HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-19 Info Packet~ _ i
"" ~`'~,S
•a_.e__
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
November 19, 2009
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Tentative Meeting Schedule (January-March 2010)
IP3 Press-Citizen Article: Environmental groups need to cooperate [submitted by the Interim
City Manager]
IP4 Memorandum from Captain R.D. Wyss to Chief Hargadine: August-September Use of Force
Review
IP5 Letter from the Community Development Planner to Parkview Terrace property owners:
CDBG Buyout Approval
IP6 Quarterly Investment Report July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009 [submitted by the Senior
Accountant]
IP7 Memorandum from the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Community
Development: Update: Flood-related activities
IP8 Letter from Lee Grassley, Mediacom, to the City Clerk: Channel Changes
DRAFT MINUTES
IP9 Housing and Community Development Commission: October 22, 2009
IP10 Senior Center Commission: October 15, 2009
IP11 Senior Center Commission: October 27, 2009
IP12 Senior Center Commission: November 5, 2009
IP13 Planning and Zoning Commission: November 2, 2009
IP14 Planning and Zoning Commission: November 5, 2 009
IP15 Parks and Recreation Commission: October 14, 2009
~ - ~
~ ~~®d1~
~~III;~~
City Council Meeting Schedule and 11-19-09
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas IP1
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Council Work Session
• TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, DECEMBER 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:OOp Meeting with Legislators
• MONDAY, DECEMBER 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBA Regular Council Work Session
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting (Continue Work Session if necessary)
• TUESDAY, JANUARY 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Formal Organizational Meeting-Work Session Budget overview
• WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall
8:OOa-5:OOp Special Budget Work Session
• MONDAY, JANUARY 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, JANUARY 12 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• THURSDAY, JANUARY 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Budget Work Session (Boards/Commissions/Events)
• MONDAY, JANUARY 18
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day -City Offices Closed
• TUESDAY, JANUARY 19 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Budget Work Session
• WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20 North liberty
4:OOp Special Work Session -Joint Meeting
7:OOp Special Budget Work Session (wrap up) Emma J. Harvat Hall
• MONDAY, JANUARY 25 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting (Continue Work Session if necessary)
r ~~~~
''" '""'®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
~...._
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas November 18, 2009
www.icgov.org
• MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15
Presidents' Day -City Offices Closed
• TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Council Work Session
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting (Continue Work Session if necessary)
• MONDAY, MARCH 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, MARCH 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, MARCH 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
IP2
~~,®~ CITY CAF 1~WA CITY
~CJR~
~E
DATE: November 17, 2009
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Tentative Meeting Schedule (January-March 2010)
At your work session of November 12, 2009 Council agreed to the following meeting schedule:
January 5 -Tuesday
Special formal Organizational * meeting; work session BUDGET overview, 6:30 PM
January 6 -Wednesday
Special BUDGET work session, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
January 11 -Monday
Special work session, 6:30 PM
January 12 -Tuesday
Special formal, 7:00 PM
January 14 -Thursday
Special BUDGET work session (Boards/Commission/Events), 7:00 PM
January 18 -Monday, HOLIDAY
January 19 -Tuesday
Special BUDGET work session, 7:00 PM
January 20 -Wednesday
Special work session Qoint meeting in North Liberty), 4:00 PM
Special BUDGET work session (wrap up) , 7:00 PM
January 25 - Monday
Special work session, TBD
Special formal, 7:00 PM
February 1 -Monday
Regular work session, 6:30 PM
February 2 -Tuesday
Regular formal, 7:00 PM
February 15 -Monday, HOLIDAY
February 16 -Tuesday
Special work session, TBD
Regular formal, 7:00 PM
March 1 -Monday
Regular work session, 6:30 PM
March 2 -Tuesday
Regular formal, 7:00 PM
March 22 -Monday
Special work session, 6:30 PM
March 23 -Tuesday
Special formal, 7:00 PM
* City Code requires meeting be held between noon on January 2 and noon on January 6
Cc: Department Heads
Cable TV
Maintenance
U: schedule (January-March2010)
www.press-citizen.com ~ Printer-friendly article page
November 15, 2009
Environmental groups need to cooperate
Jen Jordan, the Iowa City Recycling Coordinator, and Maeve Clark, the Iowa City Public Library
Information Services Coordinator, are on a mission to improve the environmental resiliency of our
community through an initiative they created titled "ECO Iowa City." To support the initiative, they
applied for and received a $57,000 grant from the International City/County Management Association.
Their goals are to promote local food, composting, energy conservation, stormwater management
and proper waste reuse and disposal.
Rather than independently organizing events, they are forming symbiotic partnerships with local
organizations and maximizing everyone's efforts in the process. l have had the sincere pleasure of
working with them through several Backyard Abundance events and have seen our impact
substantially magnified.
For too long we environmental organizations have operated independently, conforming to a culture
that tells us reliance on others is weakness. In following this approach, our noble and tireless efforts
have resulted in very little movement in the Environmental NFovement. At best we have slowed the
acceleration of our environmental problems, but we certainly have not stopped or reversed them.
Subsequently, over many decades, the meaning of environmental success has been redefined from
the creation of ecological abundance to just trying to do less harm. If we hope to make real progress,
it is time we re-evaluated our methods.
Nothing in a healthy ecosystem operates independently. Strength, flexibility and abundance emerge
from the web of connections streaming from every organism. When we emulate nature's time-tested,
collaboration-based principles in our efforts, resilience and success will (naturally) follow.
Collectively, we are beginning to question the supposed advantages of living the unnatural hyper-
individualistic rat-race promoted by our culture. We yearn for connection with our community and
nature; we want to find ways to help others, not just ourselves; and we want to understand how our
efforts fit into an overall strategy.
ECO Iowa City is a shining example of collaboration and emulating them puts us on a bright path of
mutually-beneficial relationships and actions. Backyard Abundance is taking this approach by inviting
local environmental organizations to help teach at our "Create Abundant Landscapes" courses which
will be launched early next year.
You can see ECO Iowa City's collaboration in action at the plethora of events they are constantly
promoting. Each event is designed to help you learn how to improve the health of our environment.
Local food film screenings, bicycle maintenance programs, greenhouse gas emission presentations,
and recycling events all await you. For more information about these events and others, stay tuned to
their Web site at http://icpl,org/eco-iowa-city.
Fred Meyer is the director of Backyard Abundance, a local environmental education
nonprofit.
IP3
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20091115/OPINIONOS/911150301 / 1018/OPINION/Environm... 11 / 16/2009
IP4
DEPARTMENT MEMO #09-41
TO: Chief Hargadine
FROM: Captain R. D. Wyss
RE: August-September Use of Force Review
DATE: 16 November 2009
The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on November 16, 2009. It was composed of Captain
Wyss, Sgt. Hurd and Sgt. Kelsay.
The review of submitted reports for August (18 incidents-24 reports) and September (15
incidents-27 reports) were completed and revealed no training, policy or safety issues. Of the 33
incidents over the two month period, 5 were for a drawn sidearm or displayed weapons and three
of those were for the destruction of animals.
OC was deployed on two occasions, and in three incidents a Taser was discharged. On two
separate occasions, a Taser was displayed which resulted in compliance without deployment.
There were two vehicular pursuits involving three Officers during this time period.
Of the 33 incidents reviewed, 5 suspects and 1 Officer had sustained injuries.
One incident was referred back to a supervisor to address a report that was not submitted by a
back-up Officer.
All personnel continue doing a good job in their documentation and review of the reports.
Please contact me if you have any duestions.
Copy: City Manager, PCRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee
November 16, 2009
Parkview Terrace
Iowa City, -A 55246
Re: CDBG Buyout Approval
Dear Property Owner:
IP5
~~.®~
~w~~~
-•t.a:._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
lotiva City, lo~ka 52240-1826
(3191 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www. icgov.org
The City has received approval of its application for Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG] funds for the purchase of substantially damaged properties in the Parkview Terrace
neighborhood. Although the funding has been approved, not all of the guidelines for the program
have been released. Once the contract between the State and City is signed, another letter will
be sent out to all applicants of the CDBG buyout program with more detailed information on how
the buyout program will proceed.
We have also received good news from the State regarding the recapture of Jumpstart
assistance for homeowners that participate in the CDBG buyout program. Homeowners that
received Federal or State Jumpstart, repair assistance and can provide documentation that the
assistance was expended for structural repair purposes, will not be required to pay back the
Jumpstart assistance. In addition, all insurance funds and FEMA repair assistance used for
structural repair purposes will not be taken out of the buyout offer.
Homeowners that received State Jumpstart down payment assistance and/or interim mortgage
assistance will not be required to pay back the assistance if the total amount awarded is less than
$25,000. Although interim mortgage assistance will not need to be paid back, all reimbursements
for principle payments will be counted as a duplication of benefits and will be taken out of the
buyout offer price, but interest payments and escrow will not be counted as a duplication of
benefits and will not be taken out of the offer price.
Keep in mind, the CDBG buyout is a voluntary program. All applicants can choose to back out of
the program at any time prior to closing on the property. If you have questions or need more
information, please contact me at 319-356-5479 or doug-ongieC~iowa-city.org.
Sincerely,
~--/~~<
-J
Doug Ongie
Community Development Planner
CC: City Council
Dale E. Netting, Interim City Manager
Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development
Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works
i°*J
11-19-09
IP6
CITY OF IOWA CITY
QUARTERLY
INVESTMENT REPORT
July 1, 2009
to
September 30, 2009
Finance Department
Prepared by:
Brian Cover
Senior Accountant
OVERVIEW
The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield.
The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the
preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's
investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet
operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate.
In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed
with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six
month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for
riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum
standard for the portfolio's rate of return. The rolling average return on the
six-month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 1.40% at 9/30/09.
The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold,
consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate
of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 1.51 % which is 11
basis points higher than the threshold. (See exhibit A)
Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the fourth quarter of this
fiscal year had an average return of .349%. Rates on new investment
purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the first quarter were
approximately 273 basis points lower than investments purchased at this
time last year. Several large cities in Iowa are experiencing the same
trouble we are in finding any institution that is willing to take investment
funds.
The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each
other. The Federal Reserve will maintain the U.S. interest rate to "a target
range" of between zero and 0.25 percent and the Federal Open Market
Committee anticipates that economic conditions are likely to warrant
exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.
(See exhibit B)
The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by
maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed.
New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by
Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this
quarter were 0.60% in July, 0.50% in August, and 0.45% in September
2009.
._
m
''
ca
I-
s
co
•-
V
ca
'~ o
~' o
._
V
i~+ I I
U =
I
~~ c~ ~
!
o ~ ' '~
- ~I
o 0
~~ ~ ~
_
~; U
~~ ~ c~ ',
~ - ~I
0 0 0 0 0 0
cfl ~i ~ ri c~i
uan~aa ~o a6e~uaaaad
6p,4' ~I
as,
6p,~ '~,,
~~
6p,~~
Gy
Sp,~a '~
O ~ a
0.4,
~ as ~! _
p`~~~ ' w
8p,~
~~ '~~
lp,~a
_ 0
lp,Qa
S
lp,~~ ~~
- lp,~~
9 ~
0.~~
9 ~
0.
o Qas
0
N
~, ~
C'~
L
II
LL
6p
.~'a
i S
i
~ ; ~
~, 6p, ~,
~, ~ ~~~
~I I 6p,~~
j W
~p~~a
O
l sp, ~,~
I ~ as
S
~! 8p,~
~r
'00
~p'~~ ' H
~ ~
m
~ 'I ~ C ~~_
O~~a w
'E O
I i~ ~p
~i `(y
as
~p,~
I
W
90,E ~~
a
O
i
9p,4,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~~
co ~ci ~ cri c~i ~ o aS
a~a~ }saaa~u~
__ _ __
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENTS ON HAND
DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE
9/30/2009
INSTITUTION
NAME INVESTMENT
TYPE PURCHASE
DATE MATURITY
DATE I NVESTMENT
AMOUNT INTEREST
RATE
IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 13-Jun-02 N/A $ 3,000,000.00 VARIABLE
HILLS BANK SAVINGS 10-Oct-06 N/A $ 1,000,000.00 VARIABLE
HILLS BANK SAVINGS 16-Nov-07 N/A $ 5,000,000.00 VARIABLE
HILLS BANK SAVINGS 12-Jan-09 N/A $ 2,000,000.00 VARIABLE
HILLS BANK SAVINGS 18-Jul-08 N/A $ 1,000,000.00 VARIABLE
IPAIT 06A GO IPAIT 17-Apr-09 N/A $ 1,170,988.51 VARIABLE
IPAIT 03 GO IPAIT 17-Apr-09 N/A $ 552,655.39 VARIABLE
IPAIT IPAIT 12-May-09 N/A $ 13,000,000.00 VARIABLE
IPAIT 2009 D GO IPAIT 12-Jun-09 N/A $ 213,030.50 VARIABLE
IPAIT 2009 C GO IPAIT 12-Jun-09 N/A $ 5,372,106.33 VARIABLE
IPAIT 2008 GO IPAIT 15-Jul-09 N/A $ 3,752,402.20 VARIABLE
WELLS FARGO CD 23-Dec-08 09-Oct-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.590
WELLS FARGO CD 23-Dec-08 23-Oct-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.590
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 23-Jan-09 23-Oct-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.500
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 03-Nov-08 31-Oct-09 $ 2,000,000.00 3.010
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 03-Nov-08 31-Oct-09 $ 1,000,000.00 3.110
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10-Feb-09 10-Nov-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.830
WELLS FARGO CD 23-Dec-08 13-Nov-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.590
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 23-Dec-08 25-Nov-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.880
LIBERTY BANK CD 01-May-09 30-Nov-09 $ 1,564,000.00 1.115
FIRST AMERICAN BANK 05 GO CD 12-Dec-08 11-Dec-09 $ 735,274.22 1.610
IPAIT 07 GO CD 15-Dec-08 11-Dec-09 $ 936,982.40 1.690
WELLS FARGO CD 16-Mar-09 16-Dec-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.490
LIBERTY BANK CD 16-Mar-09 16-Dec-09 $ 2,000,000.00 1.745
LIBERTY BANK CD 16-Apr-09 31-Dec-09 $ 900,000.00 1.255
IPAIT CD 31-Dec-08 04-Jan-10 $ 4,000,000.00 2.000
LIBERTY BANK CD 27-Aug-09 04-Jan-10 $ 1,000,000.00 0.315
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 16-Apr-09 16-Jan-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.600
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 23-Jan-09 23-Jan-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.750
LIBERTY BANK CD 10-Feb-09 10-Feb-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.845
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10-Feb-09 10-Feb-10 $ 2,000,000.00 2.050
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 11-May-09 05-Mar-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.000
LIBERTY BANK CD 16-Mar-09 16-Mar-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.875
BANK OF THE WEST CD 26-Mar-09 26-Mar-10 $ 5,000,000.00 2.000
FREEDOM SECURITY CD 16-Apr-09 16-Apr-10 $ 1,000,000.00 1.630
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 16-Apr-09 16-Apr-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.950
BANK OF THE WEST CD 16-Apr-09 16-Apr-10 $ 10,000,000.00 1.600
LIBERTY BANK CD 11-May-09 07-May-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.015
LIBERTY BANK CD 11-May-09 14-May-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.015
LIBERTY BANK CD 27-Aug-09 01-Jun-10 $ 5,000,000.00 0.515
AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CD 11-May-09 04-Jun-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.750
BANK OF THE WEST CD 25-Jun-09 11-Jun-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.290
BANK OF THE WEST CD 25-Jun-09 18-Jun-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.290
FREEDOM SECURITY CD 02-Jul-08 25-Jun-10 $ 300,000.00 4.050
FREEDOM SECURITY CD 02-Jul-08 25-Jun-10 $ 974,504.00 4.050
BANK OF THE WEST CD 25-Jun-09 25-Jun-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.290
BANK OF THE WEST CD 25-Jun-09 02-Jul-10 $ 2,000,000.00 1.290
IPAIT -WATER CD 28-Feb-08 27-Feb-12 $ 450,000.00 4.100
IPAIT -WATER CD 28-Feb-08 27-Feb-12 $ 2,234,789.00 4.100
AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CD 12-Dec-08 12-Dec-13 $ 6,197,315.00 3.750
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 12-Dec-08 12-Dec-13 $ 2,000,000.00 4.180
TOTAL $ 125,354,047.55
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENT ACTIVITY
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 6/30/09
INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST
INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE
PURCHASES 7/01/09 TO 9/30/09
IPAIT 2008 GO IPAIT 15-Jul-09 N/A $ 4,065,514.85 VAR.
