Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-22 CorrespondenceMarian Karr 2C From: SchaeffelA@iowa-city. kl 2. ia. us Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 8:28 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Highland ave. To the members of City Council, In the past residences along Highland have had many grivences about the traffic on the residential collector road. This past Friday January llth there was a potentially fatal accident with a vehicle going 65 miles per hour on Highland. The accident left a vehicle in my yard and victims screaming in my lawn at midnight. As you can understand, our neighborhood was concerned that Highland was being treated in a reckless manner, and unfortunately something bad did happen. Please don't wait any longer. This is not a matter of couning, surveying or "starting over". The matter is current and urgent in my opinion. At the very least having two more stop signs along Highland would send the message to motorists that Highland is not Highway 6. It continues to be used by speeding motorists that want a shortcut and many utility and large trucks as well. DON'T IGNORE HIGHLAND ANY LONGER. Immediate action should be taken. Regretfully my schedule doesn't allow me to speak at your meeting as I have in the past. Thank you for taking time to take action on this important matter. Sincerely, Alexandria Schaeffel 319/354-5478 1321 Marcy St. (corner of Highland and Marcy) Iowa City, IA 52240 Marian Karr 2 From: Sue Lafky [Sue-Lafky@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:55 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Nomination of John Bennett for award Dear members of the Iowa City City Council: I am writing letter to recommend that Professor John Bennett be recognized by the City of Iowa City for his heroism in saving young Carloss Robinson from the jaws of a Rottweiler. I know John because he is a faculty member colleague in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. I would particularly like to see the city give John Bennett a platform in which to talk about protecting both children and adults from animals that are not restrained. I think this is a perfect opportunity to not only recognize John Bennett for his heroism, but to provide a "teaching" moment to Iowa City and its surrounding areas. Please let me know what I can do to help make this happen. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Sue A. Lafky Associate Professor University of Iowa School of Journalism and Mass Communication W608 Seashore Hall Iowa City, IA 52242 Office phone: 335/3367 Home phone: 35a/2859 Home address: 514 Westside Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52246 JAN 1, 5 2002 Bruce Gluckman t~e President of Legal & Regulatory Affairs CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE January 10, 2002 CERTIFIED MAlL The Honorable Ernest W. Lehman Mayor of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman, Recently the Federal Communications Commission confirmed that a cable operator could pass through to subscribers and itemize the franchise fees paid on non-subscriber revenue such as advertising revenue or home shopping commissions. I attach a copy of the press release issued by the Commission advising the public of the decision. Mediacom intends to start passing through such payments to our customers within the next thirty to sixty days. Our franchise with your community is one such franchise that requires payment on non-subscriber revenue as part of the franchise fee. We have been paying those fees to your municipality but in the absence of a definitive ruling from the Commission we have not passed through these payments to our subscribers. The non-subscriber portion of franchise fees represents approximately 6.0% of the total paid to you. Some communities are acting now to forego franchise fees on non-subscriber revenue. You might wish to consider doing the same. If that is the case and your community desires to forego.payment on such revenues, please advise me of that decision no later than January 30, 2002. Sincerely, Bruce Gluckman BG Mediacom Communications Corporation 100 Crystal Run Road · Middletown, NY 10941 · 845-695-2650,Fax 845-695-2749 NEWS News media Irtformation 202 , 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 4~8-2830 ~,c~,~ TTY 202/418-2555 ~..~ Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ~,~r'~,) flp.fcc.gov Federal Communications Commission 445 12t~ Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20554 This hi an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes offlcla I action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 ID.C. Circ 1974). FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: October 4, 2001 Mich¢ll¢ Russo (202) 418-2358 FCC FINDS CABLE OPERATORS MAY PASS THROUGH FRANCHISE FEES Agency Also Supports Consumers' Right to Know Who's Responsible for Charges on Bill Washington, DC - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today said that cable operators may pass through to consumers and itemize on monthly bills the entire amount of a franchise fee assessed by the local franchising authority, including franchise fees from non- subscriber related revenue, pursuant to the Communications Act. Today's action is in response to separate petitions filed by the cities of Pasadena, California; Nashville, Tennessee; and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Under the Communications Act, cable companies pay franchise fees to local franchising authorities (LFAs) as a mechanism for reimbursing the local government for use of the public rights-of-way. Pursuant to the Act, calculation of franchise fees is limited to 5 percent of the cable company's gross revenues. The FCC determined that the statute does not prohibit a cable operator from passing through the full amount (or any portion) of the franchise fee, including the portion derived from non-subscriber revenues such as advertising sales and home shopping commissions. The FCC also clarified that, under the statute, cable companies may itemize franchise fees separately on subscriber bills to inform consumers about the portion of their bill that is paid to the local government. The FCC said it hopes that both cable operators and local governments will use this decision as an opportunity to negotiate reasonable franchise agreements and franchise fees that put consumers at the forefront of their discussions. The FCC noted that if cable operators and LFAs do not want to burden subscribers with higher franchise fee pass throughs, they may modify their franchise agreement and change the definition of gross revenues to exclude certain categories of revenue. Action by the Commission, October 1, 2001, by Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 01-289). Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abemathy, Copps and Martin with Commissioners Abemathy and Martin issuing a joint statement. Cable Services Bureau Contact: Steve Broeckaert, Ben Golant at (202) 418-7200 5441-R (Pasadena, CA), 5373 (Nashville, TN), 5282-R (Virginia Beach, VA) - FCC - City Council 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 January 9, 2002 Dear City Council, During your budget deliberations, we ask that you seriously consider including $100,000 for a thorough feasibility study on the complex issues of municipal electricity. As the majority of you have indicated your are interest in a 4-year franchise, we want the city to have every moment available of these four years to study this issue before coming to a conclusion. We understand that you will not have this issue in from of you again until March 2002. As your budget decisions will have just been approved, we don't want the lack of funding for this feasibility study in this budget cycle to result in a delay of exploring this issue until fiscal year 2004. The cost of a feasibility study has been estimated to be $25,000 to $100,000. We suggest that you budget for the top of the range. The idea of a municipal electric utility is intriguing and other Iowa communities have found that it pays off economically. Communities all over the country are exploring this issue. We believe there are hard questions that must be asked and answered about this. In order to fully respond to these questions, we believe we need a study that can take a complete look at the short and long- term interests of our citizens and businesses, both large and small. It has been suggested that a citizen's committee be used to help guide this process. The idea has also been raised that an appointed Utility Board might be a good form of governance if you decide municipal electric is in the best interests of our community. We agree that a citizen's committee should be part of the deeision-making process. We also suggest that any feasibility study look at the trade-off of various structural forms of governance that a municipal electric utility might take. We completely understand the pressures on you during the process of creating next fiscal year's budget. Since the issue of municipal electric is on your list, and a majority of you has expressed interest in exploring these details, it only makes sense to include the feasibility study in this budget. Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion. Sincerely, Marian Karr 2 From: Kyran "Casey" Cook [kcook@avalon,net] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:45 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Being put on the Council Agenda To the Mayor and City Council Members, I am requesting time on the City Council Agenda as part of the budgeting process on behalf of the Friends of the Iowa River Scenic Trail (FIRST). We are interested in presenting a proposal that will involve City funding for the renovation and trail development of Sand Lake park located behind Hills Bank. This is one of the 11 priorities identified by the Parks and Recreation Commission and we received their strong recommendation for approval at the most recent meeting. This is one element of a larger plan that we feel will compliment City trail development efforts both along the Iowa River and along Highway 6. It will address the current problem of unauthorized traffic entering onto Highway 6 just east of the bridge. It will turn what is now an eyesore for 23,000 cars per day into an amenity that will serve the entire south end. I would like 15 minutes to discuss this option with the Council either at a work session or at the january 29 meeting. I realize this would be an exception and that FIRST has not requested funds for FY 2003. I believe this proposal could leverage City funds with State funds and Federal Brownfield grants to spur redevelopment of significant areas along the south river corridor from industrial to more intensive commercial and high density residential. Please Advise. Sincerely, Casey Cook, President Friends of the Iowa River Scenic Trail Kyran J. Cook kcook@avalon.net Cook Appraisal, Inc. 1580 Mall Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-351-2044 Marian Karr 2c From: Sue Futrell [SueF@bpco-op.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:35 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org; Lisa~Mol[enhauer@iowa-city.org Subject: Input re: rezoning in SE Iowa City industrial zone Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council members: We are writing to request that the City not approve a zoning variance or redefinition of the uses allowed in an industrial zone, for the location of a retail grocery store near the intersection of Hwy. 6 and Scott Blvd. in the Iowa City Industrial Park. Blooming Prairie is a local business and employer located at 2340 Heinz Road in the SE Iowa City industrial park, with a 15-year investment in our facility here, and plans for future expansion at this location. We are very concerned about the proposal to mix high-traffic retail use with high-traffic industrial use, and believe the result will be congestion and inconvenience as well as unsafe traffic patterns. Currently, we have over 175 large semi-trucks leaving and arriving at our facility each week, an average of 25 trucks every day of the week. Access to and from Heinz Road involves left-hand turns off and onto either Highway 6 or Scott Blvd., at unsignalled intersections. Hwy. 6 and Scott Blvd are the major access routes to 1-80 and 1-380 for all east and west-bound traffic from SE Iowa City. Blooming Prairie is only one of a number of distribution and manufacturing businesses located in this area with significant truck traffic in and out. Consumer auto traffic to the proposed grocery store location will come primarily from the residential areas to the north and west, and will access the store via the same heavily-travelled routes on Scott Blvd. and Hwy. 6. Access to the store from either direction will also require left-hand turns at unsignalled intersections. We are extremely concerned that a significant increase in car traffic to this location, combined with the already heavy truck traffic, will result in delays at intersections, frustrated and impatient automobile drivers, and increased danger of accidents. This area was originally designated for industrial use, and the streets and traffic patterns were designed with that use in mind. We selected this location for our distribution center specifically because it was an appropriate and accessible location for our type of business. We strongly urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to stand by their original recommendation, and urge the City Council to support the existing zoning and definition of industrial use. Commercial retail, industrial and residential uses can coexist harmoniously in our community only if their various needs are planned for, and if those plans are followed. Please feel free to contact us for any additional information we can provide to assist you in making your decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan Futrell Director of Marketing Blooming Prairie Warehouse 2340 Heinz Rd. Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-337-6448 1 sfutrell@bpco-op.com Marian Karr From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:24 AM To: daily-iowan@uiowa.edu; LindaA@fyiowa,com; krui@uiowa.edu; wsui@uiowa.edu; bsharpicpc@yahoo.com; Mike. Wagner@kcrg.com; lylem@fyiowa.com; patv@avalon.net; erinw@fyiowa.com; bstewart@press-citizen.com; TomW@fyiowa.com; hwoodward@press- citizen.corn; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city,org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; Steve_Atkins@iowa-city,org; Marian_Karr@iowa-city.org; jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us; cthompso@co,johnson,ia,us; mlehman@co,johnson.ia.us sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; phamey@co.johnson.ia.us; tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us; carolt@inav.net Cc: nichole.warren@ided.state,ia,us Subject: FW: [jcnews] Vision Iowa Public Hearing >From: "Carol DeProsse" <cdeprosse@earthlink.net> >To: jcnews@yahoogroups.com , iagp-johnsoncounty@yahoogroups.com , icprogs@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [jcnews] Vision Iowa Public Hearing >Date: Mon, Jan 14, 2002, 11:21 AM > > Tomorrow from 1:30-2:30 at Coralville City Hall representatives of the > Vision Iowa Board will hold a public hearing on Coralville's application for > $4.5 million in state funds to help build their hotel/convention center. > Coralville's