HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-09 Info Packet
& =. 1
~~~~~Ilt
-..;;:..... -""'m"""
~~ ~
CiTY OF IOWA CiTY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
March 9, 2006
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
IP1 Tentative City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas
IP2 Memorandum from Council Member Vanderhoef: 2006 National League of Cities Priorities
IP3 Memorandum from Council Member Vanderhoef: Seats Rider's Guide
IP4 Letter from the City Manager to Swen Larson: FY05 Revenues/Expenditures for the
Building Inspection Division
IP5 Memorandum from the Director of Parking and Transit and the Transit Manager: Transit
Ridership by Route
IP6 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Absence
IP7 Memorandum from the Civil Engineer to the Public Works Director: Mormon Boulevard Trek
Extension- Willow Creek to Old Highway 218 University of Iowa Property Acquisition
Agreement
PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES
IP8 Parks and Recreation Commission: February 8, 2006
IP9 Animal Shelter Advisory Board: January 25, 2006
IP10 Historic Preservation Commission: February 22,2006
,;; 1
-",,= -~...
:f~W;!:~~
"'<::..~ _...~
-~ -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
City Council Meeting Schedule and
Work Session Agendas
UITJ
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS I
. MONDAY, MARCH 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p' City Council Work Session
. TUESDAY, MARCH 21
7:00p Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, APRIL 4
5:00p
7:00p
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Special Council Work Session
Formal Council Meeting
. MONDAY, APRIL 17
6:30p City Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, APRIL 18
7:00p Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. MONDAY, MAY 1
6:30p City Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, May 2
7:00p Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. MONDAY, May 15
6:30p City Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, May 16
7:00p Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. MONDAY, JUNE 12
6:30p Special Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, JUNE 13
7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. MONDAY, JUNE 26
6:30p Special Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, JUNE 27
7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. MONDAY, JULY 17
6:30p Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, JULY 18
7:00p Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
I! 1
::::~:'_IIt...
~~~W~~
-.;;;;.... ,,1m."
....... ...
CITY OF IOWA CITY~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 8, 2006
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Dee Vanderhoef, Council Member
RE:
2006 National League of Cities Priorities
Attached are the NLC top priority lobbying efforts for this Congress of Cities. Please
contact me with any questions you may have.
Attachment: Pages 13-202006 Advocacy Priority
2006 Advocacy Priority
NstiiMitJ lespe I>/Cfti;e. '" }:!.{JT f~OJt$~/,~.''aJ1iiJ 1l...-e,I1~e_. AlL1' . L'\'l~::>fu"I!i't(;'''\. DC ZLf.'i.l,J .. >>1-(,'W_r.k',L't9
The Issue: Community Development Block Grant
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is the federal government's
largest and most flexible source of funding provided to local governments to revitalize
neighborhoods, eliminate blight, increase affordable housing stock, create jobs, and
generate new economic investment.
The Bush Administration has proposed cutting the CDBG program by $1 billion - over
25 percent of the program.
Message to Congress
. CDBG is a jobs creator. CDBG grants helped create or retain over 90,000 jobs in
2004 alone.
. CDBG is a smart long-term investment. Over the 30-year life of the program,
CDBG has leveraged nearly $324 billion in new private investment in our nation's
communities, a three to one return on investment. On average in eligible
cornmunities, CDBG dollars finance 75 percent of new public facilities and services,
62 percent of owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, and 56 percent of business
assistance programs.
. CDBG is a catalyst for creating more affordable housing. CDBG helped more than
11,000 families become new homeowners in 2004. It also helped rehabilitate nearly
19,000 rental housing units and more than 112,000 owner-occupied single family
homes, while adding to the stock of clean, decent, and affordable housing in America,
and supported the President's call for an ownership society.
. CDBG is a mechanism for building public infrastructure. In 2004, CDBG projects
served more than nine million people by helping to build new or reconstruct existing
public facilities, roads, fire stations, libraries, and water and sewer systems. The
federal government also uses CDBG to respond to natural and man-made disasters,
and to provide short-term relief efforts, mitigation actions, and long-term recovery.
Request to Congress
. Increase CDBG formula funding to $4.5 billion; and
. Oppose any proposal to consolidate CDBG with other programs.
13
"' ~.." ," .C:
-,",'~".'"-<..,.."
-,,""""""'l<;"',,'C"'~_""'"..-
The Impact of CDBG on [CITY)
NOTE: Use the scenarios below to make the strongest case for the necessity of CDBG funding for
your city. Feel free to go off-template if your city has used CDBG funding in an original way.
. The CDBG program provides the foundation for revitalization efforts that bring public
and private interests together to improve communities. In [CITY]:
Please select an up-and-coming neighborhood in your city where CDBG funds were
critical for initial success and, in bullet format:
1.) Describe the community/''pre-CDBG funding" with, for instance, information
on the condition of houses (vacant or uninhabitable), crime (drug dealing,
home and auto-theft), and quality of local business (vacant storefront, empty
retail space; proliferation of liquor stores, payday loan outlets.)
2.) Describe the CDBG project. Include the amount of CDBG funding committed
to the project and the amount of private investment. Identify key players (e.g.
community development corporations, neighborhood associations, banks,
developers). Importantly, include the amount of time it took between
negotiating the deal's terms and releasing initial CDBG funds.
3.) Describe the community/''post-CDBG funding" with,for instance, information
about homeownership rates, affordable rental units, decreased criminal
activity, and improved local economic health (e.g. new retail, restaurants,
banking centers, office space, etc...)
. The CDBG program provided the foundation for commercial and infrastructure
improvements, attracting businesses andjobs into neighborhoods. In [CITY]:
Please select an up-and-coming neighborhood in your city where CDBG funds were
critical for initial success and, in bullet format:
1.) Describe the community/''pre-CDBG funding" with, for instance, information
on unemployment and crime.
2.) Describe the CDBG project. Include the amount of CDBG fUnding committed
to the project and the amount of private investment. Identify key (e.g.
neighborhood associations, banks, developers, new businesses). Include the
amount of time it took to put the deal together bifore the City could release the
funding for initial work/groundbreaking.
3.) Describe the effect on the community/''post-CDBG funding" with,for instance,
employment figures, environmental improvements resulting from infrastructure
upgrades, number of new businesses, and decreases in criminal activity.
For more information, contact [individual, municipality, state rnunicipalleague) at [phonel
e-rnall] or Mike Wallace, Senior Legislative Counsel, National League of Cities, at (202)
626-3025 or wallace@nlc.org.
14
~.
2006 Advocacy Priority
--,' - - ~ NatJIWJ<tllt!iI(JwOIlCiti(Jj-. J21J,1 Pt:lt.!Jl;s...n.'81};,9A~/e.fw~.Nly' . l'l'851:',\'1If!Ol1..D{ .i\.l',l{M . ~t~i/>>'J),'_!'_U~l
Ol! R STREl'iGTH . . .
The Issue: Communications Act Reform - Franchising
Franchising is an essential local tool municipalities use to manage public roads and to protect
public safety when they grant private companies access to local streets and sidewalks.
Franchising also ensures public compensation when a private company uses public land to sell
services to their customers. Many members of Congress have focused their telecommunications
reform efforts on changing the franchising process.
Message to Congress
. Talk with cities before taking action. Members of Congress should not move ahead with
proposals to reform franchising without consulting local elected leaders first. Do not leave
local citizens and local elected officials without the tools necessary to run local affairs.
Federal legislative language must match Congressional promises.
. Do no harm. Local elected leaders welcome new video competitors into the marketplace to
drive down prices and increase service quality. Current efforts at Communications Act
reform, however, could significantly undermine cities ability to perform their core functions:
- Cities must be able to ensure their citizens' convenience and safety because
communications companies put their infrastructure underneath city roads next to
electricity conduits, natural gas, and other equipment.
- Franchises ensure that many cities have institutional data networks that connect police
officers, fire fighters, and city workers. Franchises ensure that the public has access to
critical information through local cable access ("PEG") channels.
- Like the federal government coilecting funds for the federal budget through spectrum
auctions, franchises ensure that private companies that use public assets at the local level
compensate citizens for that use.
- Congress must not preempt local zoning, taxation, public safety rules, and auditing
authority in federal legislation addressing communications reform. Jurisdiction moreover,
must remain in the courts and not shift to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC).
Request to Congress
· Support principles put forward by Senators Conrad Bums (R-Montana) and Daniel Inouye
(D-Hawaii) that place local authority at the center of franchising reform.
. Oppose any legislation that would endanger core local functions including:
Management ofthe local streets and sidewalks;
Compensation for private use of public land;
Public communications needs; and
- Police powers and existing court enforcement authority.
· Oppose expected legislation, sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe
Barton (R- Texas), unless it protects core local functions.
. Oppose the following bills which do not protect these core city functions - Broadband
Investment and Consumer Choice Act (S.1504) , Video Choice Act of 2005 (S.1349), Digital
Age Communications Act of2005 (S. 2113) and Video Choice Act of 2005 (H.R.3146).
15
-
.
The Impact of Franchise Reform on [City]
Franchising is an essential tool for [CITY] to manage our public roads, protect public
safety, and ensure compensation for our citizens where a private company uses public
land to sell services to customers.
[NOTE: Please use as many of the following examples as you may have data or as seem
useful, or develop your own examples, in bullet format, using data/evidence that fits
within each heading.)
Management ofthe Right of Way
. In [CITY], the failure of [company] to comply with franchising rules caused
[describe traffic/safety problem such as poor performing infrastructure,
equipment left in the ground]
. [CITY] currently regulates the use of utilities such as gas, water, and electricity
through franchising agreements.
Compensation for Use ofthe Right of Way
. Franchise revenue represents rent paid for private companies using public
property to offer commercial services to the public. [CITY] currently charges
L%] and receives [$ 1 from cable franchise revenues.
. [CITY's] franchise revenues comprise U percent of the city budget used to
(provide, in bullet format, details].
. [City] receives [$~ per year in support for [#/cable access channels] from the
cable operator.
Public and Safety Communications Benefits from Franchising
. Institutional networks are an important tool for local government connecting
police, fire, and city workers. Without this network, [cite examples like, "city
workers could not send email and manage its website," "police officers and fire
fighters could not obtain up-to-the-minute communication"].
. [CITY] estimates that its institutional network is worth [$ 1 to the city, and
that it would cost [$ 1 to obtain this service through other means.
Competition and Speed of Approval
. [CITY] has [never/_times] been asked to grant a franchise to a new competitor
offering video or cable services. [NOTE: consider including length of time
necessary to approve franchises. if it is a relatively short period like six months.]
. [New competitor company] that received a franchise was required to serve
[CITY] over the course of [#] years.
For more information, contact [individual, municipality I SML) at [phone I e-mail), or
contact Cheryl Leanza, Principal Legislative Counsel, or Christina Fletcher Loftus,
National League of Cities, at (202) 626-3020.