LIBERTY BANK CD 27-Aug-09 04-Jan-10 $ 1,000,000.00 0.315
LIBERTY BANK CD 27-Aug-09 01-Jun-10 $ 5,000,000.00 0.515
TOTAL PURCHASES
REDEMPTIONS 7/01/09 TO 9130/09
WELLS FARGO CD 31-Dec-08 30-Jun-09 $ (1,000,000.00) 1.420
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 28-Aug-08 01-Jul-09 $ (3,000,000.00) 3.610
IPAIT IPAIT 18-May-09 NIA $ (8,970,637.92) VARIABLE
IPAIT IPAIT 18-May-09 N/A $ (9,952,919.44) VARIABLE
AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CD 21-Oct-08 02-Jul-09 $ (5,000,000.00) 3.300
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 03-Nov-08 31-Jul-09 $ (2,000,000.00) 2.860
IPAIT 03 GO (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 17-Apr-09 N/A $ (560.22) VARIABLE
IPAIT 07 GO (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 15-Dec-08 11-Dec-09 $ (14,550.84) 1.690
2008 GO BOND (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 15-Jul-09 N/A $ (22,185.97) VARIABLE
2009 C GO BOND (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12-Jun-09 N/A $ (19,093.95) VARIABLE
MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10-Feb-09 10-Aug-09 $ (2,000,000.00) 1.550
FREEDOM SECURITY CD 19-Nov-08 14-Aug-09 $ (2,000,000.00) 2.980
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 19-Nov-OS 28-Aug-09 $ (1,922,140.00) 2.811
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 19-Nov-08 11-Sep-09 $ (2,000,000.00) 3.011
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 19-Nov-08 25-Sep-09 $ (2,000,000.00) 3.391
IPAIT 07 GO (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 15-Dec-08 11-Dec-09 $ (410.97) 1.690
2008 GO BOND (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 15-Jul-09 NIA $ (202,896.73) VARIABLE
2009 C GO BOND (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12-Jun-09 N/A $ (187,445.60) VARIABLE
IPAIT 03 GO (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 17-Apr-09 N/A $ (537.02) VARIABLE
IPAIT 07 GO (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 15-Dec-08 11-Dec-09 $ (57.54) 1.690
2008 GO BOND (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 15-Jul-09 NIA $ (88,029.95) VARIABLE
2009 C GO BOND (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12-Jun-09 N/A $ (17,140.98) VARIABLE
TOTAL REDEMPTIONS
INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 9130109
$ 155,687,139.83
$ 10,065,514.85
$ (40,398,607.13)
$ 125,354,047.55
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENTS ON HAND
SUMMARY BY FUND
9/30/09 9/30/08
FUND INVESTMENT INVESTMENT
TYPE AMOUNT AMOUNT
ALL OPERATING FUNDS $ 104,733,439.55 $ 91,241,024.70
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND $ 6,564,000.00 $ 3,721,000.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE FUND $ - $ -
BOND RESERVE FUND $ 14,056,608.00 $ 17,809,853.00
TOTAL $ 125,354,047.55 $ 112,771,877.70
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENTS ON HAND
LISTING BY INSTITUTION
INSTITUTION
NAME
9/30/09 9/30/08
INVESTMENT INVESTMENT
AMOUNT AMOUNT
AMERICAN BANK & TRUST $ 8,197,315.00 $
BANK OF THE WEST $ 23,000,000.00 $
FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ 2,000,000.00 $
FIRST AMERICAN BANK $ 2,735,274.22 $
FREEDOM SECURITY BANK $ 2,274,504.00 $
HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 9,000,000.00 $
IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 34,682,954.33 $
LIBERTY BANK $ 18,464,000.00 $
MIDWESTONE BANK (FORMERLY IOWA STATE BANK) $ 17,000,000.00 $
U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ - $
US BANK $ - $
US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES $ - $
WELLS FARGO BANK $ 8,000,000.00 $
WEST BANK $ - $
12,000,000.00
23,942,829.83
7,577,860.00
20,519,194.87
4,047,204.00
17,000,000.00
7,684,789.00
4,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
12,000,000.00
TOTAL $ 125,354,047.55 $ 112,771,877.70
r
~.!I_,,:.p~~ ~(TY OF (OWA ~(TY 1P7
~~
~~~~-~ RA N D U ~
~E~~
Date: November 19, 2009
To: City Council
From: Director of Public Works
Director of Planning and Community Development
Re: Update: Flood-related activities
Engineering Division
• EDA additional information gathering
• Constructing structures for siphon sewer
• West Side Levee preliminary approval of floodway redelineation
• Met with Crandic Railroad
• Identified RFQ requirements for Wastewater design
• Writing extensions for FEMA property acquisitions project worksheets
• Finishing design for Sandusky storm sewer
• Identifying ROW and design for sidewalk infill by Rochester
• Demolition of 3 more 404 HMPG Flood buyout homes
• Received bids for asbestos removal for 8 more HMPG properties
Water Division
Continued working with Engineering & Howard R. Green (HRG) for design on replacement
of two 12" river crossing repairs (Old Plant and Hwy 6)
1. HRG is under contract to provide design, specifications bid documents and
inspection for the two projects -approved by Council on 10-6-09.
2. Funding for this project was confirmed, including design costs, through FEMA
and Deb Mansfield.
3. A meeting with City staff and U. of I. representatives will occur this week to
review design.
• The HRG Hazard Mitigation Study is the source of planning for proposed funding and
projects on the peninsula site and the plant site improvements.
• The PW and Hazard Mitigation Plan for, peninsula work, CW 3, CW 4, SW 4, JW 2 and the
respective electrical systems has been 'obligated' by FEMA.
• City staff has completed review of a draft design, bid, and inspection contract for the
Hazard Mitigation projects for CW 3, CW 4, SW4, JW 2 and the respective electrical
systems from HRG. The contract proposal will be before the City Council for approval on
11-17-09.
• The HRG Hazard Mitigation Study is being used for additional funding request for hazard
mitigation for plant site well houses. We are currently working with Dave Purdy.
November 19, 2009
Page 2
• We have submitted information to FEMA for the Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) to ascertain
our eligibility.
• We received communication from FEMA that the BCA looks favorable. We are awaiting
their decision to proceed further.
Planning and Community Development
This week the City closed on two more properties through the HMGP buyout program. The City
has now acquired 26 of the 97 properties that may eventually be acquired through the HMGP,
CDBG and Community Disaster Grant acquisition programs. To date, 23 have been acquired
through the HMGP Program and 3 from the Community Disaster Grant Program.
Letters were sent to 54 property owners informing them that Iowa City had received the award
notice for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) acquisition program. Once the City
receives the contract, it will begin making initial offers to the residents. The offers will be
contingent on a duplication of benefits review. However, the City did learn that if the money
received by homeowners from other programs was used for structural repairs of the flood
damaged home, it will not be counted towards the duplication of benefits.
Staff continues to review Jumpstart applications for disbursing State Jumpstart 2 and State
Jumpstart 3 funding for housing rehab/repair, down payment assistance and interim mortgage
assistance. A total of $1.44 million in State Jumpstart funding has been used to assist 68 flood-
impacted residential households and $802,000 in Federal Jumpstart funding has been used to
assist 17 households.
Staff participated in a disaster recovery teleconference on Wednesday, November 18 with staff
from the Iowa Department of Economic Development, Iowa Finance Authority and the Rebuild
Iowa Office.
Planning staff met with other City officials and representatives from Coralville and the University
of Iowa to discuss flood recovery projects in the area.
Staff met with the residents of the Park View Terrace neighborhood to discuss future uses for
the open spaces that will result from the purchase offlood-damaged properties through the
HMGP and CDBG buyout programs. Representatives from Parks and Recreation, Community
Development, Neighborhood Services, Backyard Abundance, Master Gardeners and ECO Iowa
City were present to provide ideas and answer questions. The meeting was on Wednesday
November 18 at 800 Eastmoor Drive.
Fifteen new homeowners are now living in homes constructed through the Single-Family New
Homes program and 35 of the 40 homes will be occupied by mid-December.
The team members for the EPA Smart Growth award were in Iowa City on November 11-13 to
hold planning and stakeholder meetings for the Riverfront Crossings area. The meetings were
well attended by business owners, land owners, developers, University of Iowa representatives
and community members.
IP8
Mediacom
November 12, 2009
Ms. Marian Karr
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
Subject: Channel Changes
Dear Ms. Karr:
Please note the following channel change that will occur on or about December 16, 2009:
Programming Current
Service Carnage Level Current Channel New Carriage Level New Channel
CSPAN Basic 14 Basic 19
HSN Basic
9 Digital Broadcast Basic 16
As part of the nationwide digital transition, Mediacom will be moving certain channels from the
current basic tier and Family Basic tier to Digital Broadcast Basic. The reposition of these
channels allows Mediacom to add more channels and higher Internet speeds. Digital Broadcast
Basic channels are included at no extra charge with Broadcast Basic and Family Cable service.
However, a TV with a digital QAM tuner or a Mediacom Digital Converter is needed on each
TV to receive these channels. Digital Tuners are now available from Mediacom to receive
Digital Broadcast Basic Channels. Mediacom will provide one Digital Tuner free for one year.
Additional Digital Tuners are available for only $1.99 per month.
If there are any questions please call me at 319-395-9699 ext 323.
Sincerely, "~ ~ - -~~~
u`
.~@. ~ ;..
..
Lee Grassley -
Senior Manager, Government Relations
Mediacom Communications Corporation
6300 Council St. NE • Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 •
319-395-7801 • Fax 319-393-7017
IP9
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
OCTOBER 22, 2009 - 6:30 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Holly Jane Hart,
Brian Richman, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jarrod Gatlin, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Shane Ersland
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Richman at 6:36 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 24T" MEETING MINUTES:
Chappell offered a correction to the minutes.
Chappell motioned to approve.
Hart seconded.
The minutes were approved 5-0 (McKay, Gatlin and McMurray absent; Zimmermann
Smith not present at time of vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
No members of the public wished to comment.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Andy Douglas stated that he had recently attended a lecture given by Andrew Greenlee, a PhD
in Planning and Urban Development who has analyzed the relation between Chicago's Public
Housing programs and the perceived transplantation of low-income housing residents from
Chicago to Iowa City's southeast side. Douglas said that one point Greenlee had made had
really stuck out to him. Greenlee pointed out that only three Section 8 rental assistance
vouchers have actually transferred into Iowa City from Chicago. Douglas cited this statistic as
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2009
PAGE 2 of 9
supporting the idea that the idea of an influx of low-income residents from Chicago moving into
southeast Iowa City with vouchers or government assistance may be more perception than
reality. Hart noted that the statistic may also be somewhat misleading. She pointed out that
residents might move from Chicago to Iowa City, apply to the Section 8 waiting list, and become
residents of the city during the time that they are waiting for their name to come up on the list.
In such instances, the household would be considered a resident of Iowa City, not a transfer,
even though their primary purpose in moving to the area might have been to obtain a voucher.
She noted that in tearing down much of their public housing, Chicago was attempting to
disperse and remove from their own subsidized housing rolls a number of problem tenants who
had made the projects unlivable.
