A-2 In the Lonqfellow Historic District only: A new building should reflect Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, Craftsman, Period Cottage, or Eclectic style. In the Lucas-Govenor Conservation District only: A new building on Governor Street should reflect Italianate, Queen Anne, Vernacular, or Foursquare style. A new structure on Lucas Street should reflect Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Clark Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect either Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Dearborn Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect Vernacular, Foursquare, Period Cottage, Bungalow, Craftsman, or Eclectic style. Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes shall be one, one- and-a-half, or two-stories in height. In the Summit Street Historic District only: New single-family houses shall have two full stories in the principle portion of the building. Rooflines: Roofiines should follow one of the historic building styles identified as appropriate for this district. Dormers: Dormers must be in proportion to the roof's overall size. Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of that roof measured at the eave. They should be no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The face of the dormer should be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main roof. Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style guiding the overall design of the building. Windows/Fenestration: Window placement on the fa(2ade a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged. In historic districts only: Windows must be double-hung or fixed-sash with an appearance and profile similar to those windows original to the district. Window design should be appropriate to the building style. Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic building style of the new structure. Sliding patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the historic styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations. A~3 In historic districts only: Sliding patio doors may not be used. Other more appropriate door styles that accommodate large glass area are available. Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring should be vertical-grained fir porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable material that accepts paint. Where a spindled railing is used, there must be a top and bottom rail and the spindles must be centered on the horizontal rails. If the space below the porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be skirted with lattice or grilles. In conservation districts only: Dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed one-eighth inch. In conservation districts only: Poured concrete floors are permitted within conservation districts provided that the porch floor is not more than 18 inches above grade. In conservation districts only: Porches on rear elevations need not reproduce historic details. Balconies: Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings without vedical support were not common in the Longfellow neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. If second-story porches are included, they must be placed above first-story porches or first-floor interior spaces. Wood Substitutes: Substituting a material in place of wood is acceptable only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Siding: Horizontal siding like clapboards or cedar shingles are the preferred cladding materials for new buildings. Wood products for siding include shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in width. Fibrous cement siding is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. Brick was sometimes used in the Longfellow neighborhood and may be an acceptable siding material where historic brick buildings are nearby. Synthetic masonry surfaces such as artificial stone are not acceptable. In conservation districts only: Synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on noncontributing structures. A-4 STAFF REPORT To: Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission State Historical Society of Iowa Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty Item: Longfellow Historic District Date: September 14, 2001 Clark Street Conservation District Dearborn Street Conservation District GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Historic Preservation Commission Contact Person: Michael Gunn, Chair Requested Action: Rezoning of properties in the Longfellow Neighborhood from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) to Historic Preservation Overlay (RS8-OHP) and Conservation District Overlay (RS8-OCD) Purpose: To stabalize and protect the Longfellow Neighborhood through the designation of Historic and Conservation Districts Location: See attached maps Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUNDINFORMATION: Base upon recommendations in the 1912 Iowa City Preservation Plan prepared by Svensen Tyler Inc., the Historic Preservation Commission hired amhitectural historian Molly Nauman to conduct an architectural and historic survey the western portion of the Longfellow Neighborhood. The survey area extended from the Clark Street west to Grant Street and included both sides of these streets. Burlington Street and Muscatine Avenue bordered this area to the north and the Iowa Interstate Railway to the south. The survey was completed and the results published in 1996. In 1998, Ms. Nauman surveyed the eastern portion of the Longfellow Neighborhood which included the area from the west side Rundell Street to Seventh Avenue. In the resulting document, "Survey and Evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood I & I1," Ms. Nauman recommends the local and national designation of the Longfellow Historic District, as well as the local designation of the two conservation districts: Clark Street Conservation District and Dearborn Street Conservation District. The attached maps show the boundaries of these districts and indicate which properties contribute to the sense of time and place as determined by Ms. Nauman and the Historic Preservation Commission. September 14, 2001 Page 2 Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meets its goals. Also, included as part of the Comprehensive Plan is the 1992 Iowa City Preservation Plan, which recommends the survey and evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood, and the designation of local historic and conservation districts. Designation of these districts provides for the future stability of the neighborhood through careful review by the Historic Preservation Commission of exterior remodeling and new construction projects. Properties located within a historic or conservation district may also appreciate in value more rapidly than other properties. Public Input: During the course of surveying and evaluating the Longfellow Neighborhood, a number of meetings were held with the property owners and neighborhood association. More recently, on August 9, 2001 the Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing at which the majority of those attending voiced their opinion in support of these designations. Their comments are included in the attached minutes of that meeting. A neighborhood association meeting was also held September 4, 2001 regarding both the local designations and the National Register of Historic Places nomination. Again, the majority of those attending were in favor of the district. Of more than 550 letters and invitations sent to Longfellow residents and neighbors, only about three residents responded with opposition. Historic Preservation Commission Recommendation: At the August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission that areas within the Longfellow Neighborhood be rezoned to establish the Longfellow Historic District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Conservation District. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the rezoning from RS-8 to RS-8/OHP and RS- 8/OCD to create the Longfellow Historic District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Conservation District. This rezoning is in compliance with the goals and strategies set forth in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, and Preservation Plan, and supports the conservation and stabilization ofthis historic neighborhood. Therefore, staff concurs with the Histodc Preservation Commission and recommends this rezoning. Attachments: 1. History of the Longfellow Neighborhood 2. Longfellow Neighborhood Maps 3. Minutes of the August 9, 2001 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development T/pcd/HistPres/Longfellow/HPCrecornmend Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY (RS-8/OHP) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate historic districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhoods and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a historic district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Longfellow Historic District within the Longfellow neighborhood will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said district for designation as a historic district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed historic district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed the proposed nomination and concurs with the recommendations contained within the historic district report; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Longfellow Historic District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Historic Preservation Overlay (OHP) Zone and subject to the provisions and guidelines contained within the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 22, in Kauffman's Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, Section II, Township 79 North, Range 6 West; Thence easterly 214.23 feet to the northeast corner of lot 21, Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the northwest corner of Oakes First Addition; Thence easterly 360 feet to the northeast corner of lot 22, Qakes First Addition; Thence easterly 20 feet to a point on the east line of the alley between Burlington and Court Streets; Thence northerly 7 feet to a point on the eastern