Administration Building is located on 5 Street, just past their > public library. > > WE BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE FIRST TIME THAT A VISION IOWA CONTINGENT HAS COME > TO A COMMUNITY AND HELD SUCH AN OPEN FORUM. > > WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS IN RECOGNITION OF THE OPPOSITION TO CORALVILLE'S > PLANS THAT HAS BEEN GENERATED BY VARIOUS GROUPS LIKE SAVE (Stop A Vast > Error) and INDIVIDUALS, > > The Chamber of Commerce has sent out a notice strongly urging their people > to come and speak in support of the project. This despite the fact that the > Chamber, the Homebuilders' Association, the Convention Bureau, Coral Ridge > Mall, and others have letters contained in Coralville's application in > support of this funding. It is clear they hope to outnumber us and given > the time of day the hearing is being held they may be able to do that. > However, it you have a job that allows you to come to this hearing, please > do so. This is a unique opportunity to let the decision makers know of your > opposition. > > We will also have a petition for you to sign. For the particular issue > addressed in the petition you must be a Coralville resident. > > Thank you. > > > ........................ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ........................ > > FREE COLLEGE MONEY > CLICK HERE to search > 600,000 scholarships! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/vf6MrB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/kjOolB/TM > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > jcnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > 1 Marian Karr 2 From: Louise Nielsen [nurse24hrs52240@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:36 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: New Iowa Avenue Parking Ramp Building Dear Iowa City Council Members: I want you to know what a fantastic job all of you have done in planning, constructing, and carrying out every finishing detail of the new Iowa Avenue Parking Ramp and Office Building, Tower Place. The project is a superb example of honoring the past of Iowa City and combining it with the present needs. Many Iowa Citians remember the old City Hall tower at Washington and Linn Streets. To see a replicated model of it atop Tower Place at Linn and Iowa Avenue makes me feel that you want younger and future generations of Iowa Citians to be aware of the greatness of old Iowa City architecture. Parking ramps can be cold, uninviting and impersonal...OR...they can be good compatible "neighbors" by inviting people to not only park in them, but to see them as enhancements in the historical traditions of a community. I~m pleased to see that you have chosen the latter, to spend the extra time in planning and the extra funds in ensuring that the brick building will be a warm, personalized community focal point of Iowa Avenue. The signs that have recently been added draw attention to the fact that the building is, in fact, a public parking garage, as well as a handsomely designed office building. Those signs, in themselves, also add character to the building by their older time period graphic design. A great job. This is a job well done by all concerned. Thank you again for respecting the heritage of Iowa City and honoring the old City Hall tower, which was as much of the Iowa City skyline as the Johnson County Courthouse...and yes, the Old Capitol dome. (By the way, isn't it ironic and wasn't it shockingly unpredictable, that as soon as the old City Hall clock tower was resurrected, that the we would face having the Old Capitol dome, two blocks away, devastatingly burn, requiring it to be rebuilt according to its original design plans! Real life can certainly be stranger than fiction, can't it?) Please maintain the distinctively fine work and special touches on future projects. We need to keep Iowa City's special character and uniqueness perpetually alive, as you have done. Sincerely, Louise Nielsen MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Marian Karr 2 From: pu blic@mail.lib.uiowa.ed u Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:03 AM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Iowa Avenue Parking Ramp Signs - Wonderful! Praise to the City people responsible for getting the "PUBLIC PARKING" designed and up-and-ready on the Tower Place Parking Ramp! The design of the signage blends in so well with what you have been trying to do with the Iowa Avenue Streetscape so very well. The signage also lets people---whether they be visitors, newcomers, residents, and, yes, people who work downtown---know that it's O.K. to drive into that structure to park. The signs greatly counter-balance the signs on the Gilbert Street entrance side of the building, "RESERVED---Private Parking". I already have overheard conversations on coffee breaks and at lunch of people telling how happy they are knowing that public parking is allowed in the Tower Place office building/parking ramp structure. With the reduction in parking spaces on Iowa Avenue, drivers can turn into the Tower Place, knowing that it is for the public's use. In addition, drivers now have a place to park near the business district whereby they do not have to fear getting parking tickets on expired meters, as they spend time enjoying Downtown Iowa City. Thanks again for being so proactive. We all appreciate this, the finishing touch, on a superbly designed structure which enhances and complements the historical significance of the Territory of Iowa's first street. Kind Regards, John Darnauer Jan 8,2001 Robert Sunday "~ ~J~ Councilmen ak Large Iowa City 312 S. /st Ave 410 E. Washington St Marshalltown, IA 50158 Iowa City, IA 52240 'Gentlemen: Hopefully this information will be of use to you.. R.H. Sunday To Your Heolth ' ~ gelativ~ clean air. appa~'ently hardly any- some even sugge~ng the law iniringed on p ~S~onv bernoam the ~ of tobocco comfitulional rights- and manybarowner~ .~oke tim{ once made bar-hopping an eye- n~ted, apparently convinced thek~ stinginS, th~oat-hundn& health-threatening es would sul[er because patrmzs' wouM ~e e:q, edenee. Accmd~ to a a~te pofl, 73 dri~n awn,/. percent of bat patrons - includir~ a sizaMe' lnste, ag, ban ~eem to be f~in8 well, night- chunk of people who still smoke -- now favur Ufe js ~s robust as ever and even 44 Pescent ~' what vas initially a con~e,~al 1~ on 4moker~ now ad~k that they lilte the law. t smokJn~ in Calit'omia bar~ A~d 32 percent of tho~e polled said the smol~.free environment lures them into bern make~ acknowledg~n~ the dangen of sec- But bappie~ of a~ must be bar oncUm~d smoke, ndded nightclubs to the list who were ex/~sed to dangerom second]~nd ~ indoo~ f,w. ilities where smoking had been unoke on a d~ily bash. N~TION & Mo t Patrons Like Smoking Bon State survey finds growing support for Gqlit ornia's law s,c,~NTo aum~,_u Cm~,. l~"~etcent o~ the 'her ?tmes"..~r.- dow~ bom l~ pelce~ m tl~e Febp~a~y after a~ont~overs~d jawba~mednnok~m re, e~ les~ than once i monUt, jw~n,y-. But 20 perc~t ~ ~ ~u~ said percent said they went t, o a bm o~cetw~ othel',ttPe~.4.'e .s.~°king in the bat whe" fr~e en~tonmeflt, mccof~ to · ~$,Me--pi~ But when the,/do So, 41 percent said tJ~"y t~ o~- ~g I~trcmS were flouUnS the fiG- t~ rdtmed yes~. . '- * my one to two ~ Twenty4?_.n_pe~* .