Hightshoe said that she, Steve Long, and Steven Rackis (Iowa City Housing Authority) had had
an opportunity to meet and talk with Greenlee prior to his lecture. She said that regardless of
the perception, Greenlee pointed out that 70-75% of vouchers issued by the Chicago Housing
Authority stay close to home and within their jurisdiction, and that a number of residents who
initially "port" (vouchers are portable to other jurisdictions) out of the area, wind up porting back
in. Rackis noted in that meeting that a number of communities that do not have residence
preferences for their waiting lists do wind up serving clients who move to the area just to
immediately port back out of the area. Iowa City's Housing Authority has a preference on its
waiting list for residents of Johnson County. Hightshoe said that though the perception may be
that people from Chicago are moving to Iowa City in order to receive a voucher and move back
to Chicago, in reality only 35 Iowa City vouchers are actually active in Chicago presently. Hart
noted that those statistics might not be reflective of the situation either because vouchers that
have been absorbed by the receiving housing authority may not show up in that statistic.
Douglas said he thought it was interesting that, according to Greenlee, a number of clients that
port out of a bad neighborhood or living situation do not actually wind up living in better
neighborhoods or housing conditions in the cities to which they transfer.
NEW BUSINESS:
REVIEW THE DRAFT 2011-2015 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (a.k.a CITY STEPS):
Hightshoe explained that the draft before the Commission was a rough draft, and that Staff
would return this document to the consultants with comments and corrections in early
November. At that point, the consultants would quickly implement the changes and return the
document for a public comment period from November 13, 2009 through December 14, 2009.
Hightshoe said she had requested that the consultants zero in on specific priorities as it can
sometimes be difficult to identify main focal points.
Richman advised Commissioners to send typographical and minor corrections to Hightshoe,
and to spend the meeting talking about the priorities outlined in the CITY STEPS plan.
Hightshoe said there would be another chapter with strategic plans in it in the November draft of
the document.
Zimmermann Smith asked about the allocation of funding and whether there were specific
percentages of money that had to be spent on certain areas of concern during the funding
process. Hightshoe explained that HOME funds have to be spent on housing activities, and that
CDBG funds can be spent on economic development, public services and facilities, or housing
activities. CDBG money is more flexible than HOME funding. She said that applicants apply for
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2009
PAGE 3 of 9
CDBG/HOME funds in the same process and do not necessarily know which pot their funding
will be from.
Zimmermann Smith asked if the Commission was required to use census data to determine
their funding priorities; because the most recent census is now almost ten years old, she
suggested a more recent information source might be helpful. Hightshoe said that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires census data for its purposes
and reports, but that internally the Commission could be guided by other sources of information.
Hightshoe said that for a fee 2007 population projections data could be obtained, though it
would not be as detailed as census information is.
Richman stated that the document being discussed is intended to be a summary of findings and
recommendations. He noted that the "Housing Needs" identified in the document listed three
priorities: 1) housing for the non-student renter, 2) housing for those at risk of homelessness,
and 3) more owner-occupied housing units.
Richman noted that some the figures in the document clearly include the student population
when assessing areas of need. He asked Hightshoe if it would be possible for the document to
clearly indicate when students were being included in the calculations "and when they are not.
Richman asked Hightshoe if removing students from some of the equations gave a clearer,
more realistic picture of census tracts and where pockets of poverty or high concentrations of
minorities are. Hightshoe said that in some cases traditional students can be removed from the
data by removing those households consisting of non-related people under the age of 24.
Chappell noted that the HUD definition of a "concentration" is 10% or more above the average
for the rest of the city. Zimmermann Smith said that in the previous meeting the idea of setting
an internal definition for the purposes of guiding decisions had been discussed. Hightshoe said
the Commission was permitted to do that if they wished to do so in order to target resources.
Drum asked why it would be necessary or beneficial to pull the students out of the statistics,
noting that they are, after all, a huge part of the housing market. Chappell explained that
according to the current formula a student that has parents paying for all of their expenses is
being counted in the exact same way that an unemployed single mother of four is being
counted. Drum contended that the students are still in the community, influencing the housing
market. Chappell said that many students have significantly more buying power than others in
their same "low-income" bracket. Hightshoe said that HUD does count students when
calculating the city's entitlement funds, and that more money is allotted to affordable housing
needs based on those students. Zimmermann Smith noted that the apartments in the
downtown census tracts were too expensive for anyone other than students to live in, and yet,
according to the current formula, that area would be considered just as "low-income" as areas in
the southeast side of Iowa City. Hightshoe acknowledged that many efficiency and one-
bedroom apartments in the downtown area had disappeared in recent years due to developers
building four and five bedroom units geared towards groups of students living together.
Richman noted that the consultants indicated that approximately 1,200 households in the city
have housing affordability issues, and that because of this, non-student housing is a top priority.
Hightshoe acknowledged that it may make sense to focus more of the CDBG/HOME resources
toward rental units as owner-occupied units can be subsidized in a number of different ways
from a number of different sources. The City has GRIP (dedicated to owner-occupied rehab.
with general obligation funds), the Single Family New Construction Program and the UniverCity
project that all assist owner-occupied housing within the next planning period for CITY STEPS.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2009
PAGE 4 of 9
Richman noted that it could be a very useful tool to have a compiled summary of the various
resources in Iowa City for housing and what those resources are spent on. He said this could
help ensure the Commission's decisions are not made in a vacuum and take into consideration
the needs and resources of the city as a whole. Hightshoe noted that before the flood
CDBG/HOME funds were essentially all that were available; it is only since the flood and the
Stimulus programs that we have substantially more funds coming in for housing programs. Staff
will email commission members the City's anticipated revenues for 2011-2015 and indicate if
they must be used for a special purpose such as new construction of owner occupied housing,
etc.
Richman asked Commissioners if they had identified any housing priorities other than those the
consultants had listed. Hart threw out the idea of exploring the concept of limiting rents rather
than constantly subsidizing them at high rates, a modified rent-control model. She noted that
single-income households had serious affordability issues in this town and often fall through the
cracks of subsidy programs aimed at the elderly, disabled, and families, but now at lower-
income working people. Hightshoe agreed that there was a need for Single Room Occupancy
(SRO) and one-bedroom units in the city. Hart said she believed there was also a problem with
the concentration of ownership for rental properties, saying she would like to see support for
smaller-scale landlords and more zoning for multi-family units. Richman said he felt there is a
non-student demand for one bedroom and efficiencies. Douglas asked if there were rent-control
systems in place anywhere in Iowa. Hightshoe said she thought it was more practical to
concentrate on subsidizing units enough on the front end to allow for lower rents.
Chappell asked how deeply the University's impact on the housing market had been explored.
He asked what would happen if the University built another dorm or two and required freshmen
and sophomores to live on campus. He said he imagined this would have a big impact on the
market. Hightshoe said she imagined that it would drive rents down if student demand is less.
Living close to the university would probably still demand a higher rent than in other parts of the
City.
Chappell asked if any consideration had been given to subsidizing other issues affecting
housing affordability. He asked if anyone had studied the effects on housing prices if one
subsidized childcare or transportation rather than rent. Hightshoe said. that would be difficult to
do with the funding available to the Commission. Only 15% of the City's CDBG entitlement can
be used for public services. Salary, operating expenses, taxi vouchers, and similar activities are
considered public services.
Hart asked if the housing market analysis indicated how much of the housing was actually
available. She said there is often a practical difficulty to finding an affordable apartment that is
actually unoccupied. Hightshoe said that Iowa City's vacancy rate is about 1 % (depending on
the zone in Iowa City); a typical vacancy rate for a healthy rental market is more like 5%.
Richman noted that there is an initiative from the Provost Office at the University to increase
student enrollment by 100 students per year and to increase retention by 5%. He said that if
these initiatives were successful it could have a notable impact on housing. Drum pointed out
that there probably were no dollars available to actually promote and actively bring that goal to
fruition.
Richman noted the need for affordable transportation and asked if it was possible to use CDBG
funds to purchase a bus for the City's fleet. Hightshoe said that would not be allowed as it
would be considered an operational use, as well as personal property. She said CDBG funds
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2009
PAGE 5 of 9
cannot be used to purchase anything portable or for personal property (vehicle is considered
personal property). You may be able to purchase through public services, but funding is limited
and the use of the bus/van has to be for LMI persons which you would have to document. It
can't be for general use.
Richman noted that both Iowa City and Johnson County showed incredible population jumps
between 2007 and 2008 according to the plan. He asked Hightshoe to investigate it as it is
likely an error.
Hart asked if the figures given on page 27 had been adjusted for inflation and to reflect current
costs, which led Richman to ask why the Commission was using a Housing Market Analysis
with ten year old data. Zimmermann Smith added that previous discussions had indicated that
just because HUD requires the census data for their purposes, the Commission does not need
to use it internally.
Chappell asked about an incongruity on page 29 which seemed to have redundant categories
for different types of households.
Chappell noted that Iowa City is not considered high growth in the report, merely high cost.
Chappell said he was surprised to see actual data in this report that supports the idea that Iowa
City is truly contracting. Hightshoe said that Iowa as a whole is losing population. She said that
when the 2010 census numbers come out, there will be a lot of money at stake based on those
population gains and losses. She said that there is already a lot of lobbying going on as to how
entitlement calculations should be done when the new census comes out. She said the 2010
census results should be summarized and available by 2012. Chappell asked if Iowa City would
consider doing a special census if the numbers did not go in their favor. Hightshoe said that
process is expensive, but the City would consider if the numbers don't appear realistic.
Douglas asked how the rankings of low, medium and high would be allocated to priorities and if
the consultants would be in charge of it. Hightshoe said that the consultants would be guided
by Staff and Commission input.
Hightshoe noted that the Commission would see a major influx of dollars in 2011 based on the
financing arrangements for Aniston Village, a Housing Fellowship project. Hightshoe explained
that essentially the City would receive $2.9 million in CDBG money. She said once the money
came in it would have to be spent quickly so the Commission should begin the process of
thinking about priorities for that money now. Richman said that an amount of money that large
would likely be heavily directed by City Council's needs and priorities.
Zimmermann Smith noted that the public comments listed housing/resources for seniors and
people with disabilities as a high priority. She said that this is not reflected in any of the
priorities listed by the consultants. She said that adding some language might alleviate that
discrepancy. Hightshoe explained that the survey results were mixed and often contradictory.
Zimmermann Smith suggested that if there was a question of the validity of the survey data then
the City should do another one; if the survey was deemed to be valid, then its findings should be
included. Hightshoe said there was some question as to whether survey takers actually
understood the questions in context. Zimmermann Smith said that giving a survey and then
simply ignoring its results was not good policy. Richman asked if there was data beyond the
survey and the public comments that influenced the formation of the priorities. Hightshoe said
the comments of service providers were given consideration. Zimmermann Smith said that if
the City seeks community input, it should take it into account. She said the City Council
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2009
PAGE 6 of 9
deserves to have a Commission that is guided by more than just a focus group with service
providers. Chappell agreed that the priorities needed to in some way reflect the public
comments in the survey and the forums. He suggested simply adding language that reflects the
public concern about housing for the elderly and disabled. Drum said he too believed there was
a middle ground wherein the survey results are neither ignored nor dominant. Hart said she
was wary of relying heavily on a dubious survey. Zimmermann Smith noted that focus groups
are also not scientific; she said that if the Commission is going to discount data, then it cannot in
good faith do so selectively. Hightshoe stated-that staff and commission members should not
discount survey results, but to make decisions and set priorities based on the survey results,
service provider feedback, input from low-to-income residents, department input, and studies
such as our recent Housing Markey Analysis. Richman concluded that it is possible that the
three priorities listed by the consultants are indeed those that the Commission will settle on (with
some language changes) but that it was good to have a thorough discussion of the matter.
Hightshoe said that it is always difficult to prioritize non-housing community development
activities. Upon reviewing the survey data, the consultants were under the impression that
some of the survey takers understood the questions to mean that the City would pe directly
providing the service as opposed to funding local agencies addressing certain areas such as
child care or mental health. Hightshoe said some of the responses stated that they didn't' feel
that it was the city government's responsibility to solve the problems associated with
homelessness. Hightshoe said that respondents consistently said they wanted to see more
done about the problems associated with homelessness, but also consistently said they did not
feel the City should be responsible for alleviating those problems. Hightshoe stated that we
shouldn't ignore survey results, but consider them as well as all the other ways the City
gathered information and input.
Drum said he was thrown by the fact that respondents placed the removal of "vacant and
deteriorated buildings" as a number two priority. Drum asked where these vacant and
deteriorated buildings could be found. Hightshoe said that narrative comments overwhelmingly
concerned securing help for the Broadway area. Zimmermann Smith said these comments
ought to be incorporated into the priorities. Richman agreed that the priorities should reflect
public comment. Hightshoe pointed out that the priorities being discussed were the basis for
how the Commission would be spending its money over the next five years. A common
comment in the Broadway neighborhood was a need for a police substation; however buildings
for the general conduct of government are not an eligible CDBG or HOME activity. She said
that it did not make sense to put priorities in the Plan that could not be funded under
CDBG/HOME allocation rules. Chappell said it was important to at least explain that rationale,
acknowledging the importance of some of the public priorities but the inability to fund them
through CDBG/HOME finds. Hightshoe said that this could be done in the narrative of the plan.
Richman noted that ultimately the Consolidated Plan is a HUD report on how CDBG/HOME
funds will be spent.
Richman said that the consultant's priorities for the funding of public facilities were not helpful at
all. Hightshoe suggested that one priority could be the funding of public facilities in the
Broadway area. Zimmermann Smith noted the necessity of affordable daycare that operates
outside of standard business hours. Richman said the recommendations as currently stated are
useless and that some guidance needs to come out of the document; he said that without some
guidance either by type or geography the City is not getting its money's worth. Zimmermann
Smith said that it would be ideal to have public facilities dollars that work toward family self-
sufficiency such as daycare, life skills, health care, etc. Richman said that perhaps the most
useful thing to do would be to look at the types of projects funded in the last five years.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2009
PAGE 7 of 9
Hightshoe said that homeless shelters, subsidized daycare facilities, after-school care and drop-
off daycare are all worthy public service priorities. Hightshoe noted that CDBG dollars could
pay for the bricks and mortar of a daycare if some other agency actually ran the center.