boundary of the 20 foot alley west of Muscatine Avenue between Court and Burlington Streets; Thence easterly 92.2 feet and southerly 35.3 feet to the northwest corner of lot 1, Koser's Subdivision; Thence easterly 145 feet to the western R.O.W. line of Muscatine Avenue; Thence easterly to a point on the centerline of Muscatine Avenue that intersects the projected north boundary line of Koser's' Subdivision; Thence southeasterly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected centerline of the 20 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets; Thence southerly along the centerline of said alley to a point where centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 11, block 9, Rundell Additions; Thence southwesterly to the centerline of the 16 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets at the south R.O.W. of Sheridan Avenue; Thence southerly along centerline of said 16 foot alley to where said centerline intersects with the eastward projected south boundary line of lot 2, block 8, Rundell Addition; Thence westerly 133 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence northerly 50 feet along the east R.O.W. line of Rundell Street; Thence westerly 60 feet to the west R.O.W. line of Rundell Street; Continuing westerly 125 feet to the southwest corner of lot 18, block 6, Rundell Addition; Continuing westerly 8 feet to the centerline of the 16 foot alley running along the western boundary of the properties fronting the west side of Rundell Street; Thence southerly 75 feet along the centerline of said alley; Thence westerly to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 6, Rundell Addition; Thence northwesterly along the west boundary of said lot 1 to the centerline of Sheridan Avenue; Thence westerly along the centerline of Sheridan Avenue to a point 148 feet east of where said centerline intersects with the projected east boundary line of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence southerly to the south R.O.W. line of Sheridan Avenue; Continuing southerly 91 feet; Thence westerly 98 feet to a point on the east R.Q.W. line of Maggard Street; Thence westerly 25 feet to the centerline of Maggard Street; Thence northerly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 25 feet to the southeast corner of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 236.1 feet to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centerline of Roosevelt Street; Thence southerly 60 feet to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 2, block 1, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the southeast corner of lot 2, block 1 of Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 140 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence westerly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley between Roosevelt Street and Clark Street; Thence northerly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 1, block 3, Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 10 feet to the southeast corner of lot 1, block 3 of Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 60 feet along the south boundary of said lot 1; Thence northerly 220 feet to a point on the north boundary of lot 5, block 2 of Reagan's First Addition; thence easterly 60 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 5; Continuing easterly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley just east of Clark Street, between Sheridan Avenue and Seymour Avenue; Thence northerly 500 feet to the south boundary line of lot 14 of Coldren's Addition; Thence easterly 12 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 14; Thence northerly 156 feet to the northeast corner of lot 15 of Coldren's Addition; Thence easterly 61 feet to a point on the west boundary of the property belonging to Longfellow School; Thence northerly to the northeast corner of lot 37 of Oakes Second Addition; Thence westerly 235 feet to the northwest corner of said lot; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centerline of Clark Street; Thence northerly 9.83 feet along said centerline; Thence westerly 139.17 feet; Thence northerly 168.26 feet to the centerline of Court Street; Thence easterly 23.44 feet along said centerline; Thence northerly 30 feet to the southeast corner of lot 23 of Kauffman's Addition; Thence northerly 162.2 feet to a point on the western boundary of the vacated alley east of Summit Street between Court Street and Burlington Street, in Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance. the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by Sharect/pcd/histpres/Iongfellow/Iongfel~ow orclinanca.doc Longfellow Historic District Exhibit A BURLINGTON ST -- LLI_ u .rF 0 IjJ COURT ST 416 416 a. M A P L E S T 420 422 4as GRANT CT  s~s st4 s~ ~ I LONGFELLOW ~ ~6 ~ j ~ SCHOOL ~ .7 ~ CENTER AVE ~ ~ SEYMOUR AVE 7~ 7u 7~ 7~ 7~ z sd o O ~ 7~~ :747 ~ 747 74Z[~ August 2001 Qnt~buting st~cmre Noncon~ibuting stmcmre ~ History of the Longfellow Neighborhood The Longfellow Neighborhood is situated south of the College Hill Historic District, southeast of the original town plat with only a few lots in the northwest corner of the Longfellow neighborhood included in the original town plat. The Longfellow neighborhood contains two historic districts-- Summit Street Historic District and the Longfellow Historic District---and three conservation districts--Lucas-Governor, Dearborn, and Clark Street Conservation Districts. The Iowa City population declined between 1870 and 1900, slowing eastward growth of the city to sporadic housing starts. The entire neighborhood retained a rural and industrial character with Strohm's Nursery at the south end of Governor; a brick factory off Court and Oakland; Camp Pope, a Civil War military muster point where Longfellow School is now located; and an implement factory turned canning factory along the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad. Located in East Iowa City, a neighborhood just east of the Longfellow neighborhood and platted east of Seventh Avenue in 1898, was the Puritan Factory. The eastern half of Longfellow Neighborhood was the Rundell Farm until 1910. These farms and factories brought blue-collar craftsmen and laborers to the district until 1900. After 1900, the growth of the university and the prosperity accompanying the "golden age of agriculture" began a period of rapid growth in Iowa City. Most of the nineteenth-century construction occurred along Governor and Summit Streets. Queen Anne, Italianate, Colonial Revival, and American Foursquare-style structures dominated this period and characterize the western half of the Longfellow Neighborhood. In 1910, the Rundell Land and Improvement Company purchased the franchise for the Iowa City Electric Railway Company and subdivided the Rundell Farm east of Oakland. They offered small, inexpensive lots and criticized the "crowded, dirty city" to sell suburban lots to white collar professionals and shopkeepers. Longfellow School opened in 1919, attracting families with children to the healthy, suburban location, while the streetcar was available for getting around, meaning people were no longer obligated to live close to jobs, shopping or entertainment. Small, affordable, neighborhood lots on Grant and Oakland soon filled with new houses. The Longfellow Historic District exemplifies the only remaining, nearly intact, streetcar suburb of the pre-automobile suburban lifestyle. After 1920, the scale and style of houses remained, but west of Grant, the houses also included small, discreet, attached garages. Ralston Creek was rerouted to run in the alley between Rundell and Grant, and building along Rundell Street boomed--twenty-five houses were built between 1928 and 1932. Even the Depression did not slow development. Moving east from Summit Street and south from Court Street, housing styles particular to the early twentieth century prevail: bungalows, Craftsman-style houses, cottages inspired by English Tudor and Colonial antecedents, as well as a handful of eclectic dwellings. Several houses in the area were built in a cottage revival style either by Iowa City builder Howard Moffitt or by builders following his style. Even though the Longfellow Neighborhood developed over more than eight decades, it finds unity in the materials and craftsmanship of its houses, the attention to detail, and the fine- grained scale of architecture and street layout. The tree-covered residential streets invite leisurely strolls. All of these elements figure into the creation of a strong sense of neighborhood. It is this sense of neighborhood that historic preservation seeks to uphold by retaining both the architectural integrity of Longfellow's buildings and the uniformity of its open spaces. Clark Street Conservation District The Clark Street Conservation District shares the architectural characteristics of the Longfellow Neighborhood, but lacks the architectural consistency and integrity necessary for designation as a Historic District. Most of the homes were built before 1930 in a mixture of turn-of-the-century and early twentieth century styles. Dearborn Street Conservation District The Dearborn Street Conservation District continues the suburban patterns and architectural styles of the Longfellow Historic District. Home building began in the same 1910 to 1920 decades as the rest of the Longfellow Neighborhood, but for an unexplained reason, construction along Dearborn north of Sheridan stopped in 1925 and did not resume until the postwar period. As a result, a substantial proportion of houses in the middle of this district reflect a postwar architecture, while building the area south of Sheridan Avenue continued without this interruption, due primarily to Lester Palmer, who built many houses there during the 1930s. Despite the mixture of styles, the neighborhood shares the scale and welfare of the Longfellow Neighborhood. '10-25-01 I MINUTES IF}2, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 2001 - 5:30 P.M. EMMA d HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Gunn, Peter Jochimsen, Ann Freerks, Loret Mast, Susan Licht, Doris Malkmus, James Ponto MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Carlson, Michaelanne