~m~t~4 bw. , . · l'ne poll, c~mmbs~ed W the state ~e- Amons the ~ s o~r findthg~ pertmem f~ Health Sc~et, found approval cent za~, they ~sy mo;¢ then two .ou'~- m 58 percent mid ~the ~kin8 b~. ~ ~t~ of the ja~ by people who frequem bars Sixty-one perce~ o~ thee mwey~d .were ~o dit~rence iff their desire to So increased by 24 p~rcerd over the ~atst two w~lit¢, S I percent n3a~ nnd 24 percent came, percent said thc ~ il~Jte~ horn the ~oy A~es. F~.f~wetT per(:eur but ~Z -De~tetepesteda~.empt~bYthet .o~, hailed from Soathem ' _., ·SS ~ercent M bar customet~ meas~e, the vast m~iortt,/m ~ ~'~ ~d they didn't smoke. ' .. ooe pe~ent sam it d~em'[ ma~ · """ ' smoke4~e, said D~ana Bonta, ~ate. they mpp~ted the law, up nora ~', per 'S 72 mrce~t ~ they were e~tne plying v~m the ¼w. ~ ~d in · st~te- r~nked noL h~vlng smokln8 m ~ut~,~u ot Smoking in ban s~opped m )~nu4uy tq~. ~ mpoflam. ' "¼ndmatk ]994. amt~moldng law, w L~m~n~ a~e~ t~dth ~oul~ fi~lly won fo~ ~m m Irt [9~, 66 i~cent o~ bar Fg, tfoOs ~ud a said the Jaw would hun busines~: -- two other tur,,e~ ~( he~ pl~o(~ O~e in S~ Ft~ci~o, the poll w~ done ~n )une ~ebruaP/, shoddy ~{~c~ the smoking ban E.m~lGregLuc~m a~d July among a group of l,O{~ people look eflcc~, nnd nnothe~ ~n A~. · gluca~dchtonic)e.com, Sent to Council Members Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Pfab, Kanner Marian Karr 2 From: Nerson, Gayle [gayle-nerson@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:41 AM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Subject: Thanks! Thank you for your work in passing the Smoke-Free Restaurant ordinance[ Gayle Nelson, M.S., R.N.C. Staff Nurse II TB Surveillance Program Coordinator Student Health Service 4189 WL The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 Telephone: 319-335-8362 Fax: 319-335-7247 God Bless America! Marian Karr From: Brianjdecker@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:32 AM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: RE: Smoking Ban I live in a small rural town near Iowa City and, just for the record, I don't smoke, never have, never will and think anyone who does is stupid. However, the blatant abuse of citizen rights is out of control. Seat belt laws, iow flow toilets, no smoking laws.., they are all blatant abuses of power. I often shopped and ate out in Iowa City and serviced my car and had planned to purchase a hew car from the Mazda dealer this spring. I will no longer do any of that. I won't spend a penny, let alone the thousands I would have. I just thought you might want to know. Marian Karr 2 From: amy-chades@uiowa.edu Sent: Friday, January 1 '1, 2002 8:04 AM Subject: smoking ban: Make it complete Dear Councillors, As an asthma sufferer, I've long been in favor of a restaurant smoking ban for Iowa City. However, I am extremely concerned that the 50/50 ban passed this week will turn out to be a real fiasco -- onerous for restaurant owners, confusing for patrons, an invitation to enforcement bumbling, costly to Iowa City, and on the whole a blow to the municipal "smoking as a public health issue" movement nationwide. We are, after all, going to be locked at as a test case for other small cities. If we're going to have a ban -- and I believe we ought -- then please vote to ban smoking completely in restaurants, and get rid of some of the implementation and enforcement headache. Sincerely, ~y Charles 804 Benton Dr. ~32 Iowa City Seventeen letters on file in the City Clerks office. no {n ee T HERITAGE ~1~ ~19 398 55~ The Heritage Agency. Memorandum Date: January 8, 2001 To: City of Iowa City Council Members From: Teresa Kelly, RD, LD<~.~ Nutrition Program Madager Re: Elderly Nutrition Program operating in the Iowa City Senior Center Linda Kopping, Director of the Iowa City Senior Center, has asked me zo provide some information to your group regarding the transition occurring in the management of the Elderly Nutrition Program. Specifically, · What is the rclatlonship between The Heritage Agency and Elder Services, Inc? Elder Services, Inc., is an independent non-profit corporation with which Heritage has contracted for years to provide County Facilkatlon for Cue Management for the Frail Elderly, A~sessment and Intervention, Chore, and RSVP services for Johnson County. In recent years Elder Services has extended County Facilitation for Case Management services to Cedar, Iowa and Washington Counties. At the time that The Heritage Agency and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors determined that their contractual relationship should change, in January 2002, Heritage identified existing agencies that were willing and able to assume management of the program. After evaluation, Elder Services was selected to be the provider of choice. · What are the plans for the near future for the Elderly Nutrition Program? On Monday, January, 14, 2002, Elder Services will maintain the program as it is currently being operated, with modifications occurring after evaluation, if needed. Such changes will occur only if the program services can be enhanced. We anticipate a seamless transition for the provision of meals to the various groups of participants. For further questions, please contact me at 800-332-5934, or email me at tkelly@kirkwood.cc.ia.us. For Life After Sixty The ! Icdmge Agency · Kir~ood Community College 6301 KirJ~'ood Boulevard S.W. * P.O. Box 2088 * Cedar Rapids, lo'wa 52406 319-398-555') · 1-800-3:~2-5934 · Fur 319-398 5533 www heritageaaa.org TOTAL P,~i Klink Letter to City Council ~ Marian Kart From: Judith Klink [judithklink@home.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:32 AM To: City Council of Iowa City Subject: Klink Letter to City Council Now that the attempt to prevent Southgate Development from building on the four acre parcel east of Harlocke Street has failed (for which our neighborhood will suffer the consequences), we wish to note the following: 1. The procedures by which decisions for construction in neighborhoods are made are badly flawed and need overhaul. 2. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance rezoning process needs to be preserved in its present form and all steps in this process fully publicized. In addition, that ordinance should be strengthened. When a developer wishes to carry out construction in some neighborhood, a plan is submitted to the city staff. Generally the neighborhood is not informed until months after the plan has already been thoroughly discussed with city staff. There is no mechanism whereby a neighborhood is informed at a sufficiently early stage so as to have some input. After notification signs appear, "good neighbor" meetings between developers and neighborhoods are generally not able to adjudicate differences, at least partially because the developer has already spent tens of thousands of dollars meeting city staff requirements and doesn't want to spend lots more on further changes. When neighborhoods finally learn of a development plan, since there is no mechanism for early input, legal and other delaying tactics are used in an attempt to achieve some input. Worse, Council often views the neighbors as reactionary, as not wanting any changes to occur, when in fact these tactics are the only mechanisms available to them. And then the Council must slog through hours of listening to irate citizens. City staff is caught between the two sides, but in view of the fact they have worked for months with the developer means that the neighbors often feel they cannot get good advice from the very people who are most knowledgeable about the whole process. Finally, there is the irony of asking councilors to vote on development issues, where, if they vote the "wrong way," they are legally reprimanded. Some of the presses initial reaction to our particular situation is that this four acre parcel, as well as other nearby properties, have been zoned RM44 for many years so that development was in any event inevitable. In point of fact, we have been trying for years to get these parcels of land rezoned, so as to conform with the city's own comprehensive plan. The fact that the most elementary