Richman said that substance abuse, assistance for the disabled, and mental health issues
come up repeatedly. He asked Hightshoe to direct the consultants to revisit the priorities.
Richman noted that having firm priorities will make the allocation process both easier and more
difficult. He said it would put more of an onus on the Commission for justifying why they do not
fund something.
Drum asked if the consultants were relying solely on the survey when setting priorities.
Hightshoe said they were also relying on focus groups with the public, service providers, input
from our public needs hearing last May and meetings with various City departments such as the
Housing Authority, Police, Parks and Rec., Planning as well as the 2007 Housing Market
Analysis.
Hightshoe said she will send the Commission/Staff comments to the consultants and will
distribute the updated draft to Commissioners as quickly as possible. Richman noted that
something needed to be added to the document that addressed the procedure for the
Commission reconsidering an allocation when a change in terms is requested.
UPDATE ON FY10 PROJECTS -CDBG/HOME PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT ENTERED A
FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF IOWA CITY:
Hightshoe noted that most agencies have entered agreements within 90 days of the beginning
of the fiscal year. Hightshoe said that three or four of the funded projects are actually already
completed. She said that Dolphin Point Enclave is a concern. She said that they have until
December to make a decision on what it intends to do regarding the first round of funding that
they were allocated. She said that MECCA has not entered an agreement but that is due to
their accounting practices and funding cycles; she said she expects a signed agreement by the
end of the week. She said that the FY08 Blooming Garden project has not proceeded and the
agreement required the homes to be done by the end of October. She said that project will
probably be on next month's agenda.
UPDATE ON THE HCDC-SPONSORED AFFORDABLE HOUSING EVENT:
Douglas said that he expects to have flyers next Wednesday. He said the event is being
publicized by the Eco-Iowa City Initiative. He said free winter weatherization kits will be handed
out at the event. Hightshoe said that there is a $50 procurement that can go toward
refreshments. Douglas said he is making an effort to reach out to area builders and real estate
people, and that the message is that building/selling "small and green" is good. He said that he
hopes the Commission will continue to do small events in the future concerning other affordable
housing issues.
MONITORING REPORTS:
IOWA CITY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC -OPERATIONS (McKAY) (McKay e-mailed his report to
Hightshoe who shared it with the Commission.) The Free Medical Clinic was allocated $5,000
to assist in paying for a pharmacy technician to dispense medications; the clinic is transitioning
to an electronic system which should help with efficiency. The clinic has finalized the purchase
of their building.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2009
PAGE 8 of 9
ISIS INVESTMENTS LLC -RENTAL HOUSING (McKAY): ISIS was allocated $150,000 and
has already purchased three homes for rental housing on Prairie du Chein, Plaen View and
Shrader. Once the final unit is occupied, their project will close and the compliance period will
begin.
FIRST MENNONITE CHURCH -HOME TIES ADDITION (McKAY): There have been some
delays with this project due to changes in plans and the securing of permits, however, the
project has broken ground.
FY09 HACAP -TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (DOUGLAS): Hightshoe reported that HACAP
purchased a property for transitional housing on Village Green Road. The project is closed and
the compliance period has begun.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Preliminary Minutes
October 2009
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
OCTOBER 15, 2009
ROOM 202, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Merce Bem-Klug, Chuck Felling, Jay Honohan, Michael
Lensing, Sarah Maiers, Charlotte Walker
Members Absent: Nancy Wombacher
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Emily Light
Others Present: Dianne Day, Janice Frey
I~ECOMMENDATiONS TO GOUNCIL:
None.
CA,~L TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Jay Honohan chaired the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGUST 25.2009 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of
6/0. Felling/Lensing.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA'
Dianne Day made a report from the Curriculum Committee. She said that the
public forums in September were successful, and two more are scheduled for
February 2010. Day described other activities the Curriculum Committee has
been working on, including efforts to incxease diversity at the Center. The group
has been working with the Women's Resource and Action Center (WRAC) and
the Human Rights Commission throughout the summer and fall to hold diversity
study arcle groups and other community outreach programs.
Day reported that the pidcleball league is going strong, with 3 courts at Mercer
Park and more at the North Liberty Rec Center. Pidcleball, which combines
elements of tennis, badminton, and ping gong, is available to seniors 5 days a
week. The group will use the indoor courts during the winter and the outdoor
courts during warmer months. An average of 15 seniors partiapate in each
practice, and Senior Center membership is not required.
IP10
Preliminary Minutes
October 2009
Kopping noted that she has had numerous requests for a ping pong table
recently, and she is investigating options far the pool room.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will write the web article for the October meeting. Lensing will report to
the City Council on November 2. Honohan will visit the Board of Supervisors.
Kopping said she would like to join in on upcoming Commission visits to the City
Council and Board of Supervisors. Maiers will write the web article for the
November Commission meeting.
REPORT AND DISCUSSION OF USAGE OF ELDER SERVICES INC. OFFICE
SPACE:
Kopping reported that Elder Services has moved most of their staff out of their
large first floor office space. The only person currently working out of the office is
Joan Cook of RSVP. With only one person occupying such a large space,
Kopping wants the Commission to consider potential future uses for the room.
The RSVP office could potentially be moved to a smaller space within the
building, though a specfic location has not been determined. Moving the RSVP
office would likely involve expenses related to rewiring and networking phone
and intemet lines. Kopping noted that Elder Services may be considering moving
the RSVP office out of the Senior Center in the near future. If this is the case, she
said it would be better to leave the RSVP office where it is for now, rather than
invest in new infrastructure.
Honohan noted that the multi-purpose office on the ground floor has been
working well for the volunteer legal services, SHIIP counseling, and individual
counseling. It has been benefiaal to each of those programs to have a private
meeting space in which to provide confidential services.
Walker suggested turning the room into a central location for Senior Center
volunteers, a work space and a social area. Lensing suggested an intemet coffee
cafe. Kopping said the room could possibly be leased to a business that provides
services to seniors. That kind of decision would have to go through the Council.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PLANNED OPERATIONAL ASSES~MENT•
Kopping summarized the two upcoming meetings:
Tuesday. October 27: 24 community members and three Senior Center staff
people will meet at US Bank for a purpose and planning session. The group will
be asked to review and modify the Center's programming principles and values,
and vision statement. Everyone will receive a copy of the current principles,
Preliminary Minutes
October 2009
values, and vision statement in apre-meeting packet. Then the group will work
on developing goats for 2010-2015.
Karen Franklin is facilitating the meeting, and she wants to be sure there is a
logical progression between the prinaples and values, vision, and goals. The
purpose of the meeting is to determine broad guidelines within which the Center
staff and volunteers will operate. The group may identify objectives, which will be
carried out by staff, Commission, or volunteers. The people involved in this
meeting will not be directly responsible for carrying out the goals.
Participants will represent members, non-members, County representatives,
community partners, staff, Commissioners, experts in the field of Aging, and
representatives from the public library and recreation department to avoid
duplication of services for seniors among City departments.
The Purpose and Planning group list that was sent in the packet was replaced
with an updated list; hard copies were distributed to Commission members.
November 5- Meetina of the Steerino Committee that will Coordinate the
Assessment of Eiaht aerational Areas: The Steering Committee is comprised of
24 people. Some of the same people from the purpose and planning meeting will
be partiapating, but not ail. The group will be divided into four sub-committees,
each of which will cover two areas in the self-assessment. The groups will be
comparing current operations of our Senior Center to national standards
developed by the National Institute of Senior Centers to identifying the strengths
and weaknesses of our organization. Staff members will be resource people for
these groups, but non-staff participants will be driving the process. Deadlines will
be set for completion of the review, and each group will determine its own
meeting times. Committee members will decide if they would like to invite
additional people to help them review particular operational areas.
The steering committee will give recommendations to Commission and staff
about the future of the Center. Then a strategic plan will be created and
implemented over time.
Walker expressed that she would like a place on the Steering Committee in
addition to the purpose and planning meeting. Kopping said she would be happy
to include her.
Approval of Particiaants in the October 27 Meetina and the Steering Committee
Membership: Kopping asked for approval for the committee selections with the
addition of Charlotte Walker to the Steering Committee.
Motion: To approve the proposed participants for the October 27 meeting
and ~e Steering Committee. Motion carried on a vote of 5I1.
LensinglFelling. Walker opposed.
Preliminary Minutes
October 2009
Walker noted that she feels lower income people are not represented on the
committees.
ADJOURN FOR A MEETING OF SENIOR CENTER FUND. INC.
TIONA4 OVERVIEW:
Kopping reported that the budget requests for fiscal year 2011 are being
submitted soon. Departments received instructions not to ask for anything new
because there is no money available, unless a need can be demonstrated. Many
of the amounts recommended by the City for each line item were based on the
current fiscal year budget. Some items were left blank, requiring specific
justification for any requests.
to the area of capital improvements, the Senior Center asked for a ceiling
mounted video projector for the Assembly Room, a new treadmill to replace one
of the aging machines (Kopping indicated that this may be paid for out of money
from the Gift Fund), and a new software system. The latter would be used to
monitor partiapation and revenue, and allow online registration (Kopping
indicated that $10,000 of this item may be paid for out of the Gift Fund).
Kopping requested to increase the maintenance worker I position by 19% so that
it is a full-time position devoted entirely to the Senior Center. Currently the
position is split between the Center and Cable TV. With increasing numbers of
programs during nights and weekends, there is an increased need for building
security, as well as additional cleaning and maintenance. Kopping is not sure
whether this request will be granted - it was denied last year -but she wants to
be sure that the City understands the need has not gone away.
Kopping and the staff are working on the program guide for December, January,
and February.
Kopping reported that the chiller has not been providing adequate cooling, and
the boiler has not been supplying adequate heating. These problems are
upsetting because the equipment is brand new. The problem with the chiller
extended into the fall, making it impossible to address the issues until spring
when the temperatures rise to the point of needing chilling. The chiller is a Carrier
brand unit, and while the company has not dissolved, it has removed all offices
and service people from this area. The nearest Carrier service workers are only
equipped to service small home units, and are therefore unqualfied to repair the
kind of problems our chiller is having.
Preliminary Minutes
October 2008
The Legal Department has gotten involved to argue and establish the fact that
we have not accepted this project, and therefore the warranty period has not
started. Kopping is holding out for a new chiller from Carrier, which she said
could take up to a year and a half to accomplish. She believes that the unit in
place now is never going to work properly, and fora $700,000 project, the
equipment needs to work. The City is still holding a 10% retainer of about
$75,000 for the project, which will not be paid until satisfactory completion of the
work and proper functioning of the equipment.
Walker asked if we should expect a lack of heat in parts of the building this
winter. Kopping said that the most troublesome area has been her office. She will
talk to Craig Buhman to find out if we need to expect additional areas to be
without heating.
Four Commission members will be at the purpose and planning meeting, so it will
be considered a public commission meeting and an agenda will be posted.
Kopping said that since the last meeting the Center had a partiapant who was
generating a lot of tension and people were feeling threatened. The offended
parties asked Kopping how she intended to respond to the situation. Kopping
consulted the Legal Department and was told to develop a discipline procedure
for non-compliance with the code of conduct. This was completed and the
participant was issued aseven-day suspension after which she was allowed to
return to the Center. The draft of the discipline policy was provided in the
Commission's packet. Review and approval of the disapline procedure will be an
agenda item for the next meeting.
Correspondence: Honohan asked the Commission to officially receive the
correspondence included in the packet as part of the record.
Motion: To receive correspondence from Ina Loewenberg, Eve Casserly,
and David Cuny as part of the record. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0.
Maiers/tensing.
City Council Report on the August Meeting: Na one attended to report on the
August Commission meeting.
Possible Future Agenda Items: Walker has requested to place two items on the
agenda for the next meeting. If a majority of the Commission chooses to put an
item on the agenda, it will be discussed at the next meeting.
Open Bulletin Board for Seniors to Use-Large and Not
Controlled by Staff:
Preliminary Minutes
October 2009
Honohan thinks an unregulated bulletin board is a bad idea. Lensing said
he thinks an open bulletin board could be a good thing, but it raises
questions about how to be sure inappropriate material is not posted.
Walker suggested a space limitation for the postings, and she said the
Commission could discuss having some control over content. Kopping
said that if there is an open bulletin board, she would not have the ability
to censor content. Maiers said the question becomes tricky when
determining whether material is "offensive" -what makes it offensive and
who does it offend? Light added that there is a bulletin on the ground floor
that is designated for public postings. Anyone can submit a poster sized
8.5"x11" to the front desk, and it will be posted on that board. She said
that no poster has ever been rejected from this process.
Walker said that before she came to the Center, she heard there was a
kiosk in the building that was available for public posting. She said it was a
popular meeting place in the building. Kopping said the kiosk was
removed when new furniture was purchased for the space that housed the
kiosk. She also noted that at the time of its removal, the item was broken,
unstable, very top heavy, and possibly dangerous.
Walker said that the system of submitting a poster to a staff person is too
rigid. People do not want to go through someone and have to ask for
permission. Bern-Klug suggested that Walker presents a Gear proposal at
the next meeting for her vision of the open bulletin board, including how or
if content would be regulated. Honohan and Lensing agreed with Bem-
Klug's suggestion. The Commission agreed to put the bulletin board issue
on the next agenda.
2. Liability Waiver Used in Conjunction with Senior Center
Memberships:
Honohan said that the City's legal department requires that Senior Center
members sign a liability waiver because partiapants are considered to be
part of a speaal population, and there is nothing the Commission can do
to change this requirement. Walker is concerned that other City
departments do not consistently require release forms for participation.
Kopping said that if the Commission deades to put the issue on the next
agenda, they can invite Garification on the policy from legal.