Widness, Jim Enloe STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Charlie Easthan, Leone Evans, Jennie Embree, Cecile Kuenzli, Liz Crooks, Margaret Felling, Rebecca Soglin, Ruedi Kuenzli, Stephen Trefz, Wendy Robertson, Carla Daniels, Jerry Hansen, Chuck Felling, Eleanor Steele, Jim Clark CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA There was none. PUBLIC HEARING: NOMINATION OF THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT, CLARK STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND DEARBORN STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT. Gunn began by describing the nomination process, from Historic Preservation Commission to Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council. He referred to the "Survey and Evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood, 1996" by Molly Myers Naumann as being a guiding document in the creation of guidelines. He referred to the "Handbook" which contains the guidelines for all the conservation and historic districts in the city. Gunn listed better maintenance of neighborhoods and increase in property values as benefits of historic designation. Malkmus asked Gunn to explain to the public the distinction between historic districts and conservation districts. Gunn explained that historic districts contain more properties indicative of a time and place in history; conservation districts do not have as much architectural integrity. The oversight is less in conservation districts. Gunn explained that a neighborhood meeting was not held--as would normally be the case--because the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Conservation District meeting was so poorly attended, whereas the public hearing enjoyed better attendance. Gunn averred that the Commission was not trying to usurp the process; it is willing to hold other hearings or meetings as necessary. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN Charlie Easthan, 1152 East Court, asked what restrictions would exist on moving or removing a structure in either tne conservation or historic districts. Gunn told him that the ordinance requires that any application for a demolition permit for a historic structure or a contributing structure within a conservation or historic district needs approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition permits for structurally sound buildings will be denied; determinations for outbuildings will be done on a case-by-case basis. Easthan asked how the guidelines might affect a daycare to be located at 1516 Sheridan Avenue. The building is marked on the map as non-contributing--could an addition be put on the house? Gunn explained that, even for non-contributing structures in a conservation or historic district, the daycare would need to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness. Any addition ought to be non-obtrusive and in conformance with height and setback guidelines. Leone Evans, 738 & 742 Rundell, owns two structures listed as contributing, one of which is the last Moffitt cottage to be built. The second house, a bungalow, was built in 1935 by the previous owner's Historic Preservation Commissi"'q Minutes August 9, 2001 Page 2 brother-in-law. She said she does not find anything historical about them. Evans said her Moffitt does not conform with the other Moffitt cottages stylistically. Malkmus explained that historical in the architectural preservation sense does not necessarily mean that the structure has to have some connection with historically impodant people or events, or the structure is huge and representative of some high style with lots of detail. The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines define as "historic" any structure more than fifty years old. Malkmus further explained that Evans' houses are contributive to the context of Longfellow, which is a prime example of a neighborhood that evinces the transition from a pre-automotive era to one in which the automobile began to dictate neighborhood design. Jennie Embree, 917 Dearborn, asked what guidelines were used to determine contributing/non- contributing status. Gunn referred to the "Survey & Evaluation" mentioned earlier. Embree said her house was of the same design as three others in the vicinity, but only hers was noted as contributing. Gunn said the determination often rests on the stylistic integrity of the structure. He mentioned that Dearborn had given the Commission a lot of trouble with regard to making determinations. Those houses that looked to the past stylistically were included as contributing. Embree asked if one wished to build a garage would it have to have alley access. Gunn explained that the only restriction is that there be no permanent, committed parking space in the front of a house. Cecile Kuenzli, 705 South Summit, president of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, said having a neighborhood meeting might be a good idea. She also suggested using the Association newsletter as a medium for spelling out differences between conservation and historic districts and for listing the benefits of designation. She asked Gunn if he would write an article for the newsletter; Gunn agreed. Liz Crooks, 610 Clark, a seventh-generation Iowa Citian, spoke of the importance of stewardship, of the preservation of architectural treasures for future generations. She encouraged the Commission to proceed with the nomination. Marclaret Fellinq, 825 South Seventh Avenue, also encouraged the nomination of the conservation and historic districts. She and her husband are concerned about what could possibly be built in the lot next door to their house; conservation district guidelines would ease their minds. Rebecca Soqlin, Sheridan Avenue, asked about the semantic Lhinking behind using "should" in the guidelines vis-~-vis "must." She has a gambrel-roofed house. If she were to replace her garage, should it also have a gambrel roof? Jochimsen asked if the current garage was contemporary with the house. Soglin said it was built approximately eight years after the house. Jochimsen said the idea is not to build a miniature version of the house, but to build something that is architecturally sympathetic with the house. Licht said garages usually have theiF own style. What's important is to make it look like it belongs in the neighborhood.' Soglin suggested the language in the guidelines could be clearer. Jochimsen said the use of "should" in the guidelines is to give the Commission some authority without having the rules be too stringent. Soglin asked if anyone in the Commission had looked at the possible financial impacts of some of the guidelines. Gunn said cost was a concern in drafting the guidelines. He said the Commission does often add cost to projects. For most people and most houses, however, the added cost should be negligible. The larger and more ornate the house, the greater the cost of restoring or matching the existing elements. Soglin asked what disclosure rules realtors are obliged to follow when showing a house in a conservation district. McCafferty said she would look into it, but often homes are marketed for being in such a district. Ruedi Kuenzli, 705 South Summit, encouraged the Commission to follow through with the nomination as quickly as possible. He said that when he served on the Commission he thought the neighborhood would be designated by 1998. He said at the time he was on the Commission all of them thought Longfellow was safe. Now there is a drastically inappropriate addition going on a house on Oakland that Commission oversight could have prevented. Historic Preservation Commissinn Minutes August 9, 2001 Page 3 Leone Evans (again) asked if she understood correctly that she could not replace the shingle siding on her Moffitt house with vinyl siding, or that she could not enclose her porch. Gunn said that vinyt siding is not allowed on Moffitts, but there is some leeway and alternatives that could be explored with the porch, such as windbreaks or partial enclosures. Evans asked if there are any tax benefits available. McCafferty said she would find out what local options existed and send that information to Evans. Stephen Trefz, 723 Oakland, voiced his support for the designation. Wendv Robertson, 523 Grant, voiced her support for the designation. She was concerned about recent construction in the neighborhood which threatens its character. Carla Daniels, 748 Rundell, voiced her support for the designation. She asked if a 3-season sunporch was allowable. Malkmus asked if it would be attached to the house. Daniels said it would. Malkmus said the Commission would desire something with minimal impact. Daniels clarified that the structure would not be "fixed into" the house, not permanent. Charlie Easthan (again) explained that his group works with Student-Built Housing through the Iowa City School District, so often the time envelope is tight from start to finish. He was concerned about the time involved in the approval process. Gunn described the process. Normally, the process takes 2 to 6 weeks; it often depends on the design. Freerks pointed out that the C of A process goes only through the HPC, not any other commission. Jerry Hartsen, 1237 Burns Avenue, asked if the owner could remove, for example, the Grant Wood House from its lot and move it to a new location. Freerks asked if one would need a building permit to move a house. No one knew. Gunn said the language in the guidelines does not anticipate such a scenario. Malkmus and Freerks pointed out that it would be prohibitively expensive to move a brick structure. Malkmus said that if it were moved it would lose its NRHP designation. Additionally, NRHP designation does not protect a structure from demolition, but local designation would bring the house under the Commission's supervision. Hansen had also asked about the impetus behind the guidelines. Gunn said one set of guidelines was drafted to make approval processes as streamlined as possible. Hansen asked if the guidelines are set? Are they changing, evolving? Hansen said he was concerned that people might move in with one set of expectations only to have the Commission change the rules on them. Gunn conceded