aspects of zoning -- namely step zoning between high and Iow density housing --has been violated for so long is itself an indication of the lack of mechanisms for citizen input. In light of this and other cases, it appears that the mayor and some city staff want to change procedures so that a sensitive areas overlay rezoning never comes to the attention of the public, and official approval depends exclusively on staff recommendations. This is indeed a step backwards and makes it more difficult than ever for any meaningful dialogue between developer and neighborhood to occur. The opportunity for community participation so vital for a political democracy is lost without this. Also, knowing that there will be a public hearing will minimize the tendency for things to get locked up in private and encourage staffto anticipate the public input. Finally, specific provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance are subject to interpretation and judgment, and the more and the earlier public input is brought into play, the more likely that the best interpretation and the best 1/14/02 Klink Letter to City Council Page 2 of 2 judgment will prevail. We have also seen that a major related problem is that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance itself lacks muscle. Apparently in its earlier versions before final adoption in 1995, it moro accurately deserved its name and had more strength to carry out its task of protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Present procedures and ordinances do not effectively protect neighborhoods and sensitive areas. We feel that the procedures for informing neighborhoods of pending developments should be staff or builder initiated, occur at a much earlier time, and that the sensitive areas ordinance should be overhauled. A starting point would be to make the "good neighbor policy" mandatory, not voluntary, especially when infill properties are being developed. Voters should also question whether development which destroys the natural beauty formerly so abundant in our city is worth the gain in property tax revenue. Judith and William Klink 1101 Harlocke Street Iowa City, IA 52246 Home telephone number: 351-4342 William~s office: 335-1757 Home email: judithklink@home.com William's office emaii: william-klink@uiowa.edu January 14, 2002 1/14/02 15 January 2002 Iowa City City Council" The Iowa City Press Citizen is seeking to sell part of its land to a housing development contrary to an understanding they proposed when they sought approval of Planning and Zoning for building a plant along Dodge street~;~ At that time adjacent property owners felt that a single building on the spot was much to be preferred to a housing development there since the Press Citizen stated that except for the building itself they would leave the land in an undeveloped park like space. The~ Press Citizen should not be allowed to back out of its original intention which obtained the approval of Planning and Zoning. I suggest the City should condemn the property for expansion of Hickory Hill Park for the use of all the people of Iowa City rather than allow it to be sold to enrich the pockets of real ~tate developers. If put to a vote, I am certain the people~ of Iowa City would approve of such a proposal, preferring a park to paving Very truly yours Charles L Eble 2150 Dubuque Road Iowa City Iowa 52245 9632 P~r City Coa ndiJ~ts o~,lo~L:Cit¥ on a promfnent tid~;~to Hicko~~~ No,beast Di~tf~ Plan and should NOT ~ approved ~e pa tk is a n im~ nt pu blfc a s~ - fo~ ma ny o~lowa Ci~. T~is plan would diminis~ the pa~k ~or~e~. PROTECT THE PARK! I ask ~r you r suppo~ in p~t~in9 pr~ewin9 the integr[~ o{ Hickory Hdl Pa~k ~or [uture 9ene~tions. PL~SE DO NOTAPPROVE THESE P~NS AS NOW PROPOSED! Dar City Councilors oflow~ City, I heh~ve that a plan to build 20 'high-end luxury' houses on a prominent rtdgeb~p nex~ ~o Hickory Hill Park vfola~s the Nor~he~s~ Pfs~rlc~ Plan and should NOT b~ approved as prolx~. The I~rk is an imporl~lnt public ass,~ - for many of'us ~t is the ~ oFl~ Ci~y. This plan would diminish the park forever. PROTECT THE P, ARK.I I CZTY 0F ZOUA CZTY 1 I ask (or your suppo~ ~n pro'cec~fng the pu N~c's intc~ by p~S~rving the ~n~jri~y of Hickory Hill P~rk (or futu~ generations. PLEASE DO NO1' APPROVE THESE PLANS AS NOW Dar City · ...... I ~ltew that a ~i,r~ ~.l~,.'t~{ 20 h~gh~ff on a ~l~nt Hd~ ~ ~ Hic~ Hill Park vlota~ No~ D{~ Plan a~ s~ld NOT ~ ~ park is an im~nt pu~ic a~ T ~r many,[ us o[1~ Ci~. ~ls plan ~uld dlmlnlsh~ ask ~r ~r ~ in p~f~he ~ t~ in~H~ of HIc~ Hill park ~r futum gc~t OhS. ' De~r City Cou --"" I bellev&~at,~ r~ 'sGff~tld 2.0 No~J'~st District Plan and should NOT ~ approved as proposed. The Park is an important punic asset - for many Of.us it is the best olClo~l City. This plan would diminish the park forever.__ Ir CITY COU#CZLOR$ OF PROTECl'TI-IE PARK! SCZTY OF TOWA CZTy ~k q~[. UA~H~NGTON I ask for your support in prc/cecti~ the Pu bllc~nterest by prese~ tee IntegHty of'Hickory Hill ~rk for future 9er~qtions. PL SE OO .OT^PP OVE m£SE PL ,S ^S .OW PROPO. SED.I De~r City Co-ndlots of' Iow~ City, I believe that a plan to build 20 'high-end luxury' houses on ~ prominent rldgetop next to Hickory Hill Park violates the Northeast Pistrfct Plan a~ should NOT be approval as proposed. The park is an impotent punic asset - for many of.us it is the best of.lOW~ City. This plan would diminish the l~lrk forever. _ PROTECTTHE PARK! I CZTY OF ZOWA C,TV I ~I~'E' YASHZN~TON Li~,,cz?Y ~ I ask for you r support in protectincJ tr~ pu~lc*s in,ereCt [~/ · pms~n~ th~ lnt~Jr~ty of.Hicko~/Hill Park for future ~r~r~t~ons. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THESE PLANS AS NOW on a ~ml~nt Hd~ ~ ~ Hic~ Hill No~ D~ Plan a~ s~uld NOT ~ a~ as p~. ~ ~rk is an im~nt ~Nic a~ - ~ many ~us o~1~ Cf~. ~is plan ~ld diminish t~ . PRO.CT ~E PARK! p~ng t~ In~ ~ H[c~ Hill Park ~ P~SE ~ NOT APP~VE ~ESE P~N~ AS PROPOSED! ~ Dear City Cc~ ity, No~ DI~H~ Plan and s~uld NOT ~ a~ as p~d. ~ ~rk Is a n i m~ nt pu blic a~ - ~r ma ny o~ us ~t is t~ ~ f :;',, P~TECT ~E PARK~ ~ CZTV OF ZeU* CZTY ~ ~ ZOUA CZTY ZA S~D ask ~r ~ur ~ in p~ the ~lc's r~ ~ - p~ng the in~H~ o~Hic~ Hill Park ~r ~tum ~Uons. PL~E ~ NOTAPPROVE ~ESE P~N5 ~ NOW P~POSED~ , ~ ~ ~ NoR~ DJ~H~ PI~ ~ s~14 NOT ~ ~ ~s p~, o~1~ Ci~. ~l~ ~an ~1~ ~iminl~h the ~rk ~r. PRO~E PARK~ ~ I ask ~ ~r m~ In ~i~ t~ P~n9 t~ ln~r[~ of Hic~ Hill Park ~ ~tu~ ~o~. PL~E DO NOT APPROVE ~ESE P~NS ~ NOW PROPOSED~ Dear City COundlo~ of Iowa City, believe that a plan to build 20 'high-end luxury' houses on a prominent rldgetop next to Hickory Hill Park violate~ the Northeast District'Plan and should NOT be approved as prolX:~'d. The park Is an Imlx~ant public asset - ~r many of'us it is the best of'Iowa City. This plan would diminish the park ~ever. PROTI~CTTHE PARK! I C1'T¥ O~ ZOil~ CJ?¥ J J q~SE. YAS#ZI~TON J preservfncJ the Jntecjrity c~ Hickc~l~Hlll Park ~or ~uture generations. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THESE PLANS AS NOW PROPOSED! Dear City Co. m:ito~s of'Iowa Cfty, I behev~ that a plan to build 20 'high-end luxury' houses on a prominent rldgetop next to Hickory Hitl Park violates the Northeast District Plan and should NOT be approved as proposed. The park is an important public asset - ~r many of'us R is the best of'Iowa City. This plan would diminish the park ~omver. TO:"' cT~Y C~UNCTLO~ CZTY OF ZOYA CTTY I ask ~o~ you~ support in protecting the publlds Interest by pm~rving the in~rity of'Hickory Hill Park ~or I~utu re genera~ons. PLEASE DO NOTAPPROVE THF_SE PLANS AS NOW PRO~L~ED! , ~ Dear City Cou.~,____._.