Motion: To request a written clarification on the purpose of the
Senior Center release form from the City's legal department.
Lensing/Felling. Motion carried on a vote of 511. Honohan opposes.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Maiers/Felling.
~o
N
C `
~~
.~
C 0
.~
.~
a
0
~,
.~
oo
v~
L
a~+
d V ~
C ~ N
~Ct m ~
(n Q ~
a
r
o~
r
1
r
r
o x x x x x x o
r
N ~ X X 0 X X X
00
M ~ X X X X X X
cfl
'
~ x x x o x x x
W
N X X X X X
X O
~
X X X X X X O
N x x x x x ; o
M
` Z Z Z Z Z
N
C
N
r Z Z Z Z Z
h
O ~ ~ O ~ O
r r r r r r r
~ N a a a a a N
r r r r r r r
~
v-
`
m
c ~ o
E c
o
m
O
N ~- c ~ ~
b Y m
~ ~ j
t = ~ L t
~.. 7 ~ ~
~
~ ~
V
U
Z
Z ~ U -
i ~ ?
'~
x c E
d
y~~~~
m~~oo
a¢¢zz
~~ u
~~ n W ~ u
XOOZ ;
N
Y
~ ~ -~ a-ua
IP11
Preliminary Minutes
October 27, 2009
Minutes
Special Meeting of the Senior Center Commission
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
US Bank; 204 E Washington Street
Members Present: Jay Honohan, Sarah Maiers, Charlotte Walker, Merce Bern-
Klug
Members Absent: Chuck Felling, Nancy Wombacher, Michael Lensing
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Michelle Buhman, Susan Rogusky
Others Present: Tiffiny Johnston-Hines, Marcia Bollinger, Ed Garpenter,
Dianne Day, Louis De Grazia, Karin Franklin, Janice Frey,
Jean Reese, Ina Loewenberg, Kara Logsden, Cari Malone,
Jean Martin, Mike Moran, Christine Scheetz, Linda
Severson, Kristin Watson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CQUwCIL
None
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9 a.m. by Johnston-Hines and Kopping. The
meeting facilitator, Karin Franklin, was introduced.
QVERVIEW OF MEETING ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Discussion and review of Senior Center's: mission, vision, values, goals, and
objectives lead to a consensus on the following.
MISSION
The Mission of the Senior Center is to promote optimal aging among older adults
by offering programs and services that promote wellness, socialisation,
community engagement, and intellectual growth. The Center serves the public
through intergenerational programming and community outreach.
1 I N
The Senior Center will be the communities' primary resource for the highest
quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging.
PRINCIPLES AND VALUES
The primary prinaple underlying Senior Center programming and services is that
of optimal aging.
Preliminary Minutes
October 27, 2009
Optimal aging is a broad concept that involves more than
physical health or the absence of disease. It is a comprehensive
concept of wellness that encourages and extends an optimal
balance of physical, intellectual, emotional, soaal, vocational, and
spiritual health for each individual.
Values represent the core priorities in an organization's culture and serve as the
foundation for all that is done. The Center abides by the following values:
i. Intrinsic worth: Every individual will be valued for their intrinsic
worth
ii. Experience: Life experiences of older adults are to be valued
and shared
iii. Capacity for growth: Everyone has alife-long capaaty to grow
and improve
iv. Respect: All people and ideas will be treated with respect
v. Inclusiveness: Decision-making wilt be inGusive of difFerent
view points
vi. Excellence: All programs and services will strive for excellence
vii. Collaboration: Engagement of and with the larger Johnson
County community will sustain the Senior Center
viii. Honesty: All communication will be honest and based on
mutual trust.
C,,,aOALS 2010-2015
Goal 1
To provide opportunities and advocacy to empower seniors and create a positive
image of aging in the community
Objectives
1. Plan and implement one or more community events annually that
promotes a positive image of aging.
2. Develop a campaign that challenges traditional views and stereotypes
associated with aging.
a. Produce one or more artic/es/videoslnterviews twice a year that
promote positive aging.
b. Investigate the possibility for producing monthly updates on Senior
Center programming for local media outlets.
c. Review and adjust the marketing plan annually to best reflect
images of optimal aging.
3. Recognize individuals and group who highly promote optimal aging.
a. Implement a partnership with Iowa City's Human Rights
Commission to incorporate an outstanding senior awarri at the
human rights breakfast.
2
Preliminary Minutes
October 27, 2009
b. Plan a Senior Center sponsored annual award to recognize groups
or individuals who promote optimal aging.
4. Create aself-directed advocacy club to address senior issues.
Goa12
Ta improve stability and diversity of finanang.
Objectives
1. Develop and implement a comprehensive fundraising plan to support
operational expensive.
a. Distribute a fundraising appeal to individuals included in a
comprehensive mailing list.
b. Seek out and curate unique fundraising opportuni~es.
c. Apply for new grant and reapply for existing grants annually.
d. Investigate selling advertising space at the Senior Center and in the
Program Guide.
2. Develop and implement a comprehensive plan to Senior Center
Endowment and the Senior Center Charitable Gift Account.
a. Establish friends of the Senior Center organization.
3. Maintain fiscal responsibility and accountability in all financial transactions.
a. Prepare an annual report on operational budget.
b. Regularly review and evaluate the operational budget far possible
reduction.
c. Prepare and distribute annual report.
d. Continue to comply with state and aty budgetary guidelines.
Goal 3
To increase the cultural diversity among partiapants and promote an
environment of inclusion.
Objectives
1. Review membership fee restrictions and policy.
2. Review demographics of participants.
3. Increase cultural competency of staff.
a. Make available annual diversity trainings for staff.
6. Encourage staff attendance at 2 or more culturally diverse events
each year.
4. Review process of program development.
5. Improve marketing to diverse populations.
a. Partner with community organizations and diverse community
leaders to provide a wider range of cultural programs.
6. Reach out to community members who are under-represented among
current senior center users.
Preliminary Minutes
October 27, 2009
Goa14
To be synonymous with the highest quality programs that promote optimal aging
through development, implementation, and evaluation.
Objectives:
1. Expand member input into programming and activities.
a. Implement evaluation tools that measure outcomes from all
programs.
2. Determine needs for additional programming.
a. Develop non-member and member surveys to be handed out at
speaal events off-site.
3. Use identified best practices and innovation to expand the scope of
programming.
a. Increase the number of academic programs offered in the areas of
history, political science, and social studies.
4. Conduct formal and informal operational evaluations, no less then every 5
years, using the NCOA/NISC guidelines for assessment.
a. Research changing demographics is Johnson County
b. Research changing needs for newly retired residents as compared
to those of o/dergenerafions.
5. Increase partiapation in all programs.
6. Offer multiple opportunities for informal socialization.
a. Create conversation areas.
b. Make it known that people can sit in the assembly room.
c. Expand topic oriented discussion groups.
d. Provide a facility that is welcoming, clean and safe.
Goal 5
To involve the community in the Senior Center and the Senior Center in the
Community.
Objectives
1. Increase staff involvement on age related boards committees, and
commissions.
a. Encourage staff members to se-ve on 2 or more boarols,
commissions, committees, or task fonres sponsored by outside
agencies or organizations.
2. Expand collaborations with other senior agencies.
a. Seek new and creative community partners.
3. Focus on programs that stimulate community involvement.
a. Promote the use of meeting rooms by the community.
b. Publicize the five Friday afternoon movies.
4
Preliminary Minutes
October 27, 2009
c. Host a quarterly benefits or events for community.
4. Highlight community partnerships on website.
5. Increase intergenerational programming.
6. Review and modify as needed lease agreements every three years.
a. Establish timeline for review.
b. Make lease modifications as needed.
7. Increase visibility of Senior Center website.
a. Review content of website regularly.
b. Change content and graphics on website regularly.
$. Develop a Senior Center volunteer speaker's bureau.
a. Identify and train volunteers.
b. Develop a schedule for speaking engagements.
c. Support volunteers as needed.
d. Evaluate outcomes from presentations in the community.
9. Repair sign outside the Senior Center.
10. Be a source of public information, community education, advocacy, and
opportunities for older adults.
a. Provide staff training in local and national aging resources.
Goal 6
To improve operational effectiveness, accountability and transparency.
Objectives
1. Allow for public feedback to Senior Center Staff.
a. Utilize the suggestion box, and post responses to suggestions.
2. Publicize all Senior Center commissions, and committees.
a. Inform membership of individuals who serve on commissions and
committees.
b. Inform membership how to contact individuals who serve on
commissions and committees.
c. Inform membership of goals and objectives for commissions and
committees.
3. Complete a cost benefit analysis of collected fees.
4. Determine feasibility of extending Senior Center hours during FY12.
a. Conduct an evaluation among members and non-members.
b. Increase sfatfing (both volunteer and paid) to support the expansion
of programs and hours of operation.
5. Provide staff the tools needed to do their jobs effectively.
a. Provide physical materials needed.
b. Provide education as needed.
5
IP12
Preliminary Minutes
November 5, 2008
Minutes
Special Meeting of the Senior Center Commission
Thursday, November b, 2009
Assembly Room, Senior Center
Members Present: Sarah Maiers, Charlotte Walker, Chuck Felling, Michael Lensing
Members Absent: Nancy Wombacher, Merce Bem-Klug Jay Honohan
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Michelle Buhman, Susan Rogusky, Craig Buhman,
Emily Light, Sharon Stubbs
Others Present: Jon Cryer, Jim Cuny, Dianne Day, Maggie Elliott, Rose Hanson,
Howard Hensch, Loren Horton, Brian Kaskie, Steve Long, Richard
MacNeil, Cari Malone, Paut Mulhausen, David Schoenbaum, Rod
Sullivan, Bruce Teague, Kristin Watson, Carol Case.
RECOMMENDATIOfdS TO COUNCIL
None
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 PM by Kopping.
ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SENIOR CENTER SELF-
EVALUATION PROCESS
Kopping gave an overview of the recently revised values, purposes, mission statement
and goals. She outlined the organization, responsibilities, and timeline for the Seif-
Evaluation Steering Committee and responded to questions.
THE SELF-EVALUATION STEERING COMMITTEE TEAM ASSIGNMENTS AND
TEAM RESPONSIBLITIES
Each Steering Committee member was assigned to one of four teams, and each team
was assigned two operational areas to evaluate using the standards developed by the
National Institute of Senior Centers, a subunit of the National Counal on Aging: Teams
and assignments for all volunteers (present and absent) are as follows:
Preliminary Minutes
November 5, 2009
Team Members Assignments/Staff
Su
Team A ^ Amy Correia - Program Planning
^ Brian Kaskie - Community
^ Steve Long
^ Jean Martin - Staff Support:
^ Paul Mulhausen Michelle Buhman
^ Kristin Watson
^ Loren Horton
Team B ^ Carol Case - Administration and
^ Maggie Elliott Human Resources
^ Rose Hanson - Facility
^ Richard MacNeil
^ Cari Malone - Staff Support:
^ Marcos Melendez Craig Buhman
^ Charlotte Walker Susan Rogusky
Team C ^ Dianne Day - Governance
^ Chuck Felling - Evaluation
^ Sara Sanders
^ Rod Sullivan - Staff Support:
^ Jim Curry Linda Kopping
^ Jon Cryer
Team D ^ Michael Lensing - Fiscaf Management
^ Sarah Maiers - Records and Reports
^ Christine Scheetz
^ Bruce Teague - Staff Support:
^ Howard Hensch Emily Light
^ David Schoenbaum
TIM LINE
The timeline for completion of the entire evaluation is as follows:
November 5, to December 31, 2008
Team meetings to conduct assessment of selected area
January 4, 2010
Findings and recommendations to staff
January 7, 2010
Full Steering Committee meeting to present findings; organize second assessment area
January 7, 2010 to February 18, 2010
Team meetings to conduct assessment of second operational area
2
Preliminary Minutes
November 5, 2009
February 22, 2010
Full Steering Committee meeting to present findings and celebrate completion of
assessment
TEAM ORGANIZATION
Steering Committee members who were present broke in to their assigned teams.
Each picked a team faalitator and briefly reviewed the National Institute of Senior
Center standards for their assigned areas to determine which evaluation they would
conduct first. Team members decided if they wanted to invite other community
members to join their teams and picked a date for their next meeting. It was agreed that
staff members assigned to each group would prepare meeting summaries and pre-
meeting packets.
ADJOURNMENT Each team adjourned individually.
3
IP13
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 2, 2009 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Wally
Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard,
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chair Elizabeth Koppes
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ09-00008/SUB09-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. for a rezoning to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement to modify the concept
site plan and a Preliminary Plat of Wal-Mart Subdivision, an approximately 25.16-acre S-
lot commercial subdivision located at 1001 Highway 1 West. The 45-day limitation period
is November 8, 2009.
Howard explained that Wal-Mart has changed plans for the construction of their new store.
They have reduced the footprint of the store from about 176,000 to about 150,000 square feet.
This leaves about 2 acres on the property that Wal-Mart would like to subdivide into two lots and
sell for development. To do this, the Planning and Zoning Commission would have to approve
an amendment to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) approved in 2008.
Howard said the elevations and landscaping plan for the new proposal are quite similar to those
of the previously approved proposal, as is traffic circulation. The location of the bus stop is
changed in the new proposal; however, Staff still believes that the original location is better.
Payne asked if the bus comes in from Ruppert or Highway 1. Eastham said he believed it
comes in from Highway 1 and out Ruppert Road. Koppes asked how the bus would get over to
the two subdivided lots. Howard said that the bus stop was intended to serve the whole area.
Eastham asked if it was true that the transportation department did not want to route the bus
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2009 -Informal
Page 2 of 6
directly in front of the store. Howard said she did not know the answer to that question.