that Hansen had a good point, but the guidelines have been adopted June 20, 2000 and had not changed in that time, except for the ordering of certain sections. Gunn said different districts have different characteristics, so it is necessary to address each one individually. Chuck Fellinq, 825 South Seventh Avenue, voiced his support for the designation. He asked if it applies only to structures, or would it also preserve tIle character of Rundell Street (Rundell is much wider directly off of Muscatine Avenue because the streetcar ran down it for a short distance). Gunn and Malkmus said that was beyond the jurisdiction of the HPC. McCafferty said if federal funds were involved in any change in the street the Commission would have oversight. PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED. Malkmus suggested that in the absence of opposition to the nomination it be forwarded to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Freerks agreed. Jochimsen said it was gratifying to hear encouragement from the public. He said so much time has been spent on this subject already that it was time to move it forward. Mast agreed with Jochimsen. MOTION: Malkmus moved to forward the nomination of the Longfellow Historic District and the Clark Street and Dearborn Street Conservation Districts to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Jochimsen seconded the motion, Motion carried on a vote of 7-0, REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, 710 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET. City Council Meeting Schedule and ootober2~.200~ Tentative Work Session Agendas November 12 Monday VETERANS' DAY HOLIDAY - CITY OFFICES CLOSED November 12 Monday 6:30p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Emma J. Ha/vat Hall November 13 Tuesday 7:00p SPECIAL FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Emma J. Ha/vat Hall November 22-23 Thursday/Friday THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY - CITY OFFICES CLOSED November 26 Monday 6:30p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Emma J. Ha/vat Hall November 27 Tuesday 7:00p SPECIAL FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Emma J, Ha/vat Hall December 10 Monday 6:30p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Emma J. Ha/vat Hall December 11 Tuesday 7:00p SPECIAL FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Emma J. Ha/vat Hall Meeting dates/~imes subject to change FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS Dog Park Downtown Historic Preservation Survey Regulation of Downtown Dumpsters Gas and Electric Franchise ICAD Exisiting Industry Company Interviews Employer Visits Contact Name Interviewer (Hayworth tatdng lead, Fausett & Herwig will assi. Coralvjlle - Albany Molecular Bruce Crawford Hayworth Headland Express Russ Gerdin Hayworth integrated DNA Mark Campbell Hayworth Hawkeye Wholesale Jeff Bravermann Hayworth Diversified Software Inc. Jim Griffin Hayworth Screaming Media -Stockpoint Ron Stablein Haywodh Innovative Rail Group Sheldon Schroeder Hayworth Oakdale Systems Mike Miller Hayworth Geico Tom Gardner Hayworth Applied Systems Kevin Schwarz Hayworth Rockwell Mark Correll Haywodh Breakthrough to Literacy, Inc. John Campbell Hayworth LMS CADSI, Inc. Robert Stevenson Hayworth Iowa City - ACT, Inc. Richard Ferguson NCS Pearson Mary Westbrook Buckle Down Publishing Douglas Paul Disterhoft/Rowat Seabury Smith - Marsh scott Fisher Gholson Noel Levitz ~LT*-CY' P?/~CLi'~ '~' Gholson MCI Paul Fiemr Mercy of Iowa City Ronald Reed Disterhoft/Rowat Iowa City Press Citizen Michael Beck Disterhoft/Rowat BloOming Prairie Warehouse Jesse Singerman Disterhoft/Rowat General Mills Maria Slavens Wetzel/ Procter &Gamble Mike Burnette Wetzel/ Torus Technologies Bankers Advertising/TruArt Bill Bywater Bedford/' City Carton JOhn Ockenfels Loparex Paul Steigleder Bedford/ Oral B Liam Cassaday/Rich Colgan Lear Brian Pedrick Wetzel/ Moore NA Scott Miller Iowa interstate Railroad Jon Roy Wetzel/ North Liberty - Shanahan taking lead Centro Gar/Rozek Shanahan/Pacha North Liberty Plastics Bob Lord Shanahan/Pacha JM Swank George Nulty Shanahan/Meyer:: LL Palling Chuck Finnegan Shanahan/Mitchel Transport America Don Erenberger Shonahan/Mitchel Rudi's Bakery Jay Michael Shanahan/Soukup KaJona - Doug Morgan taking lead-asked for ICAD partic CivCO David Schultz Morgan KaJona Plastics Mike Vogel Morgan Slabach Construction Lance Slabach Morgan West Branch - Dick Rex taking lead SOUeF Dantoss Bert Lohr Rex/Doermann Tidewater Publishing Fred Ellsmore Rex/Doermann West Liberty - Lon Pluckhahn taking lead w/ED Committee WL Foods Ed Garett Pluckhahn Rubber Products Pluckhahn Company Background Form Information is confidential Date: Parent Company Information (if applicable) Parent name: Address: City/State/Zip: Region: (user defined) Country: Phone: (__) ' Fax: ( ) E-mail: CEO name~: CEO title: Parent Company Contacts Name: Title: Contact type: Parent Company Primary Parent Company Secondary Phone: (~) Ext:. Fax: ( ) E-mail: Name: Title: Contact type: Parent Company Primary Parent Company Secondary Telephone: (~) Ext: ._ Fax: ( ) E-mail: Company Information Company name: Previous company name (if applicable): Address: City/State/Zip: Region: (user defined) Coun~'y: Phone: Fax: Member: Yes No Years in Business: Year company established in community: Beginning of fiscal year (month): Name of person filling out this form: Date form filled out: Visit date: Company Contact(s) First: Middle: Last: Title: Phone: (~) Ext:~ Fax: ( ) E-mail: Retbrred by: Notes: © Blanc, Canada LId Company Background Form Information is confidential vt~oot Type of Ownership (please circle one): Publicly Held (Stock) Employee Owned Family Private Not for Profit State Federal Other, please specify: Facility Type (please circle all that apply answer): Headquaders Division Office operation Branch plant Distribution Manufacturing Other, please specify: Do you have other company owned facilities in the region? Yes No If yes, what type? (please circle all that apply): Headquarters Division Office operation Branch plant Distribution Manufacturing Other, please specify: Where are they located? Type of Business Primary products/services: If known, pIease list your SIC/NAICS: (sIc = Standard Industrial Code; NAICS = North American Industry Classification System) Business Sector (please circle one): Communications Durable goods producer Health care Services Consumer goods producer Energy Industrial Technology Convention/Tourism Financial service Retail Transportation Utilities Do you have other company facilities that make the same or similar products? Yes No If yes, where arc they located? Page 2/3 Blanc, Canada LId. Company Background Form Information is confidential 7/1 s/2om Local Employment Type NumDer Function Number Full time Management Part time Technical Leased Sales/marketing Clerical Production Total employees Total employees Number of jobs added or lost (-) in past 3 years: Number of shifts per day: Number of days per week: Peak employment season: Union Representation Is there union representation at your business? Yes No If yes, name of primary union: Others (if applicable): Union Activity (please circle your answer): positive working relationship organization activities certification decedification strike or lockout arbitration other, please specify: Facility Acreage: Building size: sq. ft. Numberof buildings: ~ Age of building (circle one): Under 10 yrs 11-25 yrs Over 25 yrs. Condition of building: excellent good average lair poor Space added or deleted (-) in last 3 years: sq. ft. Past expansion date Type of expansion: Is there room for additional expansion at this location? Yes No Is the facility owned or leased? Owned Leased If leased, lease expiration date: Name and location of property owner:_ Page 3/3 SynchronisI Business Informalion SystemTM © Blanc. Canada Ltd Company Background Form Information is confidential 9/25/01 Laborshed Employment Information Iowa City Area Development is working to complete a laborshed employment study for the Iowa City area. This study will develop an estimated total potential labor force for our community's laborshed, which is the region from which lowa City area employers draw their employees. The study will assist you, and potential new businesses, in better understanding our areas labor force and its ctmracteristics. For the success of this study, it is critical that our commtmity's laborshed area be properly identified. To accurately determine .~hc laborshed boundaries we need your assistance. Our laborsbed boundaries will be based on the place of residence of individuals working in the Iowa City area. We are asking you and other local employers to provide aggregate counts of their employees by zip code by place of residence. For example, if you have 16 employees residing in zip code 52244, 10 in 52317, and 6 in 52241, all we need is the count for each zip code. included below is a reporting form that may aid you in providing the employee zip code information. All zip code information will be combined into one master list that will be combined and mapped by zip code in a geographical information system (GIS). This mapping will provide a very accurate representation from where Iowa City area employers draw their labor. If ycm would like, rather than filling out the table below, a printout of employee zip codes from your human resource department can be attached to this form. If you have any questions about the laborshed employment study project or need any assistance, please contact Joe Raso at 354-3939. Zip Code Number of Employees in that Zip Code Example (50702) (26) On-Site Visit Form To be filled out by the interviewer - Information is confidential 7/ts/2om Date: Company Information Company name: Contact name: Phone number: Contact(s): Name of person interviewed: Title: Phone #: _ Name of interviewer(s): Date of visit (mm/ddJyy): Organiza[ion Of interviewers: Product/Service 1. What is your company's greatest achievement in the last 5 years? 