~,.,~ Ity, Ibelievetha~, ' IId20 on a p~mf~nt Hd~ ~ ~ Hic~ Hill Park viola~ NoR~ Df~l~ Plan a~ s~ NOT ~ a~ ~e park Is an im~nt pu~ic a~ - ~r many o~us o(1~ Ci~. ~is plan ~uld diminish t~ ~rk ~r. pROTE~ ~E PARK! . I ask ~r ~ur ~ in ~ing the public's p~ t~ In~H~ o~Hic~T Hill Park ~r PL~SE ~ NOT APPROVE ~E P~NS AS NOW PROPOSED! Dear City Cou City, ;~ .... ~ _ No~ D~[~ Plan and s~ld NOT ~ a~ as p~. ~ pa rk Is a n i~ nt pu NIc a~ - ~r ma ny o~ us It is t~ ~ C~TY CeUNCZL~ eF PROTECT~E PARK~ ~ ~T~ OF ~o.~ C~T~ PL~SE ~ NOTAPPROVE ~ESE P~NS AS NOW PROPOS~ __ Dear City Councilors of Iowa City, I believe that a plan to bull4 20 'high-end luxury' hours on a prominent rid~0:~p next to Hickory Hill Park violates the Northeast District Plan and should NOT be approved as proposed. The pa rk is a n important pu blfc asset - ~r ma ny o~ u s it is tt~ best oFIOWa City. T~ls plan woul4 41mlnlsh the park ~'orever. ,..,;s~, ~. ~._ d.stanc~ ~ ~ it/ti f'~Z~C~c c~o,~ ~- ~ ~ E. UA~HZN~TON PL~E DO NOT APPgO~[ ~E~E P~N~ A~ ~OW P~OPO~EDI Dea~ City Co. ndlors oir Iowa City, on ~ p~mi~nt f14~ ~ ~ H~ Hill P~ ~o1~ N~ Pi~ Pt~n ~ s~14 NOT ~ ~ ~s ~ Park Is ~n I~nt ~NIc~ - ~r m~ny oFl~ Ci~. ~is ~n ~ dimln~h ~he ~rk P~O~ ~E PA~! czty ~win9 t~ in~ oFHic~ Hill Park or PL~E ~ NOTAPP~VE ~ESE P~NS ~ NOW . r PROPOSED~ ~ ~ ~ ~22~ , De~r City Coencllors oflow~ City, I believe that a plan to build 20 'high-end luxury' nou~e~ on a prominent r~dgc-'~p ~ ~o Hickory Hill Park vfolab~ the Nor~he~s~ Dis~Hc~ Plan and should NOT be approved as p~posed. The park Is an important public asse~ - FOr many oFus it is ~he best of'Iowa City. This plan would 4Jminlsh the park Forever. PROTECT THE PARK! CZTY aw ze,~ CZTY TOYA CZTY TA saaqa I ask FOr your support in protecting the Pu Nlc's info. st ~ p~c~r~ tt~ i,t~r~ty of*HIcl~ Hill Park For ~tum ~ne~tfom. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THESE PLANS AS NOW PROPOSED.I on a Northeast District Plan and s~Id NOT ~ ~ as ~. ~e ~rk is a n ~nt pu ~lc ~ ~ ~any ~ ~ (t is t~ ~ PROTECT~E PARK~ cztY e~ zov~ CZTY ze.* CZT~ Z~ ~ ask ~r ~r su~ ~n ~ t~ punic's in~ ~ p~ t~ int~ of Hfc~ Hill Park ~ ~tum ~om. No~ Di~H~ Plan and ~uld NOT ~ a~ ~ ~rk is a n f m~ n~ ~ blic a~ '- ~ ma ny o~ us o~1~ Ci~. ~ls ~an ~uld diminish the park ~r. zowA cxrv z~ seeqa I ask ~r your ~ ~n p~ing the pu~l~s ~ng ~ in~r[~ o~HIc~ Hill Park ~ No~ Pi~i~ Plan a~ s~14 NOT ~ a~ as ~. park ~s an ~m~n~ puN~c a~ - ~ many opus ~t Is ~ ~ o(1~ Ci~: ~s plan ~ld diminish t~ ~r. " ' - PRO'CT ~E PARK~ I CZTY eF Zo.A I ask ~ ~r su~ ~n ~i~ t~ pu N~c's ~ ~ p~wl~ t~ in~H~ ~Hi~ Hill Par~ ~r ~tum ~ne~ons. PL~E DO NOT APPROVE ~E P~NS AS NOW Dca r Cl~y Co. nt:ltors of I o.~ ~ty, on a prominent rfc~ to Hic~~'t~ No~ Di~ Plan and s~uld NOT ~ park is a n I m~ nt pu NIc a~ - o~1~ Cf~. ~{s ~an ~ld diminish the park ~r. Te~ PRO~E PARK[ CZTY OF IO~A CZTY P~SE DO NOT APPROVE ~E~ P~NS PROPOSED! Dear City Co,,r~dlo~s of Iowa City, I believe that a plan to build 20 'high-end luxu~/' houses on a prominent rfdgeb~ next to H~ckory Hill Park viota~es the Nor~heasl: Distrid: P{an and should NOT be approved as prc~, The park is an important public asset - for many of'us it is the best of'lowa City. This plan would PROTECT THE PAP. K! I ask ~or presewir genera~ons. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THESE PLANS AS NOW PROPOSED.I Dear City Co,,ncllo~ ot~ Iowa City, , I believe that a plan to build 20 'high-end luxury' house~ on a prominent ridgetop next to Hickory Hill Park violates the Northeast D~rtct Plan and should NOT be approved as proposed. The park Is an important pu blic as~-~ - ~or many o~us it is the bes~ of'l°wa City~ This plan would diminish the rk ~omver. PROTECT THE PARK! I ask ~or you r suppor~ in protecting the PUNic's interest by preserving tbe intecjrity o~C Hickory Hill Park ~r f~tu re generations. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THESE PLANS AS NOW PROPOSED.I De~ Cl~ Co, City. { bel~.ve'~t~ build 2o~~hc~ ---- on a p~ornlnent rid ,gc.~op No~ Pl~l~ Plan a~ s~ul4 NOT ~ a~ as p~. ~ ~tk Is an im~nt punic oFl~ Cl~. ~is plan ~ul4 diminish t~~ PROTE~ ~E PA~KI I ask ~r y~r ~i~ ~ In~H~ ~ Hic~ HIll Park ~ fu~um ~m~ OhS. PL~SE ~ NOT APPROVE ~ESE P~NS AS NOW N~E I ~ ! ~ I~r Cl~y Co, nd . No~ DI~ Pl~n ~nd s~ul~ NOT PRO~ ~E PARK! ~ ZOUA CZTY ZA SEEqo J I I ~ ~ in~ ot Hic~ Hill P~k PL~SE DO NOT APPROVE ~ESE P~NS AS NOW P~P~!~ i I~r Cl~ Councdo~s of Io~r~ ~ I~llcvc tt~t a plan ~o build 20 'high-e~ lu~' hou~ on ~ ~l~nt ~4~ No~ Di~'~ Plan ~ s~14 NOT ~ ~ is p~. ~ p~rk ~s ~n Im~n~ pubhc o(l~a Ci~. ~is plan ~uld diminish the p~ PROTECT ~E PARK! XOWA CXTY I ask ~r y~r ~ in p~wl~ t~ In~H~ ~Hic~ Hill Park ~r ~tu~ ~tlons. PL~E ~ NOT~P~RO~ ~ESE P~NS AS NOW PROPO . I~r CI~ Councllo~ of Io~r~ CI~,, I I~l~ve that a ~n ~o-~d4 20 'high~ lu~' h~ on ~ p~ml~nt ~idg~ ~ ~ Hlc~ Hill P~k No~ Di~ Plan ~ should NOT ~ ~ ~s ~ p~k is ~ im~n~ ~Nic a~ - ~ ~ny ~us o/1~ Ci~. ~is plan ~ diminish the ~rk ~r. [ C~TY C..CZLGR~ 0,~ PRO'CT ~E PA~ ~ CZTY / q~lE. UA~HZNGTON ..... :. / Xo,k CZTY XA I ask ~ ~ur ~ in ~ t~ ~Nic's p~ ~ In~fl~ o~Hi~ Hill ~rk ~r ~u~ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 3, 2002 To: City Clerk From: Beth Pfohl, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner ~ Re: Item for January 22, 2002 City Council Meeting: Designation of one cab stand located in the 100 block of Linn Street As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(19), one on-street public parking meter in the 100 block of Linn Street will be removed and the space will be conveded into a cab stand for the Old Capitol Cab taxi company. Comment: This action is being taken at the request of the Old Capitol Cab taxi company and has been approved by the Director of Parking and Transit. The meter being eliminated is identified by the ID number L105S. The annual fee for a cab stand in the central business district is $660 per year. Indexbc\memo\5-1 BP.doc John Kammermeyer, M.D. Allergist 404 E. Bloomington Phone (319) 354-7014 Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Fax (319) 354-3196 January 8, 2002 Iowa City City Council Civic Center 410 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Member: I am sending you this letter concerning Coralville's expansion of their tax increment financing district to include not only the Coral Ridge Mall but also their proposed hotel and convention center, and also apparently the Iowa Child Project. As an aside, as far as I am concerned, the Iowa Child Project is a multimillion dollar boondoggle. This is a terrible waste of money and resources and is certainly not going to benefit Iowa children very much. It is really a tourist attraction to try and lure tourists and money into the area and I predict it will be a failure. The money for the Iowa Child Project could much better be spent aiding school districts around the state which would indeed help Iowa Children. Be that as it may, Coralville's expansion of their TlF district means that I and every resident of Iowa City, and indeed every resident of Johnson County will be forced to help support and pay for the Coralville Hotel and Convention Center and the Iowa Child Project. This is grossly unfair and should be illegal. This is indeed taxation without representation. The more I think about this prospect the more it angers me. I am therefore urging that the Iowa City City Council and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors both go on record as strongly opposed to Coralville's extension of their TIF district. Also the state law that allows Coralville to do this should be changed. Sincerely yours, John Kammermeyer, M.D. JK;km C) :~,:! January 18, 2002 Mayor Emie Lehman 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Sir, I am writing to express my disappointment in elected government officials for allowing the no-smoking rules in your city. I am a non-smoker, but I feel smokers