Plahutnik said he has a more fundamental question. He asked if the Commission could view
the request to amend the CZA as a starting point for renegotiating the CZA. Plahutnik said he
would like to see more photographs of Boulder, Colorado's Wal-Mart and other really well-done
Wal-Marts at the next meeting. Plahutnik said he would like to arrange a time where the
Commission could walk along Highway 1 as a group. Plahutnik said that if this part of town is
ever going to be included as a part of Iowa City, now is the time to do so. Plahutnik said that
this is the closest retail area to Miller Orchard and the Commission has told that neighborhood
that it would look out for them. Plahutnik said that the way this CZA is presented, Wal-Mart is
not taking responsibility for the two-acres that will be subdivided. He said that the way he views
this revised plan, the applicant gets something out of it but the City and the Commission get
nothing.
Payne noted that Staff recommends the vacant lots be held to the same design standards and
conditions as Wal-Mart. Plahutnik said that the Commission already has that under the current
agreement. He said that everyone on the Commission except for him signed off on the CZA,
and that he sees this as an opportune time to get something better for Iowa City than just a few
extra trees in a parking lot. He said the Commission had settled for a facade and some trees
the last time, and that more could be achieved.
Busard asked what Plahutnik wanted Wal-Mart to integrate into as there was no cohesive style
for the area. Plahutnik said that it has to start somewhere and that not a single development
along that stretch of land has been done with the future in mind; each project has been done as
a stand-alone business. Plahutnik said that was no way to build a commercial retail district.
Payne asked if Plahutnik was thinking of something more along the lines of the K-Mart area
where there are lots of stores with easy access. Plahutnik said he was thinking more like Town
Center in Coralville, but that with any luck the end result would probably be somewhere in
between a "big box" store and Town Center. Plahutnik said that if the Commission was going to
go for a change than they should go for it all the way; otherwise, they should just build a big flat
box and a huge parking lot and sign off on it.
Koppes asked if there were any interested buyers for the two lots. Plahutnik said an attractive
anchor retail center would also make those lots more attractive to developers. Plahutnik said he
assumes that he will be shot down, but that he intends to try anyway. He said that he also
intends to make his positions known in his role as a citizen before City Council. Koppes asked if
that was allowed. Greenwood Hektoen said that as long as the Commission had voted on the
matter and that Plahutnik was not claiming to represent the Commission, it was allowable.
Busard said he was trying to figure out what Plahutnik is after exactly. He said that there will be
a Wal-Mart in that location whether anyone likes it or not. Further, Wal-Marts are giant, "big
box" retail centers. Busard asked if Plahutnik is hoping to break down the area into strip mall
type units. Plahutnik said he is not trying to say what business should or should not be there.
He said that a Wal-Mart store is fine. However, in many places around the country communities
have insisted that the design be quality and integrated into the community. Plahutnik said that
Iowa City was a little stuck in that there was not really anything in that area to anchor to.
Plahutnik suggested that Wal-Mart could be the very anchor the City wants for that area and
could be designed accordingly. Plahutnik said that this was a golden opportunity to make sure
there is a quality anchor on the southwest side of town.
Payne asked if the pictures of the Boulder Wal-Mart have something closer to Plahutnik's idea.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2009 -Informal
Page 3 of 6
Eastham said that there are a couple of things that have changed his perspective on the Wal-
Mart store. He said that the first thing is that the store is smaller, which could make it more
amenable to certain design changes. The second is that this is still a major entrance to the city
and that there is a responsibility to require good design for that area. Eastham said that with
two or more future retail locations on the site, a more elevated design could eventually be
reflected in the design of the two subdivided lots, making the whole 20 acres an attractive
entryway to the city.
Busard asked if Plahutnik was after more mixed use design, along the lines of the Hy-Vee strip
in Coralville where customers park and walk from one store to another. Plahutnik said that the
only store he is talking about is Wal-Mart because that is the CZA that the Commission
negotiated.
Howard said there is more potential for development now than there was when the original CZA
was put in place. Howard said that at least now there are minimum "big box" standards in
place. She noted that the original CZA had design elements that were never actually
implemented. Plahutnik asked what Wal-Mart could build on the site right now. Howard said
that a lot of the standards that are in place right now are what is being proposed by Wal-Mart.
Plahutnik said he is not trying to say Wal-Mart cannot build; they have a lot and they have
zoning. Howard said that the approved CZA actually has many elements that go above and
beyond what is required by code because the Commission had the ability to negotiate for it with
a CZA.
Koppes asked if Wal-Mart could build a smaller building if they wished to; Howard said she did
not think they could because the CZA was so clearly tied to the concept plan. Koppes asked
Plahutnik if it was his idea not to have a big box store there. Plahutnik said that that was not his
idea at all; it is Wal-Mart's property and they want to build a Wal-Mart, and that is fine with him.
Howard asked Plahutnik to articulate the specific kinds of things that he is looking for. Plahutnik
said he would have to go pull up some pictures from different big box stores and put something
together. Eastham suggested that Howard could help with that. Payne said that the elevations
look a lot better than what is there now although she acknowledged that perhaps she should not
be thinking in comparative terms; perhaps she should be thinking as though the space was
empty now and was just about to be developed.
Plahutnik asked if there was not a clause that advised Commissioners to seek the best possible
use for the land. He said that was the direction he was heading in. Greenwood Hektoen said
that in terms of the conditions, they need to be tied to public need created by the zoning. She
also said that she believed Wal-Mart could build a smaller store under the current CZA if it
chose to go that route. Eastham and Plahutnik said that change in use and the substantial size
change could require a new CZA.
Koppes said she wanted to make sure the Commission did not treat Wal-Mart differently than it
might another big box store. Plahutnik said that he thinks a business there is a great thing.
Howard said one thing to keep in mind is what is it about this location that means that Wal-Mart
has to go above and beyond what others might be asked to do in the area. Eastham said it is
next to a major arterial street. Payne and Koppes pointed out that Menard's is next to that same
street. Eastham said that the Menard's building coupled with the landscaped parking lot makes
a more attractive picture than the proposed Wal-Mart. Howard said that Menard's had to meet
the minimum requirements for the big box code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2009 -Informal
Page 4 of 6
Busard asked if it was possible that Wal-Mart would simply pack up and build elsewhere if the
Commission pressed too hard. He said that is one of the things that should be considered. He
said Wal-Mart has made efforts to work with the Commission and he did not think they should
be made to jump over unnecessary hurdles. He said there is a difference between being
integrated into the community and having to have a better looking building than any other in the
area. Busard said he thinks Plahutnik has a great vision but that everyone else is just talking
about landscaping.
Howard asked if everyone has copies of the big box standards. Howard said that the question
becomes if every big box in town is held to higher standards then are the standards themselves
inadequate. Busard said Wal-Mart has gone above and beyond the standards. Eastham said
he would like to see a list of the standards they have exceed before he would agree to that
statement. Greenwood Hektoen said that the CZA is itself a list of requirements Wal-Mart is
fulfilling above and beyond the zoning standards.
Plahutnik said that the property is infill development; something that only comes around about
every seventy-five years. Howard said the original plan was to sell the whole piece of property
and move the store to another location. Busard said that Wal-Mart was already put through the
wringer when the 2008 CZA was approved. Koppes said that it is one thing for Wal-Mart to
build in a community that has more stringent requirements; it is another to place ever-more
stringent requirements on them after the fact.
Busard asked what more the Commission actually wanted from Wal-Mart. Eastham said he
was concerned about the two acres of land that had no landscaping plan whatsoever. Howard
said Wal-Mart intends to sell the two lots and Staff has recommended that approval of the
design be part of the CZA. Eastham said that two acres of undeveloped land would be sitting
there un-landscaped until they are sold. Howard said that they will have to reseed the lots.
Eastham asked if they could pave or gravel the lots. Koppes said that was a reasonable
question to ask the developer. Howard said that it was reasonable as long as the Commission
was not expecting full landscaping to be put in just so it could be torn out again when the
properties were developed.
Regarding the subdivision, Howard said there is a concern about access easements. Wal-Mart
would like to reduce the easements so that they no longer go in front of the store and connect to
Ruppert. Staff does not approve of that portion of the plan. Howard said that the two lots to be
developed should have full access and full circulation. Staff thinks the easements should be
similar to those on the existing site.
REZ09-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning
to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential
(OPD-8) zone for approximately .44 acres of property located on Westbury Drive, south of
Middlebury Road to allow five additional townhouse style dwelling units.
Eastham abstained from these discussions.
Howard said that the applicant is proposing to build five new townhomes which would block the
view of the alley and the rearview of people's homes, and to compensate for the loss of green
space, the builder would enhance the remaining open space with some landscaping and picnic
areas. Greenwood Hektoen explained that the lot in question is not technically labeled open
space, but it was also not labeled as land that was to be developed. Koppes asked how many
units the OPD was originally zoned for. Howard said that because of the wetlands the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2009 -Informal
Page 5 of 6
development is probably nowhere close to maximum density. Koppes said that the way she
sees it the neighborhood was given open space and now it is being taken away. Koppes said
that even those neighbors who looked at the plat would have assumed this was open space
because there was nothing designated for that area. Howard said the consideration in this case
was whether this was infill development that enhances the neighborhood. Koppes said it does
not feel right that a developer can have an OPD and then decide on the back end that they
would like to have more units in it. Busard said he had the same concern and that he was
concerned about the precedent it might set. Howard said the general question is whether or not
this will be better for the neighborhood. Koppes said upgrading a shelter did not seem like a fair
trade. Howard said there was going to be a Good Neighbor meeting the day after the next
Planning and Zoning meeting. Busard asked if it was possible to ask the applicant to defer until
after that meeting. Koppes said there would still be time for a deferral. Weitzel said he would
definitely like to know what the neighbors have to say.
OTHER:
Howard reminded Commissioners about the upcoming meetings with the consultants working
on the Riverfront Crossings area. Howard asked Commissioners to RSVP.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Z
O
~°~
00
V W
Z ~
Z W o
N Z N
~ ~
Q W
C~ ~
za
z
z
a
o ~ X X X X X X
X X X ~ X ~ X
X X X X ~ X X
N X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
ti
~ X O x x x x x
~ o x x x x o x
X X ~ X X X X
~ x x x x x o x
~ x x x x x x x
M X X X X X ~ X
N x x x x o x x
~ X X X ~ X X X
r
W ~
r ~
r M
r N
~- O
r O
r M
r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ X o 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
W ~ ~
m J
J J
Q
= Q Z ~
W NO V Q ~ 2 ~_
Q ' W U Y ~
Z
~ 2 ~ W W ~ W
N
a ~ d Z = ~
c
i~
~ v
i
Q w
m a
O >-
Q Q
~ W
m w w Y a a ~
C7
Z
H
W
W
Q
~ X X ~ X X X X
o O X X X X X
X x X X X X
ti
M X X X X X X X
M
M X X X X X X X
N X X X X X X X
~ o x x o x x o
W .--
~- ~
r M
r N
r O
r O
r M
r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w Q,
~ x ~n
o ~n
0 ~n
0 ~n
0 u~
0 -n
0 ~n
0
W
W ~ ~-
Q J W J
J J
2 Q Z ~
W N =
V Z
Q . _ ~
Q O W U ~C ~
z o g
Q Y vj ~ ~ .~
~ _ ~ W W ~ N
Q F- w a z = ~
v~ v~ w a r Q -
W
~
m Q
w ~
w O
Y Q
a ~
a ~
c~
z
H
W
W
J
Z
E
0
~O
~ Z
X ~
w ~~ ~
c a°~i ~
~ ~ N E cu
~~QZ o
aa„„Z
n n w n
~ ,
XOOZ
w
Y
IP14
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 5, 2009 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel, Charlie Eastham,
Michelle Payne, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik,
Josh Busard
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Mitchell, Joe Altenhoft, Ed Foraker, Larry Pugh,
Randy Stacy, Duane Thomas
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-1 (Plahutnik voting no) to approve REZ09-00008/SUB09-00008,
an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the CZA to
modify the concept site plan, including landscaping plan and building elevations, and a
Preliminary plat of Wal-Mart Subdivision subject to:
1) an access easement will pass in front of the Wal-Mart store in a fashion similar
to the existing easement that goes in front of Cub Foods and Staples, as
recommended by Staff;
2) the bus stop being located in the northeast corner of the store where Staff
recommends it be located;
3) anew CZA that contains the same requirements as the 2008 CZA, with the
exception of the changes to the concept site plan, including landscape plan
and building elevations, as attached, and a change in item 5.a. to indicate that
there will be two internal landscape median aisles rather than three and a
change in 5.d. D changing "the final site improvements" to "Phase 2 shall
consist of demolition of the existing Wal-Mart and installation of necessary
erosion control, including planting of grass on the two smaller lots until they
are developed;"
4) and a requirement that Lots 2 and 3 be approved by the staff design committee
for compliance with Section 14-2C-6K, Standards for Large Retail Uses.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 2 of 15
REZONING ITEM:
REZ09-00008/SU609-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. for a rezoning to amend the CZA to modify the concept site plan and a Preliminary
Plat of Wal-Mart Subdivision, an approximately 25.16-acre 3-lot commercial subdivision
located at 1001 Highway 1 West. The 45-day limitation period is November 8, 2009.
Miklo stated that the property is located on Highway 1, with a secondary access point off of
Ruppert Road. Miklo explained that in 2008 the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council had approved an amendment to the original Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that
allowed for a reconfiguration of the site. Since that time, Miklo said, Wal-Mart has rethought the
size of the new store, reducing it by approximately 26,000 square feet. As a result, less parking
will be required. This leaves a lot of land on site that is not needed for Wal-Mart's purpose's.
Wal-Mart is proposing an amendment to the approved plan that would allow for a smaller store,
a reduction in the parking, and a subdivision creating two lots in the western portion of the lot for
sale and development. Miklo said the landscaping plan and building elevations will be very
similar to the previously approved plans, with slight changes. Miklo shared a display of the
proposed building on the projection screen and provided Commissioners with ahand-out
containing the previously approved elevations, pointing out changes.
Miklo stated that the addition of two lots would mean additional commercial development at
some point, although there are no specific development plans for those properties to date.