2. Where is the company's primary product/service in its life cycle: emerging growing maturing declining 3. Has the company introduced new products/services/capabilihes during the last five years? Yes No 4. Are new products/services anticipated in the next two years? Yes No 5. Is there new technology emerging that will substantially change either your company's primary product or how it is produced? Yes No If yes, please explain: 6. Asapercentofsales, how much does the company spend on R&D? % 0 Under3 3-6 Over6 7. As a percentage, approximately how is the R&D budget divided among: new product development: % product improvement: % production improvements: ~% 8. Where is the R&D facility located? Page I/6 Blanc, Canada LId On-Site Visit Form To be filled out by the interviewer - Information is confidential ?/ts/2oot Market 9. Is the company's primary market: local regional national international 10. Are total company sales: increasing stable decreasing 11. Is the market share of the company's key product(s) increasing stable decreasing Please explain: 12. Does the company plan to expand in the next 3 years? Yes No If yes, estimated dollar investment: $ estimated number of jobs to be created: estimated facility size increase: sq. approximate date of expansion: 13. Are export sales as a % of total sales: increasing stable decreasing no exports Where are your export markets? 14. Is the percentage of products and/or components imported by the company: increasing stable decreasing no imports 15. Does the company have overseas production? Yes No If yes, where is the overseas production located? Is it contract production or a company facility? Contract production Company facility ['age 2/6 Synchroaist Business Information Systemr'~ © Blanc. Canada Ltd. On-Site Visit Form To be filled out by the interviewer - Information is confidential 7/tsz2oot Industry 16. Approximarely what percentage of U. S. market share do international competitors control for your company's primary product? % 0 under 20 21-50 over 50 Where are the international competitors located (country or region)? 17. ls overseas production by U.S. competitors: increasing stable decreasing Please explain.' 18. Is merger, acquisition or divestiture activity in your industry: increasing stable decreasing 19. Has the company's ownership changed in the last 18 months, or do you anticipate a change? Yes No If yes, explain: 20. In your industry is production: under capacity balanced over capacity 21. Do you anticipate any federal. state, or local legislation changes that will adversely affect your business in the next five years? Yes No If yes, what changes: How will they affect the company? 22. Do you anticipate any federal. state, or local legislation changes that will benefit your business in the next five years? Yes No If yes, what changes: How will they affect the company? Page 3/6 On-Site Visit Form To be filled out by the interviewer - Information is confidential 7/18/200] Management 23. Has the company's top management changed or is it expected to change in the next I8 months? Yea No If yes, explain: 24. Are the projected employment needs for this facility: increasing stable decreasing 25. Will the following projected utility'needs for this facility be increasing, stable or decreasing? Type of Utility Increasing Stable Decreasing Water 0 0 0 Sewer 0 0 0 Gas 0 0 0 Electric 0 0 0 Telecommunications 0 0 0 26. Are the company's current facilities adequate for anticipated future operations? Yes No If no, why not: 27. What are the community's strengths as a place to do business? 28. What are the community's weaknesses as a place to do business? 29. Are there any barriers to growth in this community? Yes No If so, what: 30. Does the attitude among executives at corporate headquarters toward this community as a place to do business differ from local management? Yes No If yes, please explain. 31. Are there any reasons the community may not be considered for future expansion? Yes No If yes, please explain: On-Site Visit Form To be filled out by the interviewer - Information is confidential ?/ta/20ol Workforce 1 2 3 4 5 32. How de you rate the availability of workers in this area? O O O O O 1 low - 5 high 33. How do you rate the quality of workforce in this area? O O O O O 1 low - 5 high 34. How do you rate the stability of workforce in this area? O O O O O 1 low - 5 high 35. As compared to other company facilities, how would O O O O O I low - 5 high you rate productivity in this facility? 36. Is the number of untilled positions: increasing stable decreasing 37. Is the company experiencing recruitment problems with any employee positions or skills? Yes No If yes, what problems, positions, skills? 38. Are primary recruitment problems limited to: community industry 39. Is company investment in employee training: increasing stable decreasing no company training 40, If investing in employee training, what % of the training budget is for: new job skills training %; remedial skills training ~%? Notes: Page 576 Synchronist Business Information System'" ©Blane, Canada Ltd On-Site Visit Form To be filled out by the interviewer - Information is confidential ?/ts/2ool Marketing Information 4 1. Are there suppliers or services that would benefit by being located closer to this facility? Yes No If yes, company and location: 42. Are there customers that would benefit by being closer to this facility? Yos No If yes, company and location: 43. Please rate the quality of the following services provided by the community on a scale of 1 to 5. I low - 5 high D Does not apply I 2 3 4 5 D Police protection O O O 0 O 0 Fire protection O O O O O O Ambulance paramedic service 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic control 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sewage treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools (K-12) O O O O O O Property tax assessment O O O O O O Community planning O O O O O O Regulatory enforcement O O O O O O CityNillage services 0 0 0 0 0 0 County services 0 0 0 O O 0 Please provide us with additional information on any items that you have rated a 2 or less. Do you have any other comments you would like to share? Page 6/0 Synchronist Business Information System~u ©Blanc. Canada Ltd On-Site Visit Form To be ~lled out by the interviewer- Information is confidential 9/25/ol 44. How are your workers trained? (check all that apply) On the Job Communily College University Union/Apprenticeship Program __Vocational School __Other (specify) 45. How do you hire your workers? (check all that apply) Newspaper Ads CorridorCareers Web Site ~Television Ads ~Other Internet Job Sites (specify) Temp Agencies Iowa Workforce Development Headhunters Other (specify) 46. If your company anticipates employment decreases, please indicate reasons. Decline in Sales Changes of ownership Foreign Competition __Changes in Technology Change in labor skills needed Regulatory Compliance Increase Production costs Decline of supplier links Lack of Capital wOther (specify) 47. How important are the following factors to your current operations? (Number your Top 3 choices with "1" being the most important factor) __Domestic Competition Changing Markets Outdated Machinery Labor Productivity Insufficient Space Labor Availability Transportation Problems Inadequate Supplier Network Foreign Imports .Other (specify) 48. Do you believe the Iowa City Area Development Group provides value to your business (Yes~x!oFUnsure) and the area business community (Yes/No/Unsure). Post Visit Questions Information is confidential 7/[8/20ol Company name: City/State: Executive interviewed: Date of visit: Interviewer: Organization: 1. Do you have any reason to believe this company's role in the community could be changing? Yes No Comment: 2. Is there any reason to believe this company is at risk of leaving the community? Yes No Comment: 3. Is the company or it's executives undergoing any form of stress that could be of concern for the company's stability in the community? Yes No Comment: 4. Does this executive support the community as a place to do business? 1 2 3 4 5 1 low - 5 high O O O O O 5. Is this executive a candidate for working with the economic development program in some capacity? 1 2 3 4 5 1 low - 5 high O 0 0 0 O 6. What, if any, immediate assistance does the company need? Col[imeots: Page I/I Synchronist Business Information System~" © Blanc, Canada Ltd. -STATEMENT OF NONDISCLOSURE- I understand that all of the information that I obtain from the business(es} during :'the Existing Industry Interview Program visitation survey(s) on behalf of the Iowa City Area Development Group is highly confidential. I affirm that I will not disclose any of the information either verbally or in written form. I also affirm that I will not duplicate or release the information directly or indirectly. (Name) (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT JUNE 30, 2001 to SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Finance Department: Prepared by: Sara Sproule Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. The average return on the six-month Treasury Bill, as obtained from the monthly publication Public Investor, was 3.47% at 6/22/01 and was 2.87% at 9/28/01. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above the benchmark, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. Rates on new investment purchases with maturity dates in the eight month to twelve month range were approximately 300 to 315 basis points lower on investments purchased in the third quarter of 2001 than on investments maturing in the third quarter of 2001. This is consistent with the Federal Reserve decreases in the federal funds rate during calendar year 2001. The Federal Reserve decreased the federal funds rate six times in the first two quarters of 2001 by a total of 275 basis points. In the third quarter of 2001 the Federal Reserve cut the federal funds rate 75 basis points, 25 basis points in August 2001 and 50 basis points in September 2001. The September rate cut was made just before markets reopened on September 17 after being closed since the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. On October 2 the Federal Reserve again lowered the federal funds rate 50 basis points from 3.00 percent to 2.50 percent. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. The October rate cut was the ninth rate cut this year and brought this rate to its lowest point since May 1962. This rate was 3.00 percent in the third quarter of 2001 and was 6.50 percent in the third quarter of 2000. Basis Point Time Period Federal Funds Rate Increase/(Decrease) 2nd Quarter 1999 4.75-5.00 25 3rd Quarter 1999 5.00-5.25 25 4th Quarter 1999 5.25-5.50 25 1st Quarter 2000 5.50-6.00 50 2nd Quarter 2000 6.00-6.50 50 1 st Quarter 2001 6.50-5.00 (150) 2nd Quarter 2001 5.00-3.75 (125) 3rd Quarter 2001 3.75-3.00 (75) The City continued to see a decrease in rates obtained on investments being placed in the third quarter of 2001. Rates on new investments with maturity dates in the eight month to twelve month range were from 3.65% to 4.16%. Rates obtained in the fourth quarter of 2001 will likely be even lower. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range is 2.40%. This became effective September 27, 2001. The previous rate for this range was 3.20%. CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND 9130101 9/30/00 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT ALL OPERATING FUNDS 61,626,862.41 69, 111,085.98 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND 0.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE FUND 1,950,000.00 2,600,000.00 BOND RESERVE FUND 14,872,351.50 13,897,997.00 TOTAL 78,449,213,91 85,609,082.98 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION 9/30/01 9/30/00 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT BRENTON BANK (NOW WELLS FARGO) 0.00 9,100,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK 21,536,674.89 663,221.00 FIRSTAR BANK 3,357,893.49 27,392,442.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK 1,500,000.00 3,100,000.00 HAWKEYE STATE BANK 4,200,000.00 6,500,000.00 HILLS BANK &TRUST 6,200,931.50 5,800,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK 11,700,000.00 6,500,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST 5,999,951.82 14,454,218.98 UNION PLANTERS BANK 3,761,400.00 3,880,400.00 WELLS FARGO BANK 11,418,463.00 2,718,463.00 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION 8,573,899.21 5,300,338.00 US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES 0.00 0.00 VAN KAMPEN 200,000.00 200,000.00 TOTAL 78,449,213.91 85,609,082.98 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 9/30/01 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE VAN KAMPEN GOVT MUTUAL FUND 22-Ju1-85 N/A 200,000.00 VARIABLE NORWEST BANK SAVINGS 1-Dec-99 N/A 200,000.00 VARIABLE HAWKEYE STATE BANK SAVINGS 18-Ju1-97 N/A 1,500,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST. TRUST IPAIT 5-Sep-01 N/A 3,500,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST. TRUST IPAIT 19-Jul-00 N/A 2,499,951.82 VARIABLE FIRSTAR BANK FLEX CD 28-Sep-01 31-Oct-01 122,318.49 5.98 BRENTQN BANK CD l-Nov-01 l-Oct-01 1,200,000.00 7.00 BRENTON BANK CD l-Nov-01 5-Oct-01 1,100,000.00 7.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 14-Nov-00 15-Oct-01 1,300,000.00 6.77 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 14-Nov-00 19-Oct-01 1,100,000.00 6.77 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 14-Nov-00 31-Oct-01 1,300,000.00 6.77 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 14-Nov-00 2-Nov-01 1,100,000.00 6.77 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 14-Nov-00 15-Nov-01 1,300,000,00 6.77 BRENTON BANK CD l-Dec-00 16-Nov-01 1,100,000.00 6.80 BRENTON BANK CD 1-Dec-00 30-Nov-01 3,000,000.00 6.85 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK FLEX CD 14-Dec-00 30-Nov-01 273,453.89 6.505 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 8-Jan-01 14-Dec-01 3,000,000.00 5.30 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 1-Feb-01 28-Dec-01 1,200,000.00 5.505 IOWA STATE BANK CD l-Mar-01 28-Dec-01 1,200,000.00 5.01 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 8-Jan-01 2-Jan-02 1,100,000.00 5,30 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 22-Jan-01 2-Jan-02 1,500,000.00 5.50 BRENTON BANK CD 9-Feb-01 2-Jan-02 700,000,00 5.05 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD l-Feb-01 11-Jan-02 1,200,000,00 5.505 HILLS BANK CD l-Mar-01 1 l-Jan-02 1,200,000.00 5.40 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 1-Feb-01 15-Jan-02 1,800,000.00 5.505 HAWKEYE STATE BANK CD 21-Mar-01 25-Jan-02 1,200,000.00 5.35 HAWKEYE STATE BANK CD 21-Mar-01 l-Feb-02 1,500,000.00 5.45 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 2-Apr-01 8-Feb-02 1,200,000.00 4.58 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 2-Apr-01 15-Feb-02 1,500,000.00 4.58 IOWA STATE BANK CD 1 l-Apr-01 22-Feb-02 1,200,000.00 4.60 FIRSTAR BANK CD 29-Feb-00 28-Feb-02 535,575.00 6.87 IOWA STATE BANK CD 11 -Apr-01 l-Mar-02 1,500,000.00 4.65 IOWA STATE BANK CD 1 l-Apr-01 8-Mar-02 1,200,000.00 4.75 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD l-May-01 15-Mar-02 1,500,000.00 4.35 FIRSTAR BANK CD 1-May-01 22-Mar-02 1,200,000.00 4.18 FIRSTAR BANK CD l-May-01 1-Apr-02 1,500,000.00 4.21 IOWA STATE BANK CD 11-May-01 5-Apr-02 1,200,000.00 4.16 HILLS BANK CD 5-Apr-01 8-Apr-02 1,250,000.00 5.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 11-May-01 15-Apr-02 1,500,000.00 4,26 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 6-Jul-01 19-Apr-02 1,200,000.00 4.16 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 6-Jul-01 l-May-02 1,500,000.00 4.16 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMM CU CD l-Aug-01 3-May-02 1,200,000.00 3.95 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK CD 27-Jul-01 15-May-02 1,500,000.00 4.01 IOWA STATE BANK CD 6-Sep-01 17-May-02 1,200,000.00 3.65 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 31-May-01 31-May-02 663,221.00 4.24 IOWA STATE BANK CD 6-Sep-01 31-May-02 1,500,000.00 3,65 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMM CU CD 28-Jun-01 28-Jun-02 5,631,138.21 4.77 IOWA STATE BANK CD 9-Feb-01 l-Jul-02 1,200,000.00 5.36 HILLS BANK CD 11-Apr-01 l-Jul-02 1,900,000.00 4.95 HILLS BANK CD 31-Aug-01 30-Aug-02 961,187.50 4.00 NORWEST BANK CD 31-Oct-97 31-Oct-02 1,418,463.00 6.49 HILLS BANK CD 30~Nov-00 29-Nov-02 889,744.00 6.95 Page 1 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE GOMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 6-Jul-01 7-Jan-03 500,000.00 4.66 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA GOMM CU CD 30-Mar-00 28-Mar-03 765,338.00 7.14 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA GOMM GU GD 31-May-00 30-May-03 977,423.00 7.425 UNION PLANTERS BANK GD 31-Oct-97 1-Jul-03 250,000,00 6.50 UNION PLANTERS BANK CD 13-Ju1-98 11-Jul-03 3,511,400.00 5.92 TOTAL $78,449,213.91 Page 2 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 6/30/01 92,630,406.90 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INTEREST INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE RATE PURCHASES 7/1/01 TO 9/30/01 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 7/6/01 4/19/02 4.16 1,200,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 7/6/01 5/1/02 4.16 1,500,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 7/6/01 1/'7/03 4.66 500,000.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK CD 7/27/01 5/15/02 4,01 1,500,000.00 FIRSTAR BANK FLEX CD ROLLOVER 7/31/01 8/31/01 5,98 269,483.87 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMM CU CD 8/1/01 5/3/02 3.95 1,200,000.00 HILLS BANK CD 8/31/01 8~30~02 4.00 961,167.50 FIRSTAR BANK FLEX CD ROLLOVER 8/31/01 9/28/01 5.98 215,196.26 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 9/5/01 N/A VARIABLE 3,450,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 9/6/01 5/17/02 3.65 1,200,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 9/6/01 5/31/02 3.65 1,500,000.00 FIRSTAR BANK FLEX CD ROLLOVER 9/28/01 10/31/01 5.98 122,318.49 TOTAL PURCHASES 13,618,186.12 REDEMPTIONS 7/1/01 TO 9/30/01 UNION PLANTERS CD 10/3/97 6/30/01 6.25 (119,000,00 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 3/23/00 7/2/01 6.80 (1,200,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 10/10/00 7/2/01 6.65 (2,300,000,00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 4/11/00 7/2/01 6.76 (1,500,000.00 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 7/6/00 7/6/01 7.05 (900,000.00 HAWKEYE STATE BANK CD 8/3/00 7/13/01 7.30 (1,100,000.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK CD 9/8/00 7/16/01 7.'~0 (1,200,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 9/22/00 7/27/01 6.91 (1,100,000.00 FIRSTAR BANK FLEX CD 6/29/01 7/31/01 5.98 268,058.99 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK FLEX CD 12/14/00 MONTHLY DRAW 6.505 775,336.14 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMM CU FLEX CD 6/28/01 MONTHLY DRAW 4.77 583,955.80 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 7/19/00 MONTHLY DRAW VARIABLE 204,370.60 HILLS BANK CD 10/6/00 8/1/01 6.95 (1,200,000,00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 10/10/00 8/10/01 6.71 (1,100,000.