16
2006 Advocacy Priority
NatJonid Leapt> rd CiDe' ,. r,W' P'fOJ1~'ll\.'liJ'Ii'a A...'enufl, ,I\l~'j." .. Wasr.'....lf;!1:\t1.. DC i'i,'(!(,1.{ . ~"'1"VM"t~' .11!9
The Issue: Communications Act Reform - Municipal Broadband
Access to high-speed broadband Internet services are an essential element for a thriving local
economy. The Bush Administration has established a priority for universal affordable access by
2007.
Cities around the country are considering ways to ensure that these services are available to their
small businesses and citizens. However,' an increasing number of state legislatures have adopted
legislation that severely limits or prohibits cities from these projects. Meanwhile, the United
States has fallen to 16th in the world in broadband penetration behind countries such as South
Korea.
Message to Congress
. Cities are technology innovators. Cities can playa unique role in promoting access to new
and competitive technologies.
. Cities promote economic vitality. Small businesses, many located in municipalities, cannot
compete in a global economy without reasonably priced access to broadband services. In
approximately 95 percent of the municipal broadband networks built to date, the private
sector has been involved in helping design, build, and operate the network, from systems
planning, to hardware and software installation, to monitoring the network when in
operation--creating new business opportunities and jobs in the process.
. Everyone must help. To implement the Administration's goal for broadband deployment
successfully, the public, private, and philanthropic sectors must work together. The models
for municipal involvement in offering broadband vary widely - reflecting innovation and
creativity in addressing this pressing national problem.
. Current offerings do not meet current needs. Only 30 percent ofD.S. households subscribe to
broadband services, reflecting high prices charged by incumbents, too few choices in many
markets, and the unavailability ofthe services in many areas.
Request to Congress
. Support the Community Broadband Act of 2005, ( S.1294), sponsored by Senators John
McCain (R-Arizona) and Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey), which protects local
government's authority to make possible advanced communications services to their citizens;
. Oppose provisions in the Broadband and Consumer Choice Act (S.1504), sponsored by
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada), which severely limit the ability of municipalities to offer
broadband services; and
. Oppose the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005 (H.R.2726), sponsored by Rep.
Pete Sessions (R-Texas), which prohibits municipalities from offering broadband services.
17
Municipal Broadband in [State]
Municipal broadband networks provide an essential catalyst for market competition,
economic development, and universal, affordable Internet access for all Americans.
Legislation in Congress could short-circuit promising projects aimed at connecting
communities in [STATE] and improving the way cities deliver critical services and
benefits.
NOTE: State leagues rather than individual cities may be better able to complete
this template.
. In [STATE] law, cities are currently [Select: allowed/prohibited/substantially
limited/"legislation is being proposed that would permit/substantially
limit/prohibit'1 to offer broadband services.
See links for state limitations at: http://www.appanet.org/files/PDFslTelecom-
Flver.pdf?sn.IternNumber=9965&tn.ItemNumber= 10000 ;
htto://www.baller.comlpdfs/Baller Proposed State Barriers.pdf
. [Actual # / _ percent of total households] of households in [STATE] lack
broadband, which may influence the Administration's goal of achieving universal
affordable broadband by 2007.
I Please see the FCCs latest broadband report for state-specific data.
. [Describe, in bullet format, examples of cities offering broadband services,
include private sector involvement and resulting economic development.]
Use the following web resources to find projects in your state:
www.muniwireless.org,
http://www.freepress.net/communitvinternet/networks.php.
htto://www.ftthcounci\.org/]
For more information, contact [individual, municipality / SML] at [phone / e-mail],
or contact Christina Fletcher Loftus at (202) 626-3020 or by email at loftus@nlc.org.
18
::.:
""
Ci
2006 Advocacy Priority
OliR ~'TREi\GTII
The Issue: Immigration Reform
The growth of the undocumented population presents a serious challenge to
municipalities because of its escalating impact on local budgets, service delivery, and
community life. Comprehensive immigration reform is a top legislative priority for both
Congress and the Bush Administration in 2006.
J::.::.n Pi!-{;I'1i>;"j'/JJh~lt ;1v.:."h:J~. NL'Y . H'ESi,;-/,ll~;!L!l.' DC ll;\y,~r . ~'i'UlVi,',r.r!.' 1.>.'9
Message to Congress
. Comprehensive legislation, Any immigration reform must occur in a comprehensive,
thoughtful manner that takes into account local perspectives and local impacts. The
"Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act," (H.R. 4437)
passed by the U,S, House of Representatives in 2005, addressed the issue in a
piecemeal fashion. The bill includes several provisions that violate the principles of
federalism and place burdensome unfunded federal mandates on local governments.
. Federal, not local, enforcement. The federal government must improve the
enforcement of its immigration laws. Local law enforcement officers should not be
mandated to enforce civil immigration laws which would raise constitutional
questions and divert local personnel from their primary public safety duties,
. Federal-local partnership without unfunded mandates. Without sufficient
reimbursement, requiring local law enforcement personnel to detain criminal aliens
must not occur. Congress should increase funding for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP) to provide communities the necessary resources they
need to detain criminal aliens.
. Guest worker program to address employer needs. NLC supports an efficient
program that enables businesses to hire foreign workers and meet local economic
demands.
. Health, education and social services. In recent years local governments have
become the main service providers to immigrant families, The federal government
should assist local governments to provide health, education and social services to
these new workers.
Request to Congress
. Enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation that addresses (I) border
security and interior enforcement; (2) workplace enforcement; (3) guest workers; and,
(4) necessary service delivery; and
. Collaborate with local elected officials to develop thoughtful immigration reform
policy. NLC has convened a task force ofIocal officials who will examine the impact
of immigration on our nation's cities and towns and evaluate current NLC
immigration policy.
19
""'-
The Impact of Immigration Reform on (City)
In [CITY], the increasing presence ofthe undocumented population presents a serious
challenge because of its escalating impact on local budgets, service delivery, and
community life.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). The federal SCAAP program is
intended to reimburse localities for incarcerating criminal aliens:
Please describe, in bullet form, the fiscal impact on your community and, if
available, provide us with the amount of SCAAP fUnding you receive from the
federal government.
The Need for a foreign guest worker program. Many businesses throughout the nation
are unable to meet hiring needs and, in a growing number of cases, rely more heavily on
undocumented workers.
If this has been an issue in your community, please explain, in bullet form, its
impact on your local economy and workforce.
Health, education, and social services. Local governments continue to be the provider
of last resort to immigrant families in need of social services.
Please detail, in bullet form, how your community is serving these families and
what services they are utilizing. If applicable, describe the effect undocumented
workers are having on your community's health care and education systems and
municipal budget.
For more information, contact [individual, municipality, state municipal league) at
[phone/e-mail), or Jennifer McGee, Senior Legislative Counsel, National League of
Cities, at (202) 626-3173 or mcgee@nlc.org.
20
I ~ j
-....= -~
!~~w~'t
-..:...... ...11II.'
.......~
CITY OF IOWA CITY ~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 8, 2006
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Council Member Dee Vanderhoef
RE:
SEATS RIDER'S GUIDE
Attached is a draft of the Seats Rider's Guide. I would welcome Council Members
comments prior to the April Para transit meeting. Please respond directly to me by the
end of the month.
Attachment
.
I
'O~~f'1
SEATS
RIDER'S GUIDE
Johnson County Paratransit System
Phone Numbers
339-6125: to schedule a ride for the next day or up to seven days
339-6127: to cancel a ride or for the current day issues
339-6128: after hours/office closed (to leave a message or talk to a night
driver) or for comments, questions, or to talk to a supervisor
Emeraency Information:
www.iohnson-countv.com/seats/index.shtm/
Published: March 27, 2006
Last Revision: March 2,2006
WELCOME
Welcome to Johnson County SEATS. a collaborated program funded by Iowa
City, Coralville, University Heights. Johnson County and East Central Iowa
Council of Governments (ECICOG).
SEATS is a quality transportation system which is a shared ride service for:
. Riders in Iowa City, Coralville and University Heights who are
certified by their city of residence as being unable to use the
fixed route bus service.
. The general public of Johnson County two or three times a
week (see page 2 for service days) for those over the age of
seven unless accompanied by an adult.
The SEATS program in Iowa City, Coralville and University Heights exceeds
the minimum transportation requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. SEATS is a door-to-door shared service that seeks to be responsive to
the individual transportation needs of eligible riders.
The SEATS staff is one of our greatest assets. We have a core of committed,
dedicated drivers who are ready to serve you. Please feel free to
communicate what assistance you would or would not like.
t'(~
r\.~.' ~\'\
" \f
nv''''',
"'," .
Contents
Service Schedule
Cost of a Ride
How to Request a Ride
How to Cancel a Ride
Stranded Rider
Bad Weather
Carry-On Packages
Food and Drink Policy
Missed Ride Policy
Safety Policies
Appeal Process
Phone Numbers
Page 2
Page 3
Page 3
Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 8
Page 11
Page 12
/":
)A.
HOW TO IMPROVE OUR SERVICE ' /G4;:}'"
The Johnson County Paratransit Advisory Committee and Johnson County .
SEATS want to know how we can better serve you. You can help us improve
the service by voicing your concems or suggestions about SEATS through the
following methods:
1. Fill out a .Customer Service Postcard" located inside each vehicle
2. Call SEATS 339-6128 ext. 0
3. Call 356-6000 ext. 2 to request that a member of the Paratransit
Advisory Committee contact you. View our list of members on the
website: httD:/Iwww.iohnson-countv.com/seatslindex.shtml. then
click on Paratransit Advisory Committee info (PDF) on the left
side of the page under Information.
SERVICE SCHEDULES
In Iowa City, Coralville, and University Heights service is provided
seven (7) days a week weather permitting:
Monday - Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
(6:00 a.m. to 11 :30 p.m. for Coralville)
6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Closed for: New Year's, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and
Christmas. The times will vary for the followina so
Dlease call SEATS 339-6128 for soecific
information: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, day after
Thanksgiving, and the floating Christmas Holiday.
Saturday:
Sunday:
Holidays:
In Rural Johnson County:
The northern part of Johnson County including Solon, Shueyville, Swisher,
Morse, Oasis, North Liberty and surrounding areas:
Mondav. Tuesdav. and Thursday from 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 D.m.
The southern part of Johnson County including Lone Tree, Hills, Frytown,
Sharon Center, and surrounding areas:
Mondav. Wednesday. and Friday from 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 D.m.
Rides to Senior Dining in Lone Tree are provided when site is open.
The east central part of Johnson County including Oxford, Tiffin, Cosgrove
and surrounding areas:
Tuesdav and Thursdav from 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 D.m.
~~
f";V!J ~; ,,\ COST OF SEATS RIDES
'\"" The basic cost for a one-way ride is $1.50. The only exception is the reduced
fare of $0.75 which is only available for residents of Iowa City for trips that
originate within Iowa City. The reduced fare rate is good only when traveling in
Iowa City. Call 356-5151 to see if you qualify.