Miklo suggested that any amended CZA contain a provision requiring Staff approval of
development plans for those two lots. Miklo recommended that all requirements from the
approved CZA concerning signage and landscaping be carried over into any new agreement.
Although Staff found the revised plan to be generally in agreement with the approved CZA, they
do have two concerns: 1) the location of the bus stop has been moved to an area which Staff
feels is less pedestrian-friendly, and which presents concerns about cross traffic, and 2) Staff
feels an access easement is necessary in the area in front of the Wal-Mart store to provide
better traffic circulation. Staff would not recommend approval of these two aspects of the plan
as proposed by Wal-Mart.
Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Freerks asked if there had been an access easement all around the interior and exterior drives
on the approved plat. Miklo said that the 1989 plan did, but the 2008 plan did not because there
was only one lot and one business so there was no need for an access easement. Miklo said
that Staff would like to see access easements from Highway 1 to Ruppert Road now that there
will be two additional businesses on the lot.
Eastham asked if Staff saw potential for additional hazards to people in wheelchairs who exit
the bus at the proposed new bus stop location. Miklo said that the bus stop at the previously
agreed upon location would have passengers exist the bus immediately onto the sidewalk
leading to the store. The proposed location requires pedestrians to travel across the drive in
front of the store which is anticipated to be a fairly well-traveled road. Eastham asked if Miklo
saw any specific hazards to those in wheelchairs having to cross that drive. Miklo said there
would be increased conflict in terms of having to cross the driveway.
Payne asked if additional parking would be required if the two commercial lots were developed.
Miklo said that it would be required, and that the anticipation is that those businesses would
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 3 of 15
provide it on the two new lots.
Eastham asked if there was anything in the plans to address how the vacant lots would be
managed until they were developed. Miklo said that City codes regarding erosion control would
require that the lots be seeded/grass covered until developed. Payne asked If thlS WaS the
same in any subdivision with vacant lots, and Miklo said he believed that provisions regarding
the control of storm-water and erosion were the same in both commercial and. residential areas.
Eastham noted that the purpose of those provisions is to control storm-water and erosion, not to
provide an aesthetically acceptable appearance.
There were no further questions for Staff, and Freerks opened the public hearing.
Dennis Mitchell, Meardon Sueppel and Downer, 122 South Linn Street, appeared on behalf of
the applicant. Mitchell said that he felt Miklo had covered the plan well and that he agreed that
there were two issues still up for discussion. Regarding the bus stop, Mitchell said, Wal-Mart
has concerns that the previous bus shelter location did not offer good visibility from the store.
Mitchell said there were also concerns about the previous bus stop's location from a traffic
standpoint. He introduced the site engineer on the Wal-Mart project to help explain the traffic
issues.
Joe Altenhoft, Arc Design Resources, spoke about the issues with the bus stop locations.
Altenhoft stated that if the bus was stopped at its previous location there is a significant visual
barrier for anyone heading east out the Ruppert side of the parking lot or coming into the
parking lot and heading northwest. If the bus is stopped at the newly proposed location the
visibility for drivers becomes excellent. Further, if anyone chooses to make the risky maneuver
of passing the bus while it is unloading, they will still have good visibility. Altenhoft said that
from a traffic perspective the proposed location is much safer for Wal-Mart customers as well as
the general public. Altenhoft noted that the location for the bus stop at the existing Wal-Mart is
much further from the store than the one being proposed.
Payne asked how far the bus stop is from the intersection. Altenhoft said it was somewhere on
the order of a 30-40 foot difference. Freerks asked how often the bus loops through the area.
Miklo said he was unsure. Miklo said he would like to point out that the bus stop could be
moved farther to the south to eliminate Wal-Mart's concerns about traffic visibility at the corner
in question. Payne asked if there could be a plan for athree-way stop sign at that intersection,
making it necessary for cars to stop before proceeding. Miklo said that the City does not
regulate internal traffic on a private site. Altenhoft said that it could be considered. Busard
asked if there was any interest in removing the bus stop altogether and just having the bus drop
people off in front of the store. Miklo said that the transit manager would prefer the approved
location. Altenhoft said that one small advantage of having the bus stop at the proposed
location is that because of the heavy landscaping on site there is the possibility of making a
slight indentation in the island to help facilitate a car that might be passing (similar to the current
configuration). Eastham asked Altenhoft how Wal-Mart proposed handling passengers who are
in wheelchairs. Altenhoft said that there is a zone in front of the store that is extremely
accessible, and that the bus stop would have all of the amenities that are required for an ADA
compliant route from the bus stop to the front of the store. Payne asked if one of the concerns
about having the bus stop in the approved location is that employees from the store may not be
able to see what people are doing on that side of the building. Altenhoft said the proposed
location would certainly make it much more obvious what people were doing, and would also
put the stop in full view of the general public as well. Altenhoft said the approved location was
not near any doors to access it and is much more isolated, although it would be in the coverage
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 4 of 15
area of the security cameras. Busard asked if the transit manager was dead set against the
proposed location. Miklo said that the preference is to keep it where it was previously agreed
upon. Freerks noted that if this required more discussion there is always the option of taking
more than one meeting to discuss the matter. Busard asked Altenhoft if Wal-Mart was open to
the approved location. Altenhoft said Wal-Mart's preference was for the proposed location.
Mitchell and Altenhoft agreed that they would not wish to see the site plan fail over the bus stop
location, and would certainly adjust if the approved location was mandated. Freerkrove thet Ian
options as being: 1) accepting the applicant's proposal, 2) ask for a deferral, 3) app p
subject to certain requirements.
Freerks asked what Wal-Mart's reason is for not wanting to provide public access at the front of
the building. Mitchell said Wal-Mart's reasons are two-fold: 1) if they wished to have a special
event where they wanted to close off access they would not be able to do so if there was a
public access easement in place, and 2) if they ever want to make changes at the front of the
store, a public access easement would complicate matters. Mitchell said that Wal-Mart would
clearly never stop folks from driving in front of the store, but that they wished to maintain the
flexibility afforded with no access easement in place. Payne asked if Wal-Mart would expect
police, ambulance and fire to travel around the perimeter of the parking lot rather than traveling
in front of the store. Mitchell said there would be a designated fire lane and that obviously
emergency vehicles could use whatever access worked best for them.
Freerks noted that there was actually quite a bit of public access in the current configuration,
and she wondered if Wal-Mart had had problems with that. Mitchell said that there had been no
problems that he is aware of but that Wal-Mart simply preferred to retain their flexibility.
Altenhoft said it is a subtle point, but that access easements provide a legal thoroughfare
allowing the public access on the property. This would give the outlots the legal right to use
Wal-Mart's land to get to their property. Altenhoft said that while Wal-Mart is not going to
prohibit anyone from using their parking lot, they do not want to have to engage a legal process
to do something different to the front of their store. Greenwood Hektoen noted that legal
technicalities do actually matter and that an access easement granting legal access rights is
essential for those two new lots. Altenhoft acknowledged the importance of legal distinctions,
but said that he could not think of a situation where Wal-Mart would not let someone access the
front of the store that needed to be there. Miklo said that the access easement would actually
be for the benefit of the two other lots on the property.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that the recommended conditions for the CZA may have been
affected by changes to the site plan. She asked for clarification on a section stating that there
are three medians, though there are now only two. She also suggested adding language
regarding phase two and the maintenance of the two outlots until they are developed. In
response to a question about whether there would be changes to the free-standing signs
outlined in the CZA, Miklo said that there would not.
Mitchell noted that Jackie Cook-Haxby, the lead architect on the project, was also available for
questions. Cook-Haxby placed her drawing boards where they would be visible to
Commissioners.
Eastham expressed concern that the roofline for the front of the building on the west side had
changed in the new design so that there was no vertical disruption for approximately 200 feet.
He said that in the approved plan the horizontal roofline does not appear to go on for quite that
long without vertical interruptions. Miklo said that it looks like the previous plan had a segment
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 5 of 15
which was slightly higher. Freerks asked if there were provisions in the code concerning "Big
Box" stores that would address Eastham's concern. Miklo said he believed the proposed plan
still met those but that would be verified at the time of site plan review. Eastham noted that
there is a change of materials to vary the facade, just not a change in the roofline.
There were no further questions for the applicant, and the public was invited to speak.
Koppes asked if the Commission would need to discuss the possibility of deferral with the
applicant prior to closing the public hearing. Freerks asked Mitchell if the applicant would be
open to a deferral if it was deemed necessary. Mitchell said the applicant would be open to a
deferral if there were issues that needed to be hashed out, but that the preference was for the
matter to be passed this evening. Freerks said that, for her, items that could need more
consideration would be the access easement, the bus stop, and the landscaping islands. Miklo
said that no discussion was really necessary regarding the islands; the language in the CZA
would just need to reflect that there were two, not three. Payne noted that the 45-day limitation
is November 8th. Freerks explained that the applicant would have to agree to a deferral until the
next meeting and waive the 45-day limitation period in order for that to be an option.
There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham motioned to defer REZ09-00008/SUB09-00008, an application submitted by Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the CZA to modify the concept site plan and a Preliminary
Plat of Wal-Mart Subdivision, an approximately 25.16-acre 3-lot commercial subdivision located
at 1001 Highway 1 West, until the November 19th meeting.
Plahutnik seconded.
Eastham said that he wished to defer because this is a change in the existing concept plan for
the area and he felt there were issues to work out. Eastham said that he wanted to carefully
examine the concept plan and make sure that it both meets the requirements of the code and is
appropriate development for the area. He said he did not think atwo-week delay would cause
unnecessary delays.
Plahutnik said he looked at the deferral as an opportunity to revisit the planning and zoning of
this particular site. Plahutnik said that a plan had been hashed out between the Commission
and Wal-Mart and that by coming back with changes to that plan, Wal-Mart is reopening
negotiations. Plahutnik said that the whole Highway 1 corridor has been haphazardly and
poorly developed. He said the area is an unbroken string of site-specific, inwardly looking
developments. Plahutnik said that the area is very close to the residential neighborhood on the
south side of the highway, and yet he would be willing to guess that they never walk across and
visit the businesses on the other side. Plahutnik said that the Commission has a mandate to
develop Iowa City as a pedestrian friendly city and that this plan does nothing to fulfill that. Wal-
Mart is probably the perfect candidate to begin some real planning in this area, Plahutnik said.
Wal-Mart is a successful business that has a wide draw and represents a rare opportunity for
infill development to do some significant planning instead of just zoning on that side of town.
Plahutnik said that the Commission had more or less made a promise to the Miller-Orchard
neighborhood that they would consider their neighborhood and how to improve that area in
general for the near future. Plahutnik said that this is one of the closest retail areas to that
neighborhood. Plahutnik said that he hopes the Commission will take the time of the deferral to
discuss the future for that area, and consider more than that one building.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 6 of 15
Freerks noted that there is a CZA that is approved right now that Wal-Mart could choose to go
forward with. She said that the Commission is not really starting from scratch. She told
Plahutnik that she appreciated his comments, but that the area is a CC-2 area, and there is a
CZA in place, and that what is being looked at are some changes to that.
Greenwood Hektoen stated that the design standards are already established in the City's
ordinances, and this is a request to amend those ordinances. She said that any additional
requirements put on this rezoning would have to be pursuant to a public need created directly
from this rezoning.
Payne said she believed that what Plahutnik was talking about was far bigger in scope than just
this one item before them, noting that in that respect it was planning versus zoning. She said
she did not disagree with his thought process, but she felt it was beyond the scope of this issue.
Plahutnik noted that a journey of a thousand steps begin with just one. Koppes said there
already was a plan for that area in the form of the district plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
Payne asked if the existing Comprehensive Plan agrees with this use. Miklo said the plan
identifies this site as appropriate for retail uses and also speaks to trying to create an
aesthetically pleasing entryway to the city. Freerks noted that it also encouraged pedestrian-
friendlydevelopment.
Eastham said that in his view Plahutnik raises important points. He said that one of the only
methods available for accomplishing things on the large scale is to do things one thing at a time
with a plan for a given area. Eastham said he had some questions about pedestrian access,
and about the appearance of the two lots that will be vacant for a period of time.
Koppes noted that it was important to express concerns about the plan now so that the
applicant had an opportunity to address them prior to the next meeting.
Payne asked if Eastham was thinking that grass should be planted in addition to any erosion
control measures that were put in place for the vacant lot. Eastham said he thought the
aesthetic appearance of those lots over the next few years is important. Eastham said he would
also like to pay more attention to the design of the front of the building and breaking up the
horizontal plane on the west end. Koppes said that if the facade met the City's design
standards she did not understand what more Eastham was looking for. Eastham said that he
had read the design standards repeatedly, and that in his view there were a lot of ways to meet
them. He said that this proposal was one way of meeting the standards, but there are other
ways of doing so as well. Koppes said that a concept plan very similar to this is already in
place, so it did not make sense to her to renegotiate the whole project.
Plahutnik said he understood that going forward any terms of the CZA would be applied to the
two lots. He said that successful development of those two additional lots required an access
easement. Plahutnik agreed that there was no foreseeable instance in which Wal-Mart would
deny access through their property; however, he pointed out that this could also be seen as a
reason why there would be no harm in having the access easement. Plahutnik said that the
argument is a coin flip, with each argument being equally valid. He noted that the two empty
lots would be slightly more valuable and attractive with an access easement in place.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that the access easement would be used not just for customer
access, but also for delivery access. Payne pointed out that the way the CZA is currently
drafted deliveries must to come in from Ruppert. Greenwood Hektoen said that currently
pertains only to Wal-Mart.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 7 of 15
Freerks said she would be alright with approving the application with stipulations or deferring.
Busard and Koppes asked why a deferral would be necessary at all. Freerks said she did not
see the Commission completely re-imagining the project, but that she did agree with Staff's
recommendations. Payne asked if someone else could make a motion to approve the
application with stipulations. Freerks said that was correct, but that the deferment would have
to be voted on first.