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK CD 10/10/00 6/15/01 6.76 (1,200,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST IPAIT 6/23/00 PARTIAL DRAW VARIABLE (1,200,000,00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 10/10/00 8/24/01 6.91 (1,100,000.00 IOWA STATE BANK CD 10/10/00 8/31/01 6,91 (1,200,000.00 FIRSTAR BANK FLEX CD 7/31/01 8/31/01 5.98 (269,483.87 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK FLEX CD 12/14/00 MONTHLY DRAW 6.505 (2,264,501.55 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 7/19/00 MONTHLY DRAW VARIABLE (522,300.55 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMM CU FLEX CD 6/28/01 MONTHLY DRAW 4.77 (1,664,699.29 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 10/24/00 9/7/01 6.90 (1,100,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 10/24/00 9/14/01 6.90 (1,200,000.00 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK CD 11/1/00 9121101 6.76 (1,100,000,00 FIRSTAR BANK FLEX CD 8/31/01 9/28/01 5.98 215,196.26 COMMERCIAL FEDERAL BANK FLEX CD 12/14/00 MONTHLY DRAW 6.505 709,922.98 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMM CU FLEX CD 6/28/01 MONTHLY DRAW 4.77 220,206.70 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 7/19/00 MONTHLY DRAW VARIABLE 282,346.38 TOTAL REDEMPTIONS (27,799,379.11 INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 9/30/01 78,449,213.91 ~ ('~' (~' i ~ Submitied by Council Member Kanner ~T o~i ~ ~r ~fa~}l' ~ - , s~nsored an energy conservation  I ~ 8 U [ ~6 study program called "Living Wise" for T R E 800 sixth grade students in the Azusa ~ [4of e, t~L~f' 5~ Unified School District. The city also recruited the-students as "Azusa Power UTILITI~ ~ The department buys most of its Cadets" to monitor electrical use in power resources through long-term con- their homes. Students participated in a ReSidents tracts and is seldom forced to purchase video contest on energy conservation embrace utility's electricity through the short-term, high. with the winning videos broadcast on energy program priced contracts that other utilities are Azusa~ community television station. forced to use. As a result, Azusa has The centerpiece of the conservation The utility rate hikes and blackouts not raised rates since 1993 -- even in program was Hsu's recruitment of large that have plagued California this year the midst of wildly escalating electri- businesses to schedule load-shedding have not affected Azusa. In fact, the cal rates. Last year, instead of raising on a voluntary basis. The city offered working class community of 45,000 has rates, LWD actually rebated more than $750,000 worth of incentives to pep been called "an oasis of low-cost, relb $250,000 to long-time customers. suade about 25 big commercial cus- able electricity" by the Los Angeles Additionally, each year, LWD con- tomers to cut back their energy use. A number of businesses even agreed . .~ ~. emergency. ' - For example, California Amforge. ~'L ' ,- .. e~ throughout th~ ~. C~, ~ · ' '¥ ~ ' - ~ · ,,, ' ~ . , : ' ~ ~ ~, t "' ' .~ As a result o( the campaign, energy statewide. "Our strategy is simple," ~ i ing blackouts in California. This isn't The campaign even produced an unusual civic spirit in Azusa. On Aug. ~u$a t~sident$ donned ~ho~ts to 8how tributes a portion of its net earnings 7, Mayor Gristinn Cruz-Madrid pro- their support for th~ clty'~ ~n~t~y con- to support vital city services, including claimed "Shorts Day in Azusa ~ the ~rvation efforts. police, fire, library and youth recre- coolest city in California" to launch ation. The rest is reinvested to keep its Energy Censervat on Month. That day, Times. A recent survey by the Los plant, equipment and technology up to more than 300 people, all in shorts, Angeles-based Kosmont Cos. ranked date. ' gathered at City Hall plaza. &usa the second most affordable city The ciW's aggressive energy censer- . "The weatherman says today will be in Southern California in which to do vation campaign caught the attention one of the hottest days of the summer," business. of the regional news media -- English the mayor noted. "That's okay. We're The city owes much of the praise and Spanish newspapers, television and ready." to its 100-year-old Light and Water radio -- and elected officials alike. The celebration began at 7 a.m. with Department (LWD). Under director During the campaign Azusa: free coffee, juice and doughnuts, live Joseph Hsu, the department has dis- · called on city staff to dramatically music, cheerleading arid karate dem- played savvy planning in its purchase reduce energy usage in city hcilities; eastrations. "This is our way of thank- of electricity, and it has implemented * urgedresidentstoturnoffaircon- in~ the people of A:usa for their its insurance policy against electricity and adopt numerous other home con- meat to energy conservation," Mayor disasters. servation ideas; and Cruz-Madrid said. ~ Martin Quiroz, public affairs officer, 22 October 2001 Azusa Stee ing Committee Looks at TEA-2 1, r Submitted by Other Transportation Topics However, the TIS Steering The Transportation Infrastructure and Services (TIS) Committee believes that cempe- Committee convened in Scottsdale, Ariz., last week to tition in the airline industry update TIS policy to reflect new priorities for the upcom- could become a more pressing ing reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of issue as the nation and the air- the 21st Century (TEA-21), creating new policy on air- line industry recover from She Pjp~ ~ Line competition, the Passenger Bffi of Rights and terrorist attacks. pipeline safety In addition, the cernmlttee focused on The steering committee The TIS Policy Committee airline safety and security issues in the wake of the Sep- adopted policy emphasizing the chose this topic for policy devel- tember 11 attack. need for the federal government opment upon recommendation to issue guidelines on behaviors from the Energy, Environment, ]T~A-2] Re~lod?xl6on that constitute 'unfair exdu- and Natural Resources (EENR) sionary practices and anticera- Committee. This move reflects petitive behavior" and rigorous the struCture of the federal gov- TIS Chair Pat Moss, mayor pro tom, Hickory, N.C., enforcement of current laws ernment, winch regulates the appointed a Task Force on TEA-21 Reauthorization after that provent such practices. ' pipeline industry under the the TIS Spring meetbrig. "The Task Force was able to Department of Transportation explore this issue in much greater detail than would Avic3ilo~ Secu~/ (DOT). have been possible if the entire Steering Coram~ttee The committee recognized worked on it,'Moss said. that the nation's system of The Task Force met three additional times during the Because the terrorist attacks year, the ~nal one occurring prior te the Fall meeting of on Sept~mber 11, 2001 used gaseous and liquid pipelines are the TIS Steering Committee. At that meeting, the Task commercial aircraft as the safest mode of transporting hazardous: materials, but noted Force prepared final revisions to the TIS chapter of the weapons, the committee opted National Municipal Policy for review and approval by to spend a considerable amount , that the :federal government the Steering Committee. ~l~his Task Force committed to of time examining the issue of should do more to protect popu- aviation secxn'ity. Todd Hautp]i, latod and environmentally sen- extra time and work to make sure that NLC's reautho- senior vice president for legisla- sitive areas from failures in the rization policy reflects the needs of municipalities," said tive affairs at the American system. The committee recom- Councilmember Sandy Greyson, Dallas, Tex., and chair Association of Airport Execu- mended policy that allows of the Task Force. "I am very pleased at all they have rives (AAAE), briefed the com- states to impose and enforce accomplished this year." mittee. on possible legislative more stringent safety require- The proposed policy inghlights the role of local gev- action. ments than those required by ernment, reiterating NLC's position that transportation After the presentation, the the federal government, empha- decisions mast be made at the local and regional level. committee discussed options sizes the need for federal test- The policy emphasizes the need for federal funding to available for increasing avia- ing and certification of pipeline help manage and operate existing transportation infra- tion security. The committee operators, and implements new structure, as a way to "squeeze out" more capadty and opposed blanket federalization and better technologies for leak effic/ency from the ekisting system. The need for rural of security at airports, but did detection. consultation, a stre.m]ined project delivery process, recognize the need for improved equal tax treatment and incentives for commuter alter- standards and federal certifica- 0e~ef ~ natives, and new Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality tion for baggage screeners. The programs were also included. committee did not believe that Scottsdale Mayor Mary Man- these screeners should be feder- ross, host of the meeting, treat- 7he Panen 8 ll and ddine Compe alemployees. The committee ed the committee to a tour of agreed that it was too seen to Seottsdale's Intelligent Trans- In March of this year, the policy connn/ttee requested recommend federal/zing securi- portation Fadlities prior to the that the steering committee examine passenger bill of ty for tarmacs and airport meeting. In addition, the corn- rights legislation and recommend pol/cy relating this perimetere, winch is tradition- topic The steering cemmlttee researched the current ally handled by airport authori- mittee participated in a number ties and local governments. of other special events in Scotts- At the end of the discussion, dale that highlighted its natur- legislation and issues surround- the committee approved a reso- al beauty and extensive park Lug it and was prepared to make lution on aviation security that system. The committee also recommendations at the meet- reflected its views on the issue. joined NLC's Information Tech- ing. However, because of the The resolution recommended nology and Communications tragedy of September 11, the extending the Federal Air Mar- (ITC) Steering Committee at a steering committee opted to shal program, levying a security joint reception hosted by the remain silent on this issue, stat- fee on airline passengers on a Arizona League of Cities and ing that those events likely per ticket basis to pay for secu- Towns. ITC had just concluded el ' ~te its fall meeting In Mesa, Ari- aram d the need for this leg- rity measures and a number of islation. aircraft security measures. zona. · From Counci 1 Member Vanderhoef i io,;;i I East Central Iowa Council of Governments Board Meeting Notice 1:00 ~P.!f,t. q3el6b~r' East Central 1Owa'eouh. c~.i,~,'f~6N, en~'~n'ents 108 Third 8treel ~;t;'...'