Riders must pay when boarding the vehicle. The correct fare must be paid in
cash, punch cards or any combination equal to the fare. Drivers are NOT able
to provide change. Riders who do not have the proper fare will not be
transported.
You can purchase punch cards from the SEATS driver or the SEATS office,
which will allow you ten one-way trips for $15.00 (for full-fare) or $7.50 (when
you show your reduced fare certification card).
If you need a personal care attendant, authorization must be approved by Iowa
City or Coralville on their eligibility application for SEATS. This will allow one
attendant to ride for free; please notify the scheduler at the time the ride is
requested. Companions are also permitted, but each companion must pay
$1.50 per one-way trip.
The reservationist also needs to know if a service animal will accompany you.
You may transport small pets with you if they are in a standard secured pet
carrier and they will be charged at a companion full fare rate. There is no
charge for service animals.
HOW TO REQUEST A RIDE
too"'~ Call (319) 339-6125
This phone is staffed Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. and
on weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. except on Holidays (New Year's
Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day
when SEATS is completely closed).
Individuals should schedule rides at least one day prior and up to 7 days in
advance to the day they need a ride. SEATS will provide same-day service if
space is available. In order to serve you and others, you are asked to give the
scheduler the following information:
. Rider's Name
. Pick-Up Address (must be a specific address)
. Drop-Off Address (must be a specific address)
. Date of trip
. Time to be picked up or dropped off (choose either a pick.up or an ',",~~
appointment time, we cannot do both) I~
. Whether an attendant or companions will be accompanying the rider ~~\,'
. Whether a mobility device will be used ,~;:;~~
. Whether a service animal will be used and if there will be a small pet.
In addition, the rider should have pen/pencil and paper handy to write down the
scheduler's name, date(s) of trip(s) and trip times. It would be helpful for the
rider to confirm this information.
Due to the number of trips requested, SEATS may not be able to provide you a
ride for the exact time requested. SEATS, however, will always attempt to
schedule rides as efficiently and effectively as possible. SEATS will make
every effort to accommodate you. However, if a ride is available within one
hour on either side of your requested time and you choose not to accept that
time, this is considered a refused ride and not a denied ride. Negotiating times
within that one-hour allows for SEATS to provide rides to more individuals who
need transportation. The heaviest demand is from 7:15 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.
and from 2:45 p.m. until 4:45 p.m. If possible, try to avoid these times.
When scheduling a ride, you should be aware of the fact that the ride is shared
with others and thus may take more than 1.5 times longer than the length of a
comparable fixed route trip, which would include:
1. Walk time to a bus stop from the point of trip origin
2. Wait time at the bus stop
3. Time on board the bus
4. As applicable, transfer bus stop wait time and time on board after transfer
5. And walk time to the final destination
Upon request, if the rider may be late for an appointment, SEATS will call their
desti nation.
The scheduler will give you a 30.minute pick-up window. This means that you
need to be ready to be picked up from the beginning of that time period to the
end of that time period. The driver cannot wait over five minutes if they are to
serve others and stay on schedule. Every minute a driver waits delays the
service for everyone else, so please be ready.
If you have trips that occur on multiple days of the week, at the same time, to
and/or from the same destination, you may wish to request a subscription ride.
This allows the rider the convenience of having the trip automatically
scheduled without having to call SEATS. The number of subscription rides
may be limited; however, if SEATS is able to provide the subscription service it
will be offered.
<;.ft~t
-1".\
~~t;
\~9"t'Riders whose pick-up or drop-off locations change will need to request a new
\' subscription ride agreement because the trip characteristics have changed. As
with any new subscription request it will be accommodated if possible to do so.
Persons may wish to check on the availability of a different subscription ride
before changing schedules.
HOW TO CANCEL A RIDE
1OO'~~Call (319) 339-6127
It is important to cancel your ride early, if you do, you make it possible for
another rider to get a ride.
You may call anytime day or night to cancel a ride but you must cancel at least
one hour prior to the ride to avoid a missed ride (see page 7 for missed ride
policy) .
This phone is staffed with an employee Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m.
till 5:00 p.m. and on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. There
is a voice mail system after hours and holidays when SEATS is closed that
allows you to leave a message.
If you are calling after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday or after 12:00 p.m. on
Saturday and Sunday or holidays for a same day cancel you may call 339-
6128. Listen through till the end ofthe greeting and you will be connected to
the evening driver. You will be able to talk to the driver or leave a phone
number for the driver to call you back. The latest a driver will be available
varies on their last scheduled drop-off.
If you are calling after hours for a next day or future day cancellation, please
call 339-6127 and leave a message on the voice mail. Please leave your
name, name of the rider, telephone number, date and time of trip(s), and the
pick up and drop off address of all trips you wish to cancel.
The drivers do not have access to make scheduling changes, so do not ask
them to make any changes for you. All schedule changes must be done
through direct communication with the SEATS scheduler (339-6125) or
dispatcher (339-6127).
STRANDED RIDERS
If you have a ride scheduled with SEATS and your driver does not arrive by the
end of the pick up window, you may call 339-6127 to check and see where
<,:1'i,our driver is and when he/she can be expected. Since this service is a
, ~; shared-ride service, other riders or circumstances outside the driver's control
.~}};' can sometimes delay the driver. If you are calling after hours, as with same
.. v day cancels, you may call the night or weekend driver at 339-6128 (follow
instructions) and leave your phone number so the driver may return your call
and let you know what is happening and when you can expect them.
POLICIES
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors has, upon recommendation of its
Advisory Committee, adopted a set of policies. Riders will be kept informed of
all changes in operation or policy. We ask you as a rider to let us know of any
changes you may need. Policies are mentioned briefly throughout this guide,
but to obtain any complete policy please call 339-6128 to request one.
BAD WEATHER POLICY
Emergency information & schedule changes will be updated on the website,
www.iohnson-countv.comlseatstindex.shtml
Services are provided, weather permitting. When service is canceled due to
weather conditions, the cancellation will be announced on the following local
radio and television stations. We follow Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit
for hours, delays, or canceling service due to weather.
Radio:
KGAN
KCRG
WMT
KKRQ
KCJJ
(Channel 2)
(Channel 9)
(600 AM; 96.5 FM)
(100.7 FM)
(1560 AM)
Television:
The general policy is that if the city fixed route systems stops running for a
specific period of time, then SEATS will also stop operating those same hours.
If Iowa City Schools are delayed or canceled there will be no SEATS service
in any of Johnson County rural areas.
If Solon Schools are delayed or canceled there will be no meal delivery or
trips in Solon.
If Lone Tree Schools are delayed or canceled there will be no meal delivery
or trips in Lone Tree.
If Clear Creek Amana Schools are delayed or canceled there will be no
SEATS service in Oxford, Tiffin, or Cosgrove.
Also affecting SEATS service: if the access to the residence or facility
(driveway, sidewalk, and/or walkway) is ice or snow covered and unsafe to
drive or walk on, SEATS service will not be able do the service due to safety
concerns. Approval of these circumstances goes through the SEATS office.
CARRY-ON PACKAGE POLICY
This policy is meant to reasonably limit the time and weight of carry on items to
prevent injury or unreasonable delay and provide a safe environment for all
SEATS passengers.
Any item that is too large to see around and/or too awkward for one person to
carry through the vehicle doorway without continued readjustments will not be
transported. SEATS will transport only what the driver and the passenger
(along with their companions or attendant) can carry on the vehicle in one trip
with a maximum of ten plastic grocery bags to a total weight of twenty-five
pounds. The driver will not carry on any item weighing more than twenty-five
pounds. Items transported on SEATS vehides will be the sole responsibility
of the rider.
Riders will have to take the responsibility of having the packages that are not
allowed on a SEATS vehicle delivered to their home by other means. For
packages that are acceptable, the driver will take the packages to the front
door entrance and set them inside.
FOOD AND DRINK POLICY
Due to the time involved to clean up a spill or mess, Johnson County SEATS
does not allow eating or drinking on the vehides.
MISSED RIDES POLICY
*** Riders MUST pay for an unexcused missed ride on or before taking
their next trip on SEATS.
The purpose of this policy is to help everyone understand how this community
service is affected by each delay; by defining a missed ride, the steps to be
taken to reduce missed rides, including suspension of services and appeal
process. This policy applies to all SEATS services, induding subscription and
rural trips.
Please remember to call and cancel any additional trips for that day if they will
not be taken, we are not allowed to cancel your rides unless you cancel with
the office.
Description of a Missed Ride:
. A rider missing a scheduled trip without canceling at least one hour prior to
l\" the scheduled trip pick-up time.
t,.. '. A missed ride does not include a ride missed for reasons beyond the rider's
".,<'.~
'<;';7""- control which would be considered excused, Le.: medical appointments,
. .. driver arrives after the window ends, an incident out of the rider's control
that prevents them from riding (it will be determined an excused or an
unexcused missed ride by the SEATS office at that time). Whenever the
rider pays the fare for their missed ride it will be considered excused
automatically.
Educational Process:
The primary approach to dealing with missed rides is EDUCATION. The rider
will be notified of any missed rides or reoccurring problems.
The goal is to educate people to think of the needs of others. All riders will be
urged to cancel unneeded rides they do not plan to use as soon as possible so
as to enable the ride to be provided to another person. When a rider cancels a
scheduled trip (one-way or round trip) they must provide to SEATS the caller's
name, the name of the rider, date and time of the trip(s) and the pick up
addressees) by phone (319-339-6127).
Each time a person misses a ride the driver will inform the SEATS office. If the
rider feels that missing the ride was not preventable, they may call 339-6128 to
reevaluate the issue to determine if it was an excused or unexcused missed
ride. By the end of the telephone conversation the rider will know whether or
not the ride in question has been dassified as "excused" or "missed..
SAFETY POLICIES
No Staff at Drop off Location: There are times when riders have made
arrangements to have someone meet them at a drop off location or an agency
has staff meet the rider at a location rather than ride with the rider. Johnson
County SEATS does not recommend this since we are comparable to a public
transit system and do not accept responsibility for riders after being dropped
off at the designated location. But in those cases when the rider requires
someone to meet them and that rider cannot be left unattended we strongly
suggest that the rider or care provider arranging the ride let the scheduler
know at the time the ride is being scheduled. This information will be noted on
the driver's trip manifest. On the day of the ride, should the rider be taken to
the drop off location and there is no one to meet him/her, one or more of the
following actions may take place:
(~
</::~<~,,(-:--,
'V,
. The rider may have to remain on the vehicle and the driver will continue
with the route schedule until able to return to the drop-off location, or
. They may be returned to the rider's original pick-up location, or
. They may be returned to the rider's residence.
If the rider has a care provider or agency that the ride was scheduled by, the
care provider or agency will be contacted to notify them of the inability to
deliver that individual at the requested drop off location. In addition, SEATS will
discuss what action is possible or appropriate at that time to resolve the issue
and to prevent this type of incident in the future.