are being discriminated against by you. They smoke in their designated areas, if the self-centered non-smoking public allows it. Second-hand smoke does not bother or harm non-smokers if the public areas are designed properly and designated areas are in the logical place. I feel lawmakers sometimes "grease the squeaky wheel" only because others don't constantly complain to them. It is time someone stands up for everyone's rights - not just non-smokers. I hope other cities don't adopt your non-smoking laws because I, for one, will be spending my time and money in their restaurants and public places rather than those in Iowa City.. I'm sure you have lost the votes of smokers, as well as us non-smokers, who don't feel the world should revolve around them alone. Sincerely, Cheryl Davies 411 W. Rose Street Wilton, Iowa 52778 Cc: Mayor Jim L. Fausett Coralville, Iowa Mayor Charlie Brooke Davenport, Iowa Representative Jim Leach Des Moines, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley Des Moines, Iowa Re-paving brick streets ~' o~ ( %~,-- -, Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr '--.) From: Steve Atkins Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:23 AM To: 'Janene-Pan fil@noellevitz.com' Cc: Dale Helling; *City Council Subject: Re-paving brick streets Ms. Panfil and Mr. Stumbo: This note is follow-up to your comments directed to the City Council. There is no proposal by the City Council to pave over brick streets. What they are considering is possibly deleting the $20,000 that is put aside annually to repair and refurbish brick streets. Although this would mean they will be left to their existing condition, there is no intent at this time to pave them over. Brick streets are costly to repair and of course there are a variety of opinions as to whether we should continue to repair them as is or look for some other combination of partial asphalt with brick intersections, etc. Hope this helps. Steve Atkins, City Manager ..... Original Message ..... From: Janene Panfil [mailto:Janene-Panfil~noellevitz.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:43 AM To: 'council~iowa-city.org' Subject: Re-paving brick streets I understand that in the next fiscal budget the City is considering repaving brick streets with asphalt as one of the proposed economizing measures. As a resident of the Northside neighborhood with my home at the intersection of Linn and Davenport streets, my family and I are advocates for preserving the Northside's remaining brick streets. Some points you might wish to consider in your deliberations include: 1) Brick streets LAST and can be repaired just as asphalt can be. 2) Brick streets are important to the character of older neighborhoods. We all believe that these older the neighborhoods matter, here's a chance to show our commitment. 3) Brick streets are part of the City's historic heritage. Considerable money was spent in laying brick downtown as part of the Iowa Avenue Parking Ramp project, so why wouldn't we want to preserve the old brickwork already in existence? 4) Preserving brick streets ultimately has to do with funding priorities. We all realize that tax dollars stretch only so far, but we would also ask the Council to recognize the importance of returning some of that tax money in the form of services for older neighborhoods, where many taxpayers live. Thanks in advance for your consideration to this important issue that impacts the ongoing character of our older neighborhoods. Janene Panfil and Donald Stumbo 225 E. Davenport St. Iowa City, IA 52245 1/22/02 Marian Kerr From: Lisa Mollenhauer Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:22 PM To: 'Sewell/ACTInc@act.org'; *City Council Cc: timothy-holman@uiowa.edu Subject: RE: Brick Streets Ms. Sewell: This note is to acknowledge receipt of your email to Council. They will accept it on their next Formal Agenda Consent Calendar. Please see the following response the City Manager sent this morning to a citizen also concerned about this issue: This note is follow-up to your comments directed to the City Council. There is no proposal by the City Council to pave over brick streets. What they are considering is possibly deleting the $20,000 that is put aside annually to repair and refurbish brick streets. Although this would mean they will be left to their existing condition, there is no intent at this time to pave them over. Brick streets are costly to repair and of course there are a variety of opinions as to whether we should continue to repair them as is or look for some other combination of partial asphalt with brick intersections, etc. Hope this helps. Steve Atkins, City Manager Lisa Lisa Mollenhauer Administrative Assistant to the City Manager (319) 356-5010 ..... Original Message ..... From: Sewell/ACTInc@act.org [mailto:Sewell/ACTInc@act.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:08 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Cc: timothy-holman@uiowa.edu Subject: Brick Streets City Council Members, Do not pave the few remaining brick streets left in our town. These streets are apart our historic heritage. It would be a crime to lose them. I feel very fortunate to live on one of the few remaining gems. I've observed street repairs without the placement of an ugly asphalt patch. Brick pavers help reduce traffic speeds a real problem in this high density neighborhood. Please reconsider any decisions to pave these streets. With so few left it's hard to imagine a significant cost saving to the city. It certainly can't out way the benefit they give this great old neighborhood. Meredith Sewell 420 Fairchild Street 337-6177 Lisa Mollenhauer From: JMorantype@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 21,2002 8:50 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Ordinance I want to applaud you for passing the smoke-free restaurants ordinance. Thank you for this great step in protecting the health of the public. Joyce Moran POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 January 16,2002 Mayor Ernest W. Lehman 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At a regular meeting on January 8, 2002 the PCRB voted in open session to request an extension of its 45-day repoding deadline for the Public Report according to the City Code for PCRB Complaint #01-05 and #01-06 for the following reasons: · Due to timelines, scheduling, and further investigation. · PCRB Complaint #01-05 and #01-06 - Public Reports presently due February 4, 2002 · 30-day Extension request- Public Reports due on March 6, 2002. The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, John Stratton, Chair Police Citizens Review Board 12 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 \ (319)356-5041 January 16, 2002~, Mayor Ernost W. I_ohma~ 410 E. Washin§ton Streot~ Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council ~rs: At a regular meeting on Januar 2002 the PCRB voted request an extension of its 45-da~ deadline for the according to the City Code for PCRB Complaint #01-05 '~d #01-06 for th~ reasons: · Due to timelines, and fur investigation. · PCRB Complaint #01-05 Public Reports presently due February 4, 2002 · 30-day Extension request- ~lic Reports due on March 6, 2002. The Board appreciates atter. Sincerely, John Stratton, Chair Police Citizens Rev Board DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson; board members absent: Bill Hoeft and Bev Smith. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh, PCRB staff Kellie Tuttle. Aisc in attendance was Chief Winkelhake (7:19 P.M.)of the ICPD. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Request a 30-day extension, to February 6, 2002, to complete the Public Reports on #01-05 and #01-06 due to timelines, scheduling, and further investigation. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar as amended: · Minutes of the meeting on 12/11/01 · Minutes of the meeting on 12/27/01 · ICPD General Order 01-09 (Narcotics, Organized Crime and Vice Investigations) · ICPD General Orders Alphabetic Index · ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01-21 (Unusual Occurrences) · ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01-22 (Special Assignments/Training) · ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01-23 (Recruitment) · ICPD Standard Operating Guide Index Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeff & Smith absent. NEW BUSINESS No new business OLD BUSINESS PCRB Video: Bob Hardy attended with another cut of the PCRB video for the Board. Hardy said at a previous meeting it was suggested to insert video over Board member's talking, and due to lack of documentation of the Board, it didn't work well and was taken out. Hardy also distributed a short script for the Board to review that would be added to the end of the video visually and verbally along with the complaint form in the background. He suggested it would be good to give information about contacting the Board on some copies of the video, but they may want to leave it off a few copies because it may look like the Board was begging for people to come in and make a complaint. 1 DRAFT The Board viewed the video and gave their opinions. Watson pointed out that there is no backslash in PCRB. Legal Counsel Pugh feels there might be some misinformation about the accreditation process in the video and PCRB's involvement. Hardy will have the Chief take a look at it. The Chief gave some background on the Police Department and the accreditation process. Overall the Board was pleased with the video. The Board reviewed the script suggested for the end of the video. The Board agreed to add the phone number and address for the City Clerk's office. They also made minor changes to the last paragraph which include changing "on file" to "filed" and omitting "about which you have filed the complaint". Discussion on ICPD General Orders 0'1-06 & 0'1-07: Watson's only question on GO#01-06 (Juvenile Procedures) was whether the age of 12 applied to homes and any other property. The Police Chief made a clarification that it should read age12 and under not under the age of 12. GO#01-07 (Police Media/Relations/Public Info) discusses what should and shouldn't be released to the press. The Chief explained how they formulated that order. Chief Winkelhake explained to the Board the color codes found on the General Orders. Red are high liability and very important to know. Green means that the officer should know what's in it but not verbatim. The black ones are dealt with on a regular basis and are not high liability issues. This information will eventually be on the servers and officers will be able to bring up this information in the cars. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Chief Winkelhake updated the Board about the Police Department accreditation process. He acknowledged Sgt Hurd, Accreditation Manager, his efforts. The Chief noted it is common to have to re-write a dozen or more orders; however when the Police Department went through the accreditation process they only had one order that needed a word change. One other item noted was to add a lock on the evidence refrigerator. Chief Winkelhake stated the Accreditation Board is going to suggest some of the procedures/policies that the Iowa City Police Department has to other organizations. 2 DRAFT MEETING SCHEDULE · January 22, 2001,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · February 5, 2001,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · March 12, 2001,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Stratton will not be at the March 12 meeting. Watson has a potential conflict with the February 5 meeting. STAFF INFORMATION The Board received their extension request on Complaint #01-02 from the City Council. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds,and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Open session adjourned at 7:42 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:45 P.M. Motion by Watson, seconded by Horton to schedule a name- clearing hearing for Complaint #01-05 for January 22, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. DRAFT Motion by Watson, seconded by Horton to request 30-day extension for Complaint #01-05 and 01-06 due to timelines, scheduling, and further investigation. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Motion by Watson and seconded by Horton to review the Chief's report on PCRB Complaint #01-04 at level 8-8- 7(B)(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation, in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Motion by Watson and seconded by Stratton to review the Chief's report on PCRB Complaint #01-05 and #01-06 at level 8-8-7(B)(1)(b), interview/meet with complainant, and 8- 8-7 (B)(1)(e), performance by board of its own additional investigation, in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. The Board directed staff to write a letter to the Chief of Police requesting a copy of the in-car recording device regarding the incident in Complaint #01-06. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Watson and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:49 P.M. 13 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 January 16,2002 Mayor Ernest W, Lehman 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At a special meeting on January 14, 2002 the PCRB voted in open session to request an extension of its 45-day reporting deadline for the Public Report according to the City Code for PCRB Complaint #01-04 for the following reasons: · Due to time restraints for scheduling a name~clearing hearing. · PCRB Complaint #01-04 - Public Report presently due January 28, 2002 · 30-day Extension request- Public Report due on February 27, 2002. The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, John Stratton, Chair Police Citizens Review Board DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - January 14, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 4:33 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Loren Horton, Bev Smith, John Stratton and John Watson; board members absent: Bill Hoeff. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh, PCRB staff Kellie Tuttle. MOTION FOR EXTENSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to request a 30-day extension, to February 27, 2002, for the filing of the public report with the City Council on Complaint #01-04 in order to schedule a name-clearing hearing. Chair Stratton said the extension was necessary to meet the notice requirement of 10 working days. The previously set date of January 22, 2002, did not meet those requirements. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoeft absent. Directed staff to write a request to the City Council for an extension on Complaint#01-04. The Board discussed dates and scheduling issues for the name- clearing hearing. Then directed staff to schedule the name-clearing hearing for February 5, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. Watson also mentioned that he could not attend the MATS training on February 6, 2002. Horton will attend in his place. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Request a 30-day extension, to February 27, 2002, to complete its Public Report on #01-04 in order to schedule a name-clearing hearing. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Smith and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoeft absent. Meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M.