~'i~"~O,i) . TEL 365-9941 FAX 365-9981 pages 1.0 CALL TO ORDER · 1 Recognition of Alternates .2 Public Discussion .3 Approval of Agenda 2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS 1-5 .1 Approval of Minutes (September 27, 2001) 6-15 .2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets 3.0 AGENCY REPORTS · 1 Chairperson's Report .2 Board Members' Reports .3 Director's Report 16 .4 Joint-Purchasing Report 17-19 .5 Community Development Report 20-22 .6 Housing Report 23 .7 Solid Waste Report · IDNR Waste Tire Program Contract 24-27 .8 Transportation Report · Letter to Legislators - STA 4.0 COMMITFEE REPORTS · 1 Executive Committee .2 Personnel Committee .3 Budget Committee 28-30 .4 Transit Operators Group 31-32 .5 Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee .6 Ad Hoe Committee Reports · Transit Services Review Committee 33-35 5.0 IOWA I1NTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM 6.0 OLD BUSINESS · 1 Approval of Expenditures 7.0 NEW BUSINESS 8.0 NEXT MEETING: November 29, 2001 (Legislators Open House) ECICOG is the Region 10 planning agency serving local governments in the counties of Benton, Iowa, Johnson, Jones, Linn, and tVashington. . MINUTES East Central Iowa Council of Governments i Board Meeting 1:00 p.m. - September 27, 2001 I P9 East Central Iowa Council of Governments 108 Third Street SE, Suite 300 - Cedar Rapids, IA MEMBERS PRESENT Dee Vanderhoef-lowa City City Council Bob Stout-Washington County Supervisor Ed Brown-Mayor of Washington Ed Raber-Washington County Citizen Leo Cook-Jones County Supervisor Charlie Montross-Iowa County Supervisor Dennis Hansen-Jones County Citizen Henry Herwig-Coralville City Council Don MagdefrauoBenton County Citizen Larry Wilson-Johnson County Citizen Mike Lehman-Johnson County Supervisor David Vermedahl-Benton County Supervisor MEMBERS ABSENT David Cavey-Mayor of Olin Rod Straub-lowa County Supervisor Dale Todd-Cedar Rapids Commissioner Marc Greenlee-Benton County Citizen Gary Edwards-Iowa County Citizen Tom Tjelmeland-Mayor of Ely Ann Hearn-Linn County Citizen Lu Barron-Linn County Supervisor James Houser-Linn County Supervisor ALTERNATES PRESENT - None OTRER'S PRESENT - None STAFF PRESENT Doug Elliott-Executive Director Gina Peters-Administrative Assistant Robyn Jacobson-Transit Administrator Mary Rump-IT/TransportationPlanner Jim Nehring-Joint-Purchasing Coordinator Lisa Garlich - Planner Marie DeFries - Solid Waste Planning Coordinator Chad Sands - Planner Jennifer Ryan - Planner Tracey Mulcahey - Grants Administrator 1.0 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Dee Vanderhoef at 1:14 p.m. .1 Recognition of Alternates - None .2 Public Discussion - None .3 Approval of Agenda M/S/C (Hansen/Montross) to approve the agenda. All ayes. 2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS .1 Approval of Minutes (August 30, 2001) The minutes incorrectly stated that Raber was not present. Raber also clarified under item 3.2 that he was dissatisfied with the process that the board used in making the decision to change the funding formula for transit operating assistance. M/S/C (Montross/Raber) to approve the minutes with the changes. All ayes. .2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets Elliot~ gave an overview of the August financial statements. M/S/C (Cook/Brown) to receive and file the August financial statements for audit. All ayes. 3.0 AGENCY REPORTS .1 Chairperson's Report Vanderhoef handed out the 2000 Iowa National Guard Economic Impact Report. .2 Board Members' Reports - None .3 Director's Report Elliott announced that three candidates for the planner position have been interviewed and an offer of employment will be made next week. To dam, two applications for the Circuit Rider position have been received. Elliott told the board about a conference on Community Conversations on Immigration in Iowa to be held in Cedar Rapids on October 2. Vanderhoef noted that this is one of the goals of the Vision 2010 Report. She encouraged board members who haven't read the report to do so. .4 Joint-Purchasing Report Nehring told the board that to date, $46,000 has been saved. Letters and surveys were sent out to the cities over $1,000 and counties in the region to measure the interest in continuing the joint-purchasing effort. A report will be presented next month on the results of the surveys. .5 Community Development Report Sands reminded the board that three years ago, ECICOG applied to EDA to become an economic development district. If awarded, it would mean that cities and counties in the ECICOG region would have a new funding stream. A full report will be presented at next month's board meeting. (Lehman joined the meeting at this time.) Mulcahey told the board that out of the eight pre-applications for CDBG funding that were submitted, the Iowa County sewer system project was invited to submit a full application. Cook asked why the Jones County wastewater treatment project was not invited to submit a full application. Discussion followed. .6 Housing Report Muleahey noted that four FHLB applications were submitted this week. In January, the CDBG HOME Fund applications are due. There are currently seven cities interested in submitting applications for HOME funds. .7 Solid Waste Report Ryan referred to page 20 of the board packet. She noted that the time for the Household Hazardous Materials open house has changed to 5:30 p.m., and that there are only three companies being invited to respond to the RFP for the recycling program evaluation project. She also gave the correct address for the website for the Iowa Recycling Association. The address is www.iowarecveles.or~. She told the board that she is co-presenting at the Iowa Science Teachers Conference on October 18. She will make a presentation on the Safe Chemical Management for Schools project. Ryan gave an overview of the NAHMMA conference she artended in Portland, OR. DeVries handed out an Iowa Sustainable Design Initiative brochure. She also told the board about a program to recycle ink jet cartridges. From each cartridge that is sent in the mailer bag provided, a dollar will be sent to the Iowa Recycling Association. Discussion followed. She will get more boxes of the mailer bags and distribute at the next board meeting. 2 .8 Transportation Report Rump noted that a policy committee meeting will follow the board meeting at 3:00 p.m. Jacobson noted that sample transit provider contracts were included in the board packet. The TOG recommends to the board to keep the contracting terms from July 1 - June 30. M/S/C (Raber/Herwig) to allow the chair to sign the transit provider contracts from October 1,2001 - June 30, 2002. All ayes. Jacobson told the board that she has received several of the additional services sheets that the transit proriders must have approved by the ECICOG board. Vanderhoef told the board that a committee will review the requests and make a recommendation to the board. The committee will be made up of Brown, Edwards, Hansen, Heam, Herwig and Vermedahl. (handout) Cook asked for an explanation for the special requests. Jacobson stated that any request that doesn't meet the minimum service requirements as listed in the contracts must have board approval. Jacobson will be setting up a meeting to review the requests. Jacobson handed out a memo to the board regarding a regional definition of incidental service. (handout) There will be more discussion at next month's board meeting. Jacobson said she received an e-mail from Peter Hallock at the IDOT stating that there will be a 3.3% reduction in STA on top of the projected 12% from last winter. If you add the state and federal funding together, it will mean an overall reduction of 6% from last year. The governor has proposed a 7% reduction of STA to be used for the general fund. Elliott suggested that board members contact their legislators and let him/her tmow how the reduction would affect their communities. Discussion followed. Jacobson is to put together a spreadsheet for next month's meeting to show the effect of the reduction to each provider. 4.0 COMMI'ITEE REPORTS .1 Executive Committee - None .2 Personnel Committee - None .3 Budget Committee - None .4 Transit Operator's Group Minutes from the last meeting were included in the board packet. .5 Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee - None .6 Ad Hoc Committee Reports 5.0 IOWA litTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM - None 6.0 OLD BUSINESS .1 Approval of Expenditures M/S/C (Stout/Cook) to approve payment of expenditores. All ayes. 7.0 NEW BUSINESS Vanderhoef asked the board if they wanted to have a legislator day again this year. The board agreed. The legislators will be invited to the November 29 board meeting. 8.0 NEXT MEETING: October 25, 2001 The meeting adjoumed at 2:10 p.m. Lu Barton, Secretary/Treasurer October 25, 2001 Date 3 Transit Services Review Committee (working rifle) (September 27, 2001) David Vermedahl, Benton County Gary Edwards, Iowa County Henry Herwig, Johnson County Dennis Hartsen, Jones County Ann Hem-n, Lm County Ed Brown, Washington County F1L,EO IJnibedVV'ay 2QO] OCT 30 [>H Z: 08 of Johnson County 1150 5.h street, ste. 290 coralvixe, Iowa 52241-2933 Fax: (319) 339-7337 TO: Mayor E1TijO Lehlflan E-mail: info@unitedwayjc.org Mr. Mike O'Donnell www.unitedwayjc.org MS. Cormie Champion Mr. Steven Kanner Mr. Irvin Pfab Ms. Dee Vanderhoef Mr. Ross Wilburn Mr. Stephen J. Atkins FROM: Mr. Donald J. Carstensen, Board President, United Way of johnson County DATE: October 29, 2001 RE: Invitation to News Conference Regarding Effects of Government Budget Cuts on Johnson County Human Services I am writing to invite you to attend a news conference hosted by United Way of johnson County on: "' Thursday, November 1, 2001-10:00 a.m. ,:, United Action for Youth Conference Room 410 Iowa Avenue, Iowa City, IA The purpose of the news conference is to alert the community to the fact that vital services provided by non-profit agencies affiliated with United Way of Johnson County are in jeopardy due to devastating cuts in government funding. These agencies help local families, women and children, teen parents, people with disabilities, and people with chronic mental illness, substance abuse problems, and special needs. We will distribute information regarding initial projections of federal, state and local government funds lost, as well as services, programs and populations that are affected. I hope you will be able to attend this important news conference. If you have any questions, please call Beverly Weber, Executive Director of United Way of Johnson County at 319-338- 7823. United Way of Johnson County will lead the community in addressing needs by generating and allocating funds and directing resources to enhance the well-being of the community,