Child protection: Children under the age of seven (7) years must be.
accompanied by a responsible adult. If the child under the age of seven (7) is
the eligible rider, the responsible adult may ride free. If required, children must
have a safety seat provided by the rider's caregiver.
Seatbelts: Riders utilizing mobility devices are required to use a lap belt when
loading or unloading from the vehicle. All riders are required to use a seatbelt
when riding in a SEATS vehicle unless medical authorization is provided. The
rider must understand that Johnson County SEATS is no longer responsible
for their safety in case of an accident when not wearing a seatbelt.
Mobility devices: Wheelchairs and scooters must have working brakes and
no leaking batteries. For safety reasons riders with scooters are advised to
transfer to a seat in the vehicle. The lift platform requirements are 30 inches
wide by 48 inches in length. Oversized or overweight mobility devices may not
be accommodated on some of the SEATS lifts.
Medications and other medical needs: Riders who require medication or
oxygen at regular intervals should be advised that their travel time could be 60
minutes and on occasion longer. SEATS drivers cannot administer medical
assistance or assist in administration of medication.
Rider Conduct: Remember your conduct affects the safety of others. The
purpose of this policy is to ensure the safety and comfort of the riders on
Johnson County SEATS. This policy applies to all SEATS services, including
subscription and rural trips.
SEATS is concerned about the safety and comfort of its riders and drivers. For
this reason violent, illegal or seriously disruptive conduct is not allowed on the
vehicle. This includes the behavior of service animals and pets, as well as the
riders. Section 37.125 and 37.5 of the Federal Register, Title 22, Part IV,
Department of Transportation, 49 CFFt allows paratransit service to be refused
or provided conditionally for a customer who engages in violent. illegal or
/:'\ ;;J
"'" 'J
)
J
seriously disruptive conduct or behavior. Service may not be refused to an
individual with disabilities solely because the individual's disability results in
appearance or involuntary behavior (sounds or actions) that may offend,
annoy, or inconvenience the SEATS driver or other riders.
Educational Process:
The primary approach to dealing with riders' conduct is through education.
SEATS will work with rider and care provider or agency, if any, involved with
the rider to educate that rider on appropriate behavior aboard public
transportation. All riders will be urged to be considerate of the other
passengers and driver.
When a person has been engaged in inappropriate behavior, the driver will
inform the SEATS office at the time the behavior occurs. The behavior will be
discussed with the rider and/or care provider or program staff member and
attempt to correct the episode immediately. The SEATS Director or a SEATS
supervisor will then evaluate the issue and speak with the rider and care
provider or agency, if any. During the discussion(s) with the rider and care
provider or agency, if any, an action plan will be developed to prevent further
episodes of inappropriate behavior. If the behavior is seriously violent and/or
harmful to other passengers, immediate suspension may occur.
If, after the initial educational process has been utilized, a rider continues to
display inappropriate behavior a written warning will be sent to the rider and
care provider and agency, if any, by the SEATS Director or SEATS supervisor
indicating that another episode of inappropriate behavior will result in a
suspension of services. Included with the notice will be possible alternative
measures, which might assist in preventing the continued behavior.
If a rider has another episode of inappropriate behavior he/she and the care
provider or agency, if any, will be sent a notice of suspended services. The
length of suspension of services will be determined by the Director who will
work with the rider and care provider or agency, if any, to determine
suspension length and time.
If the rider then returns to utilize SEATS service and continues to display
inappropriate behavior the rider may again receive suspension of service
and/or possibly termination of service. The length of the 2nd suspension will be
determined by the SEATS Director and care provider or agency, if any, to
ensure enough time to allow for the development of a plan to assist the rider
with correcting the inappropriate behavior. Should the behavior continue, the
SEATS Director or staff member will contact the rider and care provider or
agency, if any, to discuss termination of service. If a rider's service is
. terminated, the rider and care provider or agency, if any, may request restoring
service. Some assurance of corrective behavior and compliance will be
necessary for consideration of resumed service.
APPEAL PROCESS
A rider who has been notified that their SEATS services will be suspended
may appeal the decision.
The rider must provide a written request to appeal the decision within one
week. This should be mailed to Johnson County SEATS, 2000 James St.,
Suite 111, Coralville, IA 52241. If the decision by the Johnson County SEATS .
administration is unacceptable, you may continue to the Appeal Board.
The appeal Board will be made up of three members: 1) A citizen
representative serving on the Advisory Board, 2) An elected representative
(determined, if possible, by the rider's city of residence) serving on the
Advisory Board, and 3) A SEATS rider or community volunteer. The Appeal
Board will meet in a location close to and accessible to the rider whose appeal
is being reviewed within two weeks.
The Appeal Board will hear the appeal. The rider and/or others representing
the rider may come before the Appeal Board to present written and oral
information. All relevant SEATS records and personnel will be made available
to the rider and his/her representative(s). A rider who requires the records in
an alternative format may request them either in the appeals letter, by
telephone or other electronic means. Altemative formats currently available
are Braille and audiotape.
After receiving and reviewing all information related to the suspension, the
Appeal Board shall be empowered to take such action, as it believes to be
appropriate in the case. The decision of the Appeal Board will be final, subject
to further appeal at other governmental levels.
PHONE NUMBERS
Ride Request Line 339-6125
24-Hour Cancellation Line 339-6127
Ride Information Line (7 am-5 pm) 339-6127
For TOO (hearing impaired phone) 1-800-735-2942 (Iowa Relay)
SEATS Customer Service 339-6128
Punchcard Sales 339-6128
After office hours to talk to driver 339-6128
Iowa City Transit 356-5151
Coralville Transit 248-1700
University Heights 337 -6900
SEATS E-Mail tbrase@co.johnson.ia.us
SEATS Fax 339-6185
Johnson County Board of Supervisors 356-6000 ext. 2
SEATS Advisory Committee 356-6000 ext. 2
(The Advisory Committee phone calls are handled by the Board of
Supervisors office)
REMEMBER - SEATS IS HERE TO SERVE YOU!
~
I ~ !
-....= -.....!t
-......--....
f~~w;!:
..,;;;:...._IIII.~
....~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
March 8, 2006
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Swen Larson, President
The Greater Iowa City Area Homebuilders Association
11 S_ Gilbert Street
P.O. Box 3396
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mr. Larson:
In response to your letter of February 15, I have attached a summary page which includes
Fiscal Year 05 revenues/expenditures for our division of Building Inspection_ The revenue
information includes all revenues within the categories as identified.
I must take issue with comments in your letter where you have indicated, and I quote, "although
you consider your division of Building Inspection to be a component of the General Fund, the
Greater Iowa City Homebuilders believes you are required to match your operating cost with
that division...". It appears you do not agree with the particular means by which we account for
Building Inspection revenues and expenditures. The City of Iowa City accounts for building
inspections in the General Fund. The Iowa Department of Management Rules prescribe that
building inspections be reported as a Public Safety expenditure. This is done in compliance with
the categorization of expenditures and revenues required by the State of Iowa. Additionally, the
State has adopted Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34 which
prescribes the classification of activities for comparative and consistent financial reporting on
the condition of cities, counties, and the state government. Public Safety is considered a
governmental-type activity, and for the benefit of the entire community; hence, it's classification
within the General Fund. These regulations are applicable to all cities.
Your question appears to be why the City does not classify building inspections as an Enterprise
Fund; that is, matching building permit fees against operating costs. Cities generally use
Enterprise Fund accounting for capital-intensive activities, such as water, sewer, and landfill
operations. These utility enterprise funds are generally funded by utility rates. These operations
also provide an easily quantifiable, and tangible service such as water produced, sewage
treated, waste landfilled, etc. If the Division of Building Inspection were to be classified as you
appear to suggest, as an Enterprise Fund, then other direct and indirect costs must be
considered in the operations of this division. Enterprise Funds currently are charged an
administrative fee on a pro rata share of the general administrative functions within the City
government, such as the City Attorney, City Clerk, Finance/Bookkeeping/Records, Personnel,
just to name a few. Direct charges would include general liability insurance, insurance for auto,
public official liability, property, and workers compensation. Utility charges for water, sewer,
electricity, refuse, and building maintenance would also be applicable. This charge is reviewed
and calculated annually, and as I am sure you can appreciate, there are annual fluctuations,
most often due to the fact that we purchase insurance in the private market and it is subject to
those market changes. There are also periodic changes in State law that can affect the extent of
our coverage. As an estimate, we believe these administrative costs represent, if we have an
mgrlltr/larson2.doc
March 8, 2006
Page 2
Enterprise Fund, an additional 25+% for those expenditures covered by the Enterprise Fund.
Furthermore, if we are to have an Enterprise Fund, it would be necessary for the fund to carry a
balance for the purpose of working capital as well as the establishment of depreciation accounts
for replacement reserves. The General Fund uses a 30% of expenditures as the measurement
for the amount of reserves to be maintained. This reserve policy would also be applicable.
As you will note from the attached material, there was a significant increase in overall permit
values for Fiscal Years 02, 03, and 04. It is also important to note that in 05 we have
experienced a 25% decline in those revenues. Increasing construction activity, reflective of a
very favorable financial condition throughout our country, was certainly one of the causes for the
earlier increases. Two notable projects (Lodge, Plaza Towers) in 04-05 alone were $330,000 in
building permits.
In the operations of the Building Division it is important to have a reliable, professionally
licensed workforce, which is not increased and decreased by short term revenue fluctuations.
We try to hire and maintain the best employees and service promptly and efficiently all of those
duties associated with the construction industry and consumer interests.
With respect to the issues of impact fees and other matters that you have identified in your
letter, I would encourage you to speak directly with the City Attorney, who can comment on the
City's interpretation of the West Des Moines and any other court decisions that have occurred.
Our financial transactions and related policies are audited by an independent auditor on an
annual basis. We have just completed such a review. You should be aware that the City has
received for the last 20 years a certificate of excellence in our financial reporting from the
Government Finance Officers Association of America. This is a recognition of excellence in the
means by which we fully comply with applicable accounting standards as well as related budget
and/or State reporting requirements.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
Attachment
cc: City Council
Doug Boothroy
Eleanor Dilkes
Mitch Behr
Kevin O'Malley
Leigh Lewis
mgr/ltrl1arson2.doc
i
Building Inspection
Revenue to Expenditure Comparison
FY1998.2005
I
I Description FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04(1,21 FY05(2)
Liquor License Inspection 2,666 3,281 3,247 3,161 3,340 3,534 3,512 3,575
Sign Permits 8,916 14,805 10,097 8,153 11,019 11,785 11,364 12,892
Electricians License 13,510 14,915 15,171 15,335 15,620 28,250 26,760 22,910
Plumbers License 7,165 9,450 9,450 9,425 9,865 16,600 15,305 15,110
Fire Sprinkler License - - - - 800 4,483 3,160
Fire Alarm License - - - 1,000 1,525 1,775
Mise, Licenses & Permits 900 775 770 675 2,420 7,414 1,845 1,445
Building Permits & Inspection Fees 189,885 205,663 237,476 198,592 268,571 274,575 512,053 411,618
Plumbing Permits & Inspection Fees 34,150 36,433 45,969 41,182 55,439 76,696 98,693 96,587
I Electrical Permits & Inspection Fees 60,353 66,760 62,420 82,536 99,279 111,914 136,156 91,090
I Mechanical Permits 23,826 28,760 25,601 37,733 77,484 58,223 71,264 59,428
Temporary Use Permit 825 625 1,100 825 900 700 1,425 975
I Fire Alarm Permits . - . - - 50 5,080 2,170
House Move Licenses & Permits 65 385 425 465 165 185 105 460
Property Maintenance Fees 349 3,380 2,711 16,749 2,250 3,573 10,192 10,090
Plan Checking Fee 111,055 139,446 155,454 127,019 173,505 202,368 382,815 293,300
Code Update - Class Fees - - - 1,067 - -
Housing Appeals Fee 480 270 240 360 420 30 900 300
Special Police Services - - 60 32 90 30
Entry Fees - - - 2,205 -
Code Book & Ordinance Sales 1,437 3,709 1,553 855 1,590 3,157 1,726 1,287
Miscellaneous Other - - - (2) 9 443 2,274 3,813 6,050
Total .Revenue: 364,298 429,048 455,581 528,655 571,693 544,575 724,200 800,885 1,291,311 1,034,252
Total Expenditures: (3) (313,256) (358,362) (369,574) (367,651 ) (424,899) (469,799) (474,221) (489,876) (516,420) (545,539)
Total Revenue Net of Expenditures: 51,042 70,686 86,007 161,004 146,794 74,776 249,979 311,009 774,891 488,713
# of FTE's 6.0 6.0 7.0\4) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Notes:
(1) The last fee inaease for Building Permits was effective July 1, 2003 (FY2004), which affected Plan Checking Fees as well.
Electrical, plumbing and mechanical permit fees remained the same.
(2) Two large projects were started in 2003 which continue to impact fee revenue in FY2005: 100 Hawk Ridge Drive (The Lodge),
valued at $25 million and 221 E. College 51. (64-1 A). valued at $20 million.
(3) The Full Time Equivalents (FTE's) budgeted within Building Inspection have remained unchanged at 7.0 FTEs throughout this
time period FY1998 - 2005.
(4) .Development RegUlations Specialist postion added by council resolution during FY98.
31112006 Building Inspection Rev Exp.xls
I ~ 1
--= -14'>>
!~W;!:~
-..;:;::..... "'lIIIl~
.....,... ..
CITY OF IOWA CITY ~
MEMORANDUM
From:
March 8, 2006
Iowa City City Council
Joe Fowler, Director Parking & Transit
Ron Logsden, Transit Manager
Transit Ridership By Route '
Date:
To:
Re:
Attached is the Transit ridership by route for FY05. We would like to point out a few things that
should be remembered when reviewing these numbers. The Shuttle route runs only during the
University of Iowa fall and spring semesters, there is no summer service. The Oakcrest and
Towncrest routes have 30 minute service during the fall and spring semesters and hourly
service during the summer. The Eastside Loop and the Westside Loop operate two trips daily
when the Iowa City public schools are in session. The 7th Avenue route operates seven trips
daily; the Westport route operates twelve trips daily. By comparison the North Dodge route
which operates similar hours has nineteen trips daily.
Please contact either of us if we can provide you with any further information.
I
Iowa City Transit Ridership Fiscal Year: 2005
Annual by Month
'Service Days by Type ********* ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
Weekday 21 22 21 21 20 21 20 20 23 21 21 22 253 253
Weekend 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 54 55
Holidav 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 26 26 25 26 25 26 25 24 27 26 25 26 307 308
*Weekend Service ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
Lakeside 1332 998 955 1383 1226 1064 3047 2542 911 1369 1093 847 16767 13111
Westwinds 801 467 476 761 779 592 3892 3516 490 736 527 457 13494 7013
Rochester 350 238 346 425 392 292 1743 1384 210 407 251 307 6345 3579
Manville Heights 268 220 270 344 232 263 1139 816 191 326 199 211 4479 2902
Court Hill 325 358 466 446 398 328 2146 1545 322 471 408 312 7525 3939
Towncrest 608 628 561 705 653 662 2354 1906 624 729 643 541 10614 7578
Oakcrest 647 813 787 972 874 1126 3991 3783 874 1274 789 629 16559 10901
North Dodge 269 267 303 384 431 351 1299 1120 220 504 175 228 5551 4108
Broadwav 518 650 820 787 1026 915 1751 1449 604 1146 449 655 10770 9022
TOTAL 5118 4639 4984 6207 6011 5593 21362 18061 4446 6962 4534 4187 92104 62153
I ~ 1
fii~''t
'-.... ~IIII'~
.....,.. ... J
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
em
I will be out of the office the week of March 13 through 17. My staff will know how to reach me.
March 8, 2006
City Council II" . AAI
Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney 4JJ"""
Absence
cc: Steve Atkins
Dale Helling
Marian Karr
elenaorfmemfabsenC8.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
c;:J
Date: March 1, 2006
To: Rick Fosse, Public Works Director
From: Sarah Okerlund, Civil Enginee~
Re: Mormon Boulevard Trek Extension - Willow Creek to Old Highway 218
University of Iowa Property Acquisition Agreement
~~~
The City of Iowa City has entered into an agreement with the University of Iowa to obtain
property necessary for the construction of the above mentioned project. This project
includes the extension of Mormon Trek and a triple 1 0'x12' box culvert.
The City of Iowa City has obtained:
. 1.26 acres for McCollister Right-of-Way
. 1.84 acre parcel south for box culvert
. 0.64 acre temporary construction easement
The University of Iowa has obtained:
. Monetary compensation: ($590,265.25 to a maximum of $759,293.25)
o 1.26 acres ROW = $123,346.50 (per appraisal)
o 1.84 acre parcel = $ 180,555.75 (per appraisal)
o 0.64 acre temporary construction easement = $12,620.00 (per appraisal)
o Reimbursement for report, engineering, & appraisal costs = $30,700.00
o Lost business opportunity = $50,000.00
o Landscaping = $21,360.00
o Boundary survey = $5,000.00
o Parking lot reconfiguration = $166,683.00 to max $335,711.00
. 18,080 square feet of Old Riverside Drive Right-of-Way (subject to Council
approval of vacation and conveyance without compensation.)
. City to keep and maintain remainder of Old Riverside Drive Right-of-Way for
University access.
. A written letter of intent from City to sell the University 4.5 acres of Aviation
Commerce Park property at fair market value.
This agreement has been accepted by the City Manager and the University Business
Manager, and is subject to approval by the Board of Regents, State of Iowa.
Cc: Ron Knoche
rnJ
City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission
February 8, 2006 - 5:00 P.M.
Recreation Center Meeting Room B
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER:
Meeting called to order at 5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary,
Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, Phil Reisetter, John Westefeld
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Terry Robinson, Mike Moran
OTHERS PRESENT: Harrison Kane, Pam Michaud, Del Holland, Helen Burford
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council
Action):
Moved bv Klink, seconded bv Westefeld to propose that the Annual
Board/Commission/City Council Meetinl! be moved to an earlier date to allow more time to
consider the budl!et proposals. Unanimous.
OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
Moved bv Westefeld, seconded bv Pacha, to approve the Januarv 11, 2006 minutes as
written. Unanimous.
Moved bv Reisetter, seconded bv Pacha, to not take any action on the proposed DOl! Run at
Collel!e Green Park. Unanimous.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
No public discussion.
CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR "DOG RUN" IN COLLEGE GREEN PARK:
Trueblood called the Commission's attention to information in the packet, including past
information and the current proposal submitted by Pam Michaud for the construction of a "dog
run" in College Green Park. Michaud presented her proposal to the Commission. She feels that
Iowa City demographics and increased apartment living demonstrates the need for a centrally
located off leash dog run and play area to benefit all age groups living in this area. She also
stated that homeowners would benefit from increased socialization of their dogs. While Michaud
expressed praise regarding the dog park being constructed in the Peninsula Park, she also stated
that she feels there is a need for another dog park in closer proximity to the downtown area of
Iowa City, as many of the people living in this area walk to many of their destinations.
Therefore, she is suggesting that an inner triangle in the south quadrant of College Green Park be
the proposed location for a 90'x 90'x 90' fenced in area for an off-leash dog run. She submitted a
petition to the Commission with signatures of those in support of this proposal. This petition is
signed by dog owners who live within one block of the park as well as dog owners living in
Parks and Recreation Commission
February 8, 2006
Page 2 of 6
apartments within one-half mile of the park. There are also some signatures from people who do
not own dogs. Michaud noted that she feels having dogs present in this park would also give a
sense of better security to those using the park. Michaud is applying for a P.I.N. grant to assist in
funding of this project. Pacha asked if dogs of all sizes would be permitted in this area at the
same time, noting that a separate area for small dogs will exist in the new dog park. Michaud
stated yes, however, she would expect threatened or threatening dogs to be leashed, also stating
that the guidelines include a rule stating that the owner be sure that the dog is comfortable
interacting with other dogs. Pacha then directed a question to Trueblood asking if there are any
concerns about the use of crushed rock. Trueblood turned this part of the discussion over to
Terry Robinson. Robinson said that there are concerns with crushed rock as it would change the
pH level in the soil which is known to be detrimental to trees. He stated that the crushed rock
also has to be thick enough to stay in place. Raaz referred Michaud to the other possible
locations mentioned in her 2004 proposal and asked why she prefers College Green Park. These
other locations include Oak Grove Park, Happy Hollow, City Park and Benton Hill Park.
Michaud stated that as she lives in this neighborhood and because of its proximity to downtown
she feels this is the best place for such a use. Reisetter asked Michaud to confirm that adding this
dog run to College Green Park would decrease the amount of space to be used by people playing
frisbee, catch, and other types of outdoor activities. She stated that it would. Westefeld
confirmed that Michaud's main wish is to have this dog run in a park that is centrally located in
Iowa City. She again stated that this is indeed her wish. Westefeld also expressed his concern
with the fundamental changes that would occur to this park if this proposal is approved. Reisetter
asked Trueblood if there is any "wasteland" available that could be used for a dog park.
Trueblood stated that he is not aware of any such available land at this point. Gustaveson stated
that while he has been very vocal in his support of a dog park in Iowa City, he could not support
College Green Park as a proposed site for a dog run for the following reasons: I) he is opposed
to eliminating one type of use in a park for another type of use, 2) Project Green is opposed to
this project in College Green Park, and 3) DogPAC does not support this project. Trueblood
interjected that DogP AC did not take a position of non-support for this project, but indicated they
do not have the time or resources to commit to another dog park project. They also indicated
concern regarding rules and fees. They would want to see the same rules and fees apply to all
dog parks in Iowa City, should there be more than one. He also reiterated that while not opposed
to the concept of smaller dog parks, staff continues to feel that College Green Park is not a good
location for one.
Moved by Reisetter. seconded by Pacha. to not take any action on the proposed DOl! Run at
Collel!e Green Park. Unanimous.
Klink expressed her gratitude for all of the work that Michaud put into this proposal. O'Leary
suggested that if Michaud decides to corne back to the Commission to propose a dog run at
another location that she first collaborate with DogP AC, Forestry and any other groups that
should be involved. Gustaveson thanked Michaud on behalf of the Commission for her efforts.
Michaud requested that the Commission keep this in mind as a possibility for future
consideration.
Parks and Recreation Commission
February 8, 2006
Page 3 of 6
DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF FOOD VENDORS IN CITY PARK:
Commissioner Raaz requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. Raaz is
asking what the feasibility is of having vendors or vending machines placed in city parks, feeling
that City Park especially would be an ideal location for such. Trueblood stated that while the
City has not actively marketed for such a program, there have been a limited number of vendors
who have been allowed to sell food items in the parks in the past. If a person is interested in
doing such they need to place a bid through the Central Services department. Trueblood voiced
his concern of vandalism to machines placed in the parks. Mike Moran will contact Pepsi
Bottlers, vendors for the Recreation Division, to get their thoughts on this idea.
REPORT/DISCUSSION ON PLANS FOR CITY PARK CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION:
Mike Moran updated Commission on plans for this event. June 10 will be the date of the primary
celebration which will include concerts, a barbecue, free swimming and amusement rides, bocce
ball, skateboarding and horseshoe demonstrations to name a few. In July the Iowa City
Community Theater will perform a rendition of "The Music Man", if it can be worked out. This
will be performed in the theater in the round near the softball diamonds at City Park. Exact
schedule is pending at this time. The committee is working with the Jaycees to help promote this
event during their 4th of July celebration. There will also be upcoming information on the city
website, the recreation activity guide, as well as information mailed to Iowa City residents in
their water bills. Trueblood mentioned that the Riverside Theater Staff has expressed interest in
doing something in conjunction with their Shakespeare Festival to help commemorate the
anniversary celebration as well. The Johnson County Historical Society will also be involved in
this celebration.
REPORT/DISCUSSION ON STATUS OF PROPOSED FY06-FYIO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET:
Trueblood updated the Commission on the capital improvement budget status. He advised that
the City Manager has given the approval to go ahead with Phase I of the Sand Prairie
Enhancement and Preservation project. This item was initially unfunded. After C.I.P. meetings
with City Council, the Council stated they would like to see the skate park restrooms funded
after all. Trueblood was happy with the outcome of this meeting but did note that item #2, the
Iowa River Trail Bridge - Rocky Shore to Peninsula project is still unfunded. He feels we
should continue to push for this project in order to provide better access to Peninsula Park, and to
help reduce parking problems as well as increased traffic through the Peninsula neighborhood,
Raaz suggested that perhaps when installing restrooms at the Skate Park that the City also look
into a power source for vending in that area. Klink asked if there were REAP grants available
for trails, Trueblood stated that he thinks there are and, in fact, the Rocky Shore to Peninsula
Bridge project would likely qualify for such. Trueblood will follow up.
DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO PROPOSED ROUTE FOR COURT HILL TRAIL
PROJECT:
Trueblood presented the Commission with the Court Hill Trail route plan (this plan is ten years
old). Plan is to extend the trail from Creekside Park over to Scott Park. This plan only shows the
trail going to Scott Park, but the long term plan is to go through the park. Trueblood noted that
Parks and Recreation Commission
February 8, 2006
Page 4 of 6
we not be able to do the Scott Park section in the current capital plan. Pacha asked what the
position is of the property owners in the "gap area," assuming that it would take a considerable
amount of consensus of the neighbors to continue it all the way along the creek. Trueblood
agreed with this assumption. Del Holland, a guest present at the meeting, asked if the City is
thinking of a trailhead in Creekside Park or if it would continue across Muscatine. Trueblood
stated that this plan shows it coming into and through Creekside but not beyond that. Interest has
been expressed in seeing this trail eventually run all the way to the river. Trueblood discussed
this idea with John Yapp and the feeling is that the only way to do this is to provide signage
directing bicycles to quieter streets because there is no place to build a continuous trail to the
nver.
ANNUAL BOARD/COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
Gustaveson presented to the Council on January 30, 2006. He presented the Council with the
Commission's Capital Improvement Budget priority list. He encouraged the City Council, on
behalf of the Parks & Recreation Commission, to adopt the City Manager's proposed budget for
FY07. Gustaveson specifically pointed out the need for support on the following projects: Iowa
River Trail Pedestrian Bridge, Skate Park Restroom and the Brookland Park Re-Development.
With regard to the Operating Budget, he reiterated the need for additional custodial help to better
maintain the Scanlon/Mercer facility. This is supported by the City Manager. He also asked that
the Council keep in mind the request for a Natural Areas Specialist position as well as two
additional full-time maintenance workers for the Parks Division.
Commission members discussed the idea of proposing a change to the annual boards and
commission meeting to the fall so that it is earlier in the budgeting process, rather than
J anuary/F ebruary after most of the budget decisions have been made.
Moved by Klink, seconded by Westefeld to propose that the Annual
Board/Commission/City Council Meetin!! be moved to an earlier date to allow more time to
consider the bud!!et proposals. Unanimous.
COMMISSION TIME
Klink distributed the "Johnson County Heritage Trust, Preserving Land with Significant
Environmental Value" brochure to the Commission for their review. This organization educates
local land owners on how to preserve land.
Klink mentioned an exhibit in Chicago that runs January 28 through May 7 called "New Designs
for Public Space." Information item only for those who may be visiting the Chicago area in the
near future. This exhibit demonstrates Innovative uses ofland in urban areas.
Westefeld commented on the nice article about the dog parks in the "Parks and Recreation"
Publication (magazine published by the National Recreation and Park Association). He also
mentioned that he walked across the bridge next to the Iowa River Power Restaurant and
encouraged everyone to take the opportunity to walk across this bridge. He also mentioned the
fact that the University is planning on building a massive recreation building on Burlington and
Madison (150,000 square feet), probably within the next two years.
Parks and Recreation Commission
February 8, 2006
Page 5 of 6
Pacha complemented Trueblood on his letters to the Housing and Community Development
Commission as well as to the Claude W. and Dolly Ahrens Foundation requesting their support
for the Grant Wood Elementary PTO application for new playground equipment at the school.
Pacha felt that the letters very well reflected the intent of the Commission.
Raaz stated that he noted that the Bocce Ball courts have been scheduled for Special Olympic
Events and that he is happy to see that the courts are being utilized for programs such as this.
CHAIR'S REPORT:
Gustaveson said that he recently went to the Waterworks Park and was very impressed. He also
mentioned how impressed he was with the Iowa River Power Bridge.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Girls Softball: Trueblood stated that staff is working with the Girls Softball Organization to light
two more ball diamonds at Napoleon Park, at their request. This project will cost about $100,000
with the City contributing $50,000 of that.
Grant Wood Gvm Update: Near completion. Mike Moran and Bill Blanchard will be doing a
walk through on Thursday, February 9.
Boathouse at Citv Park or Terrill Mill Park: The University is looking for places to build a
boathouse. Trueblood and the City Manager will be meeting with them later in the month to
explore possibilities.
Boys Baseball: Trueblood has attempted to schedule a meeting with Boys Baseball however, he
has not heard back from them. There are some concerns regarding the building as it is not being
completed as quickly as hoped. He will continue scheduling efforts.
Farmers Market: A letter went out to current Farmers Market Vendors letting them know of an
expansion for the Saturday markets. The City will be opening an additional 21 stalls at our
Saturday market only. The Wednesday market will remain as is.
Disc Golf Course: The Disc Golf course project is proceeding as planned. Contributions for the
disc golf course are being run through the Foundation account. To date $1,000 has been donated.
Donors will have the opportunity to sponsor a hole on the course. A sign with their name will be
placed at the hole.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved bv Pacha. seconded bv Reisetter to adiourn. Unanimous. The meeting was adjourned
at 6:55 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Commission
February 8, 2006
Page 6 of 6
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2006
TERM
NAME EXPIRES 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/7 7/12 8/9 9/13 10111 11/8 12/13
Craig
Gustaveson 1/1/07 X X
Judith
Klink 1/1/07 OlE X
Margaret
Loomer 1/1/08 X X
Ryan
O'Learv 1/1/06 X X
Matt
Pacha 1/1/09 X X
Jerry
Raaz 1/1/08 X X
Phil
Reisetter 1/ 1/09 OlE X
John 1/1/07
Watson X OlE
John
Westefeld 1/1/06 X X
KEY:
X=
0=
OlE =
NM=
LQ=
Present
Absent
Absent/Excused
No meeting
No meeting due to lack of quorum
Not a Member
~
DRAFT MINUTES
City of Iowa City Animal Shelter Advisory Board
January 25,2006 - 7:00 P.M.
Meeting Room - Old Waste Water Treatment Plant
Call to Order:
Meeting called to order at 7: 10 P.M.
Members Present:
Shane Kron, Maryann Dennis, Kathy Magarrell, Lisa Drahozal-
Pooley
Staff Present:
Misha Goodman
Others Present:
Pat Farrant, Mary Blout, Tarnmara Meester
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of November 16, 2005 approved.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Election of Officers:
Maryann Dennis elected as Chair, Shane Kron as Vice Chair, and Kathy Magarrell as
Secretary. Lisa Drahozal Pooley elected as Iowa City representative.
2. MICCIO Grant (Paws to Assist):
Shelter did not get as much as it asked for - asked for $10,000 and received $2,000.
Shelter will continue to apply for grants to help fund citizen assistance spay/neuter
programs. The shelter will start stamping grants documents in order to show correct
place of origin so there won't be any confusion.
OLD BUSINESS
I. Update on 28E Agreement with City of Coralville:
Nothing new to report at this time.
2. Holidav with the Hounds Report:
The event was very successful; fewer people than last year, but pleasant atmosphere for
people to talk and meet the animals. There were several adoptions after the event.
3. Board Member Reports:
Discussion of meeting time for the new year (Wednesdays) and reaffirmation of
switching meeting locations between Iowa City and Coralville. Shane Kron agreed to
post the agenda at Coralville City Ha1124 hours in advance.
4. Citizen Reports:
Pat Farrant and Mary Blout attended the meeting in order to discuss spay/neuter
programs, and ways in which we can work together. Goodman explained to guests the
role of Johnson County in shelter procedures; all agreed that spay/neuter issues need to be
regionally addressed. The serious problem of feral and sick cats continues; this is
everyone's problem; combining our efforts will be a start, but need to get the message out
that this is a growing problem, and quite serious, and it affects all citizens.
Pat Farrant reported on what Johnson County Humane Society has been doing to try and
help the feral cats in the area with their regional spay/neuter clinic.
The Board agreed that it would be beneficial to attend area council meetings and report
on the current serious animal population problems.
Maryann Dennis agreed to set up a listserv so that this group (and others that may want to
join the conversation) can exchange ideas and combine efforts on future action plans.
Meeting Adiourned:
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
2
ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2006
NAME Jan
25,
2006
Shane
Kron X
Maryanne
Dennis X
Kathy
Mal!arrell X
Lisa
Drahozal- X
Pooley
Coalville
ADDointee? 0
KEY:
X=
0=
OlE =
NM=
LQ=
Present
Absent
Absent/Excused
No meeting
No meeting due to lack of quorum
Not a Member
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2006
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
Preliminary ~
MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Justin
Pardekooper, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Brennan, James Enloe, Jan Weissmiller
STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting 10 order at 6:01 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Resolution of issues related to coverina of built-in autters:
Weitzel said that the Commission was meeting to review some changes in wording in Section 4.11 for
gutters and downspouts. He said the Commission is discussing the fact that there are several options
under Section 4.11; the only thing that is disallowed is altering the roof pitch. Weitzel said he recalled that
the Commission believed that a small pitch, just enough to allow water to run off, would be sufficient to
deal with water issues but also so minimal that it would not really change the noticeable appearance of
the house and would comply with the guidelines.
Carlson said that right now his memo did not propose any particular roof pitch. He said he was looking for
a consensus from the Commission that this would be an acceptable change. Carlson said that right now
the way the guideline is phrased and was interpreted when reviewing the application for 517 Grant Street
was that no change In pitch was allowed. He said that discussions with Shelley McCafferty and Weitzel's
discussions with Bob Miklo suggest that in fact the Commission's original intent for horizontal gutters was
to allow some small pitch for drainage. He said that in order to make that recommendation to the City
Council, he wanted to get the consensus of the Commission that it would indeed consider doing this and
that it would be a reasonable change to the guidelines to allow for a small pitch for drainage when
covering built-in gutters.
Gunn said that one of the solutions the Commission discussed in the past was that the gutters didn't have
to be dished with drains coming out of the bottom but that they could be covered with a slight pitch and
put the gutter around it. He said that was discussed when the guidelines were written and several times
since. Gunn said that no one ever talked about a porch roof being dead flat. He said there is always pitch,
even on an internal gutter; what is called a flat roof has a pitch. Gunn said the Commission talked about
the gutters themselves being quite a compromise, allowing an external gutter on what was originally an
internal gutter.
Carlson stated that there are three sections in his memo that are highlighted that need Commission
approval. He said that what is being proposed to resolve the issue in the 517 Grant Street case is to
retroactively grant a Certificate of Appropriateness using the Commission's power to grant a special
exception. Carlson said that approval would be based on the information that was presented to City
Council and to the Commission informally and the fact that given the way the Commission was
interpreting the guidelines for flat roofs earlier, there was no reasonabie cost alternative for the owner at
that time. He said that given that state of affairs, the Commission would now clarify the wording of the
guidelines but retroactively approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the work that has been done,
given the confusion around the issue at the time.
Gunn asked what the state of the house is right now. Carlson said it is basically the same as it was when
the Commission denied the application back in September. He said it is a pitched roof of probably more
than the Commission would want to see, although at that time, some Commission members were willing
to let the project go as it was. Carlson said that at the time of the application, one side of the house was
done, and since then, the other side has been completed. Weitzei said the Building Department's letter to
the owner makes it clear that she is in violation but will not be fined until a solution can be worked out.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 2
Carlson said this issue should be brought up during the Preservation Plan review this summer. Weitzel
said he has not heard from Marlys Svendsen whether that is within the scope of the Plan review. He said
that in the grant proposal, the Commission actually specified gelling a CLG for another grant to
investigate work flow issues and things of this nature. Terdalkar said the consultants will be reviewing the
guidelines for problems, as that was part of the RFP. He added that when a Commission representative
meets with the City Council formally or in a work session, these kinds of issues can be discussed.
McCallum said that he is concerned that the Building Code and the Historic Preservation Code need to be
consistent. He said that the Building Code section regarding windows is very clear about what needs to
be done in the districts, but the same pattern does not hold true for roofing. McCallum said he would like
to see clarity throughout the Building Code and believes that the contractor may not have known that a
building permit was required in this case.
Gunn said the discussion was never to have a pitch suitable for shingles; it was to have a pitch suitable
for some sort of flashing or EPDM or asphalt or something like that. Pardekooper said that the application
of EPDM is expensive, because a roofing contractor has to have his employees certified in order to do the
work or the warranty is void. He said that Acrymax is a good alternative to EPDM. Pardekooper said that
one thing to be addressed with these gutter systems is that he has seen some that have been done
perfectly. He said that he looked at the Grant Street house and felt that in specific areas where there was
leaking, there was maintenance done that built up around the seams of the tin that trapped water, which
coincided with where all the major water damage was inside the house.
Pardekooper said that keeping water damage from these old houses should be viewed as important as
keeping these houses going in their historical aspects. He said that water will ruin a house more quickly
than anything else, especially these historic houses because of all the wood elements. Pardekooper said
that a gambrel roof for which the roof slope cannot be changed is then capped, leaving a completeiy flat
roof where water won't go anywhere. He said that some emphasis on just the internal gutters should be
thought about. Pardekooper said that longevity-wise, there has to be a happy medium to preserve these
houses and not just the architectural styles of them. He said that internal gutters tend to be a problem.
Weitzel said that these lasted 80 years without any problem, which is a lot longer than any roof one can
get today. Pardekooper agreed but said that years ago there were a lot more homeowners who were
willing to work on their homes too, cleaning the gutters and maintaining them. He said the internal gutters
look great, but keeping water away from these homes is a huge concern for a lot of people. Pardekooper
said that allowing for a little bit of pitch to cover the gutters up and put external gutters on them, in this
kind of scenario, is just practical and reasonable.
Weitzel suggested using flashing back up the roof. Pardekooper asked if the idea then is to cap it flat and
then put a gutter system on it. Weitzel confirmed this and said that is what the Commission is allowing.
Pardekooper asked if this would still allow a flat roof but with a standard gutter on the outside. Weitzel
agreed and said that the Commission acknowledges that the gutter has to do something to keep from
getting to the foundation.
Pardekooper stated that there are a lot of old foursquares with flat front porch roofs. He said that for
those, it would be much easier to maintain a reasonable, nice-looking pitch. Weitzel said that most of
them are actually hipped inside. Pardekooper said it is a tricky situation. He asked how many houses
have a gambrel with internal gutters on it. Weitzel agreed that it is unusual but said that is why it is a
unique situation that the Commission needs to preserve.
The Commission discussed the use of EPDM. Weitzel said that at some level, he doesn't think the
Commission members can be the ones who determine who does the work. He said there are several
options still available, including EPDM, flashing, and Acrymax. Pardekooper said he thinks it will be a
hard sell to convince people to not want to cap these. He said he believes the contractor for 517 Grant
Street probably didn't think he needed a building permit and so did the most cost effective thing.
Weitzel said that what the Commission needs to determine is whether or not that alters the appearance of
the house. Pardekooper said that it does alter the appearance.
Maharry said that the City Council was prepared at the time of the homeowner's appeal to change the
guidelines right then and there. Weitzel said that he was concerned that the Commission would be selling
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 3
a precedent by changing this now. He said he is afraid this will turn into a driveway right through the
guidelines. Maharry said the Commission then needs to use appropriate wording to show that the
decision was made for an appropriate reason, rather than the homeowner appealing a decision with
which she was unhappy.
Maharry said if the Commission is going to ailow minimal roof slope modifications, he thought that could
be justification for going back and looking at the 517 Grant Street application. Weitzel stated that he
would rather not approve that project, from a pervasive, overall perspective. He said that from the
beginning, this has been because of a general precedence.
Ponto asked what the minimum would be. Maharry said that is what a majority gets to decide. He said
that would at least open it up, because right now, there is nothing allowed. Pardekooper said that visuaily,
three would be the maximum. Terdalkar said that anything below 10% pitch is considered a fiat roof, and
the Commission could put a cap at that level. He said that would be the minimal slope needed to drain out
the water. Pardekooper said that it would drain water at that pitch.
Maharry asked if the Building Code currently defines a flat roof as one with a less than 10% pitch.
Terdalkar said that conventionaily the construction definition of a fiat roof includes those with a siope of
up to 10%, but he did not know if there was a definition in the Building Code. Maharry said that if the
Commission defines a fiat roof as having a slope of up to 10%, that ailows approvability for something
that is not completely horizontal.
Weitzel said he talked to the contractor for 517 Grant Street and said that the contractor grew up in the
neighborhood and is used to a cheap, quick repair. Weitzel said that is fine for most houses, but the
historic district requires a higher standard. He said that people had the chance to oppose the historic
district at the time the discussions for designation went on. Weitzel said that this is something most
architectural historians and architects would agree is a change in appearance.
Terdalkar said the guidelines could specify a ten degree slope. Gunn said that would make it something
less than one in nine. Pardekooper said that even one in twelve will shed water fine. He said that one in
twelve wiil also work with the wording with the horizontal blocking. Pardekooper said the blocking would
need to be done in such a way that as the blocking is growing and being tied back in with steeper of the
internai gutter, one could stiil maintain just enough fail to get the water to drain. He said that covering that
is another discussion, but the horizontal blocking could still be put into place. Pardekooper said one would
then ailow for an external gutter with a normal downspout, and water should shed. He said that there
would still need to be backfiashing up the plane of the roof, but it should work with no problem.
Pardekooper said that a roofer in the City, R. C. Wemberly, told him about a peel and stick product made
by Certain Teed that works well on short sections. He said that it is designed for flatter roofs, and the
color can be matched.
Carlson asked what surface materials would work for a one in twelve grade. Pardekooper said that EPDM
would work. He said that rubber would drain water but would break down over a period of time.
Pardekooper said that one could ice and water shield and probably do a three-inch reveal and shingles.
Weitzel said the Commission might want to consider going back to the design/technical manual and
having the list of products there instead of in the guidelines.
Pardekooper questioned whether there was a better way to let building contractors know about these
kinds of issues. Weitzel said the CLG was designed to look at those kinds of staffing/work flow issues.
Maharry said the first highlighted area of the memo looks fine to him. Carlson said he assumed that there
would need to be more research done on slopes and materials, although he wanted to get a consensus
for the purposes of the memo that some slope is permissible.
Regarding this application, Weitzel said he did not see why the Commission would have to allow it. He
said the work is done now, and the Commission's action could be not to tear it off, but the Commission
doesn't have to approve it. Weitzel pointed out that the Commission did not approve the demolition of the
structure on Governor Street but didn't make the owner build it back up either. Maharry said the
Commission could change the guidelines but does not need to change its opinion about that application.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 4
Carlson asked about the wording regarding the resolution of 517 Grant Street. Weitzel suggested
including the wording that the Historic Preservation Commission considers the matter closed. Maharry
said that if HIS chooses not to enforce this, the Commission is not the police. He said there are no
repercussions for doing this.
Gunn said that right now the City is looking to the Historic Preservation Commission to end this issue
under its authority. He said he thinks it is counterproductive to just ignore the issue. Gunn said the
Building Department and the City Council are trying to get the Commission's approval, so if the
Commission says that it is okay to just do whatever, it opens the door for that kind of action in the future.
Weitzel said the guidelines cail this disallowed. He said if the Commission ailows it at this point, he is
concerned that anyone who disapproves of the guidelines will go ahead and do what he wants, because
he doesn't have to follow the guidelines. Gunn said that is possibie but said that it won't happen on a
gutter again. He said if the Commission invites people to ignore its rulings, he thinks it is a mistake.
Maharry said he thinks what this does is encourage people to appeai decisions when the Commission
denies their applications. He said it gives them more impetus to go to the City Council and complain,
whether they're right or not. Maharry said then the City Council comes back on the Commission, which is
a bad precedent. Gunn said that the Commission wins most of those.
Maharry said the Commission could bend over completely backward and retroactively approve the Grant
Street application. He said, however, that based on the new wording, it probably still would not pass.
Carlson agreed that the application probably still would not pass. He said his idea was that because there
was some confusion at the time, the Commission would approve the project.
Weitzel said he still did not think the Commission needs to do too much with this, because there are
several other things that HIS has chosen not to enforce in the last two years that the Commission doesn't
have any say over. Carlson said the Commission could say that it voted, and since there is no application
under consideration, the Commission has no further obligation. Weitzel said that is legally correct; the
Commission does not reaily have the legal option to go back and open up cases and change the vote.
Gunn said he thought the Commission could reconsider any question it wants to consider.
Weitzel said the Commission goes through sort of a minor court process, and once the Commission has
held its hearing and made its decision, it is recorded and put into effect. He said that if the Commission
can't go back and change something that it did like, it should also be that the Commission can't go back
and change something it didn't like. Weitzel said that is just due process.
Maharry said the Commission could limit its scope. He said the Commission is doing what the City
Council asked it to do in reviewing the historic preservation guidelines that disallow this and is, in fact,
going to change it.
Ponto said that if the Commission were going to approve this application under Section 3.6, there should
be an application to ask for that. Weitzel and Maharry agreed. Ponto said that otherwise it would be an
arbitrary and capricious decision. Carlson said he fully agrees and said there has been some suggestion
on the part of staff that the Commission should not ask for another application. Terdalkar said that he also
believes this would need some kind of application to consider it.
Weitzel left the meeting at 7:51, and Carlson took over as Chair of the meeting.
Gunn said that there was a time when the Commission was afraid to ban aluminum or vinyl siding on
historic homes and also had no way to prevent demolition. He said the Commission tiptoed around these
issues and debated for a year before it addressed these situations with guidelines. Gunn said the
Commission has iost all of that concern about the politics and property rights of it. He said he thought the
Commission shouid tread a lillie more softly. Gunn said the Commission now has guidelines, and
although it sometimes hits rough patches, the best thing to do may be to draft a carefully written memo
and send it off and then go on. He said the last thing the Commission wants to do is offend a lot of people
in the City and in potential future districts with historic preservation. Gunn said that perhaps the
Commission should be a little bit more humble.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 5
Maharry said that there was not much ieeway with this application. He said the Commission is proposing
to change something that other cities might not consider changing.
Pardekooper said one of the things to address with this particular issue is that if there is no regulation of
roofing, then if the Building Department doesn't see the address and it doesn't come up that the property
is in a preservation district, the Commission can change this but the situation will occur again. He stated
that if roofing is not regulated, there is no way for the Building Department to know this is even
happening.
Maharry said that there is an annual letter sent to notify property owners in historic and conservation
districts. He asked Terdalkar if roofing is included in the wording. Terdalkar said he thought the wording
included something about external gutters but not anything about built-in gutters. Pardekooper said that
changing the wording is necessary, but there should also be a way to let people know about the
guidelines regarding internal gutters.
Maharry said that in the rnemo, the Commission should probably include some of the discussion
regarding the runoff. He said there needs to be evidence presented about why the Commission is
changing the wording. Carlson said that from past discussion, he believed that this was part of the original
idea when the guidelines were put together, although it was not clear in the guidelines. He said that this is
not a change in the guidelines so much as a clarification.
Gunn said that coil stock is another option for working with internal gutters. Pardekooper said that they
can be lined with new coil stock, which is thicker than tin. He said that the bigger issue is regulating this.
Pardekooper said that as one drives through these neighborhoods, vinyl siding or' windows are easy to
see, but an internai gutter system is not something that can be seen casually.
Maharry said that the Commission revisited this issue and is making clarifications. He suggested that the
Commission then call for more regulation of roofing in general.
Terdalkar pointed out that a permit is not required for the reroofing of a single-family home or duplex if
there is no structural change. He said that if the work requires structural review, then a permit is required.
Terdalkar said that all multi-family buildings are reviewed for re-shingling, because there are different
standards for what is applied.
Gunn said he doesn't really like what was done on Grant Street or agree with it, but he believes the flak
created is detrimental to historic preservation in the long run, and the best thing to do is to just turn one's
head .and go on. He said it is a concession to someone, but he would rather retroactively approve the
project than to say just ignore the Commission. Gunn said he would rather have a letter from staff saying
it should be reviewed, if that's what it takes to get it back on the table, review it, and approve it. He said
the Commission could win this one, but it may give up hundreds of properties in the future.
Ponto said that because of all the confusion, he would be willing to consider the project and possibly
approve it under Section 3.6. He said, however, that he would like to see it come before the Commission
as some type of application.
Maharry said that if the applicant reapplies, he thought the Commission could approve under Section 3.6,
but until the change in 4.11 is approved, the Commission can't change its vote based on something that
hasn't been officially approved yet. Gunn pointed out that this is not a change but is a guideline
clarification. He said it should have been made clear in the guidelines that a minor slope was a realistic
possibility. Gunn said Carlson has written a nicely drafted memo to put this behind the Commission, so
that people think of historic preservation as a good thing.
Ponto said he liked the first sentence of the third highlighted paragraph, "...the Commission is prepared to
exercise its power to make a special exception..." He said that points out that the Commission will review
it if it receives another application. Carlson said it has been suggested that it would be easier to take the
information already presented, rather than asking the applicant to come back again. Ponto said that the
applicant does not need to attend another meeting. He said, however, that the Commission needs to see
an application that asks for a special exception.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 6
Maharry suggested that Terdalkar call the applicant and tell her he would fill out a form for her, letting her
know that the Commission would re-vote and that the vote would probably be favorable. Maharry said
Terdalkar could inform her that the issues have been resolved, but the Commission needs another
application to vote on it.
Carlson said he could insert a sentence in the memo asking the applicant to resubmit an application to
reopen this issue. He said he could also include some wording stating that the Commission is open to
considering some other mechanism by which it could reconsider this legally. Gunn suggested asking the
Legal Department about this.
Terdalkar said the City Council received a letter from the homeowner which was included in its most
recent information packet. He said the Commission is trying to get a response to the City Council as soon
as possible. .
Maharry said the second highlighted paragraph in the memo could be removed, although the rest is fine.
Carlson said it was suggested that the conclusion be put right up front, and then the second highlighted
paragraph was supposed to give more detail about the first paragraph. Maharry suggested that the
wording in the second highlighted paragraph be changed to ". ..The final conclusion of the Commission is
that the present wording of Section 4.11 does not make clear that a minimal slope for drainage is
permissible when..." to "...The final conclusion of the Commission is that the present wording of Section
4.11 does not make clear that a minimal slope for drainage has been permissible when..." He said that
would clarify that some slope has always been permissible.
Pardekooper read under disallowed, "Roof slope - altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering
historic building gutters." He said that the roof slope at 517 Grant Street is 24:12, it's a gambrel.
Pardekooper said that with that language, one could go as high as he wants then. He said one could do a
three, a four, a five, or a six. Pardekooper said that if the owner has a massive roof slope, he could put
about whatever he wanted there.
McCallum said that the owner did this with rough sheathing, just plywood. He said the Building Code says
that a building permit is not required unless one is replacing more than 50% of the rough sheathing.
McCallum said that if the owner wanted to take this to court, he thought she would prevail. He said he
wondered if that is why the Building Department is reluctant to enforce this.
Terdaikar said that the project has resulted in adding more roof surface by covering the gutters, not re-
sheathing or replacing part of the sheathing and that is the reason a building permit is required, under
review for structural changes. Terdalkar said that if the conditions were different had used a thinner
plywood or a longer span, she would need to have it supported with rafters, which would need to be tied
into the rafters from the original roof, these changes warrant a structural review. Terdalkar said that since
the project was not reviewed for structural safety, only the contractor can tell accurately what materials
were used and was the method used to cover the gutters. He said that because H IS doesn't even have
the owner's application for review to decide if the change is structurally sound. Terdalkar said the
applicant is in violation for that, which resulted in the letter from the City.
Gunn said that the implication from the language is that one can cover internal gutters if it is done right.
He said that even when the Commission wrote the wording, it had in mind that internal gutters could be
covered, but with a gentle pitch and a gutter on the outside.
Pardekooper said that when someone asks his roofing contractor to deal with internal gutters, the
contractor will do sornething just like this. Carlson asked if that is because the wording in the Building
Code is interpreted to allow less than a 50% change in sheathing. McCallum said that is why the Building
Code needs to be clarified. Terdalkar said that adding to the sheathing creates more roof surface.
The consensus of the Comrnission was that Carlson's memo was good. Gunn said that the memo could
also suggest a clarification of the language in the Building Code. Maharry suggested adding a sentence
regarding the Commission's need for an application to review, regarding 517 Grant Street.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
February 22, 2006
Page 7
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s:fpcdlminulesJhpcl2006HPCminutesl02-22-06.doc
I Historic Preservation Commission
I Attendance Record
I
i
i 2006
I
I
I Term
I Name Expires 1/19 2/9 2/22
M. Brennan 3/29108 X X OlE
R Carlson 3/29/07 X X X
i J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X OlE
M. Gunn 3/29/07 X X X
M. M.h.rry 3/29108 X X X
M. McCallum 3/29106 X X X
J. Pardekooper 3/29/07 X X X
J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X
I J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 0 0 0
T. Weitzel 3/29/08 X X X
Key:
X = Present
I 0 = Absent
OlE = AbsentlExcused
NM = No Meeting
-- -- = Not a Member
,
I
i
i
I
I
,
i
I
,