Busard said he was hesitant to defer because he felt like expectations were clearly set forth in
the last CZA and the current proposal meets design standards. He asked what the Commission
wished to change in the time it was deferring. Freerks said she would like to see the bus stop
and access easement issues resolved. Busard said he was talking about design elements,
asking if a deferral meant there were specific design changes the Commission was requesting.
Busard said in his opinion Wal-Mart was going above and beyond in its design
accommodations. He said he would love to have a pedestrian bridge built across Highway 1,
but that some things were just not realistic. Freerks noted that if there was a deferral then it
would mean that the Commission would like to see some specific action on the applicant's part
within the next two weeks. Miklo said that Staff has made its positions clear to the applicant in
regards to the bus stop and the access easement; he said he did not think a deferral was
necessary based on those issues alone. Miklo said Staff would rather have the Commission
approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the staff report than deferred for
those same issues. Weitzel said some of the issues being discussed are compelling, but that
larger-scale, precedent-setting issues are generally worked out in district plans. Weitzel said
that planning could become haphazard and ad hoc if each case was seen as a new opportunity
to make a point. Freerks noted that a lot of discussion had taken place in settling on the 2008
site plan. Weitzel agreed, saying that this property had gone above and beyond design
standards because it is bound by a CZA. He said his concerns are the aesthetics and the
traffic, and that both of those concerns are addressed with the staff stipulations.
Freerks called for a vote.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 6-1 (Eastham voting in favor).
Payne motioned to approve REZ09-00008/SUB09-00008, an application submitted by Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the CZA to modify the concept site plan,
including landscaping plan and building elevations, and a Preliminary plat of Wal-Mart
Subdivision subject to:
5) an access easement will pass in front of the Wal-Mart store in a fashion similar
to the existing easement that goes in front of Cub Foods and Staples, as
recommended by Staff;
6) the bus stop being located in the northeast corner of the store where Staff
recommends it be located;
7) anew CZA that contains the same requirements as the 2008 CZA, with the
exception of the changes to the concept site plan, including landscape plan
and building elevations, as attached, and a change in item 5A to indicate that
there will be two internal landscape median aisles rather than three and a
change in 5D changing "the final site improvements" to "Phase 2 shall consist
of demolition of the existing Wal-Mart and installation of necessary erosion
control, including planting of grass on the two smaller lots until they are
developed;"
8) and a requirement that Lots 2 and 3 be approved by the staff design committee
for compliance with Section 14-2C-6K, Standards for Large Retail Uses.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page8of15
Koppes seconded.
Freerks invited discussion from the Commission.
Busard asked Miklo to trace out the proposed access easement for him, and Miklo did so.
Eastham said he agrees with a number of the elements contained in the motion, including the
refusal to move the bus stop from the side of the store. Eastham said he believed visibility
could be addressed by moving the bus stop slightly back, and that he did not see why the
location should illicit security concerns. Eastham said that requiring an access easement was
simply good planning, and that he approved of the requirements for grass-covered lots until the
outlots are developed. Eastham said he is not entirely satisfied with the storefront elevations
and he believes the roofline is too long not to have some vertical separation, although he
indicated he was willing to compromise on the issue. He said he believed Plahutnik had raised
some valid points about how to better provide an attractive entrance to the city.
Weitzel said he agreed with both Eastham and Plahutnik on the need for an attractive entrance
to the city in that area, but that he was not sure this application was the right forum for that.
Weitzel said he would like it noted that the roofline design Eastham has concerns about needs
to be checked for compliance in the site plan stage.
Freerks said she thought this was a better lay-out for the property from its current configuration,
and that the overall plan is an improvement over that approved in 2008. She said that the
conditions placed on the zoning will be positive for the development and easily remedied by the
applicant.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Plahutnik voting against).
REZ09-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, inc. for a rezoning
to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential
(OPD-8) zone for approximately .44 acres of property located on Westbury Drive, south of
Middlebury Road to allow five additional townhouse style dwelling units.
Eastham announced that he would be abstaining from discussions of this application because
he is a board member for an organization that owns property within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning.
Kuecker passed out some revised building elevations for the Commission to review. She said
that this is an application to amend the OPD plan for Old Town Village to add five additional
townhouse style units along Westbury Drive to Lot 1. The location of the five new units was
shown as open space in the original OPD plan. The plan was approved in 2005 for
approximately 21 acres with 62 dwelling units that included duplexes, townhouses and detached
single family homes. Many of those units have been built. The northern portion of the
development was designated as commercial. The developer is requesting a displacement of
that open space for the construction of the five new units. In return, the developer is proposing
improvements to the remaining, smaller open space.
Staff believes the proposed townhouses are of similar style and quality to the existing
townhomes in the area. However, because of the lack of grade change, there are not basement
level garages on the proposed townhomes, which does not allow for rear balconies as are on
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 9 of 15
other townhouses in the area. To compensate for this, the design has deeper and wider front
porches to allow for useable outdoor space.
The design changes Kuecker had passed out to Commissioners included the addition of small
windows on the ground floor to help break up the space; addition and reconfiguration of some of
the columns to provide better visual rhythm on the porches; better foundational material on the
south elevation where a large amount of foundation shows; and bringing the brick base around
the edges of the south and north elevations to end at a logical point.
Kuecker said that in Staff's opinion the five units are in keeping with the Northeast District plan
and are compatible with existing units. The proposed building is appropriate infill for this
neighborhood and will provide for a nicer streetscape along Westbury Drive, hiding the rear of
the building along a private alley. The porches would provide variety from the townhouses in
the area and would be a nice feature for residents.
Kuecker noted that the area was open space in the original OPD, and that developing that
space into residential units requires something in return. As a result, the developer is proposing
to improve the additional open space by adding a substantial shelter, grill area, access paths
and landscaping. Kuecker noted that the neighborhood parkland requirements were not
satisfied by this open space; a fee was paid in lieu of that. Storm-water management and
infrastructure fees were also paid at the time of the original OPD plan.
Kuecker said that the city engineer is reviewing the revised site plan to ensure that all technical
issues have been addressed. She said there is some concern that the proposed paths need to
be ADA accessible and that there may need to be shifts to the layout to accommodate that.
Staff is recommending approval as submitted with the condition that Staff sign off on the site
plan regarding the landscaping path alignment and shelter location prior to consideration by City
Council. Kuecker noted that the Commission could also defer the matter until the issues are
worked out.
Koppes asked if the original OPD only included the residential portions of the development and
Kuecker said that was correct.
There were no further questions for Staff. Freerks opened the public hearing.
Jesse Allen of Allen Homes, 3704 Lower West Branch Road, said that he is the applicant as
well as a resident of Old Town Village. He said he has been very active in that area as a builder
and developer. He said that the reason for the request is that he believes the change will help
to buffer some of the buildings Allen Homes has already built as well as present a better street-
front. Allen said the location of the new open space and the upgrades to it will also be positive
changes, and that, for these reasons, he hopes the application will be approved.
Plahutnik pointed out that Allen might actually be hoping to make a little money on the project as
wel l
Freerks asked Allen if he had followed the Good Neighbor policy in regards to this development.
Allen said that there had been a meeting the previous evening, but that the turnout was light.
Allen said that the people who showed up were basically positive. Freerks said she had asked
because it was a big change for the neighbors. Allen acknowledged that it had been green
space for many years and that it could be a shock for neighbors to have a building there. Allen
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 10 of 15
said he hopes that the improvements to the common space will make up for the loss. Plahutnik
asked if the new open space would have some sort of covenant built into it that designated it as
private open space for the development. Busard asked how much notice was given to the
neighbors before the meeting. Allen said that they had been given two or three days notice.
Busard asked if the homeowners' association (HOA) had voiced any objections to the project.
Allen acknowledged that the condominiums' HOA has not yet been turned over to the residents.
Busard noted that the HOA had not yet made a decision one way or the other yet. Allen said
that he is in charge of the HOA because there are not yet enough people who have moved in as
residents. Allen said seven of the fifteen units are occupied, and he owns the rest.
Koppes asked who has been paying the maintenance on the lot. Allen said that he had been.
Allen said that he had been doing all of the mowing, grounds-keeping, mulching, etc., on the lot
all summer, but that he could not yet turn a bill into the homeowners' association because the
balance would be a negative because not enough people live there yet. Allen said the
additional five units should help the HOA survive without having to raise its HOA fee.
There were no further questions for Allen and Freerks invited other members of the public to
speak.
Ed Foraker, 3527 Middlebury, said that the idea that the rear of the units facing Middlebury need
to be "buffered" is incorrect. He said the rear of the units are beautiful and have very nice four-
season porches. Foraker said that the plan has always been for this lot to be green space. The
people who purchased these units were explicitly told that it would remain green space, Foraker
said. Foraker said that Larry Lee was the builder of his four-plex and that he told Foraker that
there were plans to put a park in that area. Foraker said this was very influential in his decision
to buy there.
Foraker said he is also a realtor, and is already seeing first-hand the effect this could have on
the resale value of his home. He is the listing agent for a property on Middlebury, he said, and
there were two potential buyers who said that they would not be interested in the property
unless the rezoning for this five-plex failed. In effect, Foraker said, this plan will devalue his
property and make it harder to sell.
Foraker said the original plan in the covenants says that the area is green space. He said he
understands the technicality of the property being "designated" as green space. Foraker said
that his own builder, Larry Lee, has signed a petition against the rezoning because he feels so
strongly that the property should remain green space.
Foraker said that the area was intended to be medium density, and that he does not understand
why the units would not be built around the circle. He said all of his neighbors were under the
impression that that would be the pattern of development.
He said he wondered about snow removal issues because there was now a medium density
area with the concentration of a high density area. Foraker said there would now be 21 units
clustered around an alley, and he wondered where the snow would be dumped. Foraker said
residents would be happy to pay extra fees to maintain that green space, but that they do not
wish to pay extra fees to have snow hauled away because there is nowhere to put it.
Foraker said that he understood the wetlands area across the street could be considered
applicable green space. He asked the Commission to please understand, however, that a
person cannot recreate on wetlands; you cannot use it to play on or throw a football around on.
He said the wetlands were nice, but not practical for recreation in the same way this lot is.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 11 of 15
Busard asked when Foraker moved into his unit. Foraker said he had moved in March 2009.
He said that raises a large question as to what can happen in eight months to so drastically
change plans. He said he has enough signatures on his petition to meet the 25-30% threshold,
and that the first question residents ask is why this is happening. He said no good reason has
been given for doing this. He asked why a covenant that was written and applied eight months
ago would suddenly be changed so drastically. Foraker said the original plan was a good plan
and should be kept.
Weitzel said that it sounds like Foraker wants green space left on the lot, but also had
suggestions for the design of the buildings. He asked for clarification, asking if Foraker would
be willing to see the buildings built if they were designed differently. Foraker asked if Weitzel
would be if he were in his situation. Foraker said that he walks into his all-seasons room and
looks at a beautiful green space that flows into a wetland. He asked Weitzel if he would rather
look at that or if he would rather look at a five-plex.
Plahutnik said that he understands that the covenant is outside of the Commission's purview,
but that he is curious about the discrepancy. Greenwood Hektoen said that the covenant is a
private matter between the developer and the homeowner and that she has not reviewed the
documents so she could not comment on them specifically. Freerks noted that this is not the
first time people have come forward with issues with their HOA. Foraker said that he
understood that.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen to address the fact that the lot was not officially designated
as green space. Kuecker noted that there is no designation on the plat of the lot as open space.
Koppes pointed out that there is also no designation on the plat for the lot to be developed.
Kuecker said that on other parts of the OPD, private open space is clearly dedicated. Miklo said
that he believes that when this was approved the impression that everyone had was that this lot
would be part of the open space for the development unless an amendment was approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Foraker said that everyone he has talked to has signed the petition so far, so he does not
believe there will be difficulty getting the process reviewed.
Payne asked for clarification on a point. She asked if it was correct that their HOA covered their
covenants regardless of what the Planning and Zoning Commission did. Freerks noted that
both the zoning and the change in covenant would have to occur for the change to take place.
Miklo said that given that the developer owns the majority of the units he should have no trouble
changing the covenants; however, that should not be something the Commission considers.
Weitzel said it was important to remember that the issues for consideration were zoning issues,
not HOA issues.
Larry Pugh, 321 Westbury Court, said that three of the residents in his four-plex are retired and
the fourth is disabled. He said that the residents moved into the units, spending their life-
savings and significant money to acquire the properties, having been told that the lot in question
was going to remain open space. Pugh said he grew up on a farm and that they chose their
property because of the wetlands and the open space. He said he is vice-president of their
HOA and that he had not been notified of the change. He said that Allen is a good friend, a
good builder, and a good neighbor, but that notice should have been given. Pugh said it is very
troublesome to him that a person can move into a property and two years later have the whole
character of it changed with no notice being given.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 12 of 15
Pugh said the area is a very crowded area and that there have already been significant parking
problems because of the density issues. He said that density issues lead to other problems.
He asked Commissioners if they were creating a ghetto and asked what type of conditions they
would like to live in. Pugh said that Allen builds nice properties, but said that homeowners
would much rather see open space and wetlands than afive-plex. He said he agreed that the
frontage of the five-plex would be nice on Westbury, but he said the traffic problems it could
create should be considered. Pugh said that parking limitations had to be enacted just with the
current population, much less if an additional five-plex was added to the mix.
Pugh said he was speaking from the standpoint of people who invested their life-savings to buy
a nice place to live in that had nice green, open space, and who all at once are having that
taken away by the addition of five new townhomes.
Pugh said he was also concerned about process, asking how a matter this big could come up all
at once. Miklo said that it looks as though Pugh's property probably is within three hundred feet
of the proposed rezoning. Pugh said he was never given written notice. Miklo said that they
could check; he said that Staff relies on the applicant to provide the list of people from the City
Assessor's office that own property within three-hundred feet of the proposed zoning change.
Pugh reiterated that Allen was a good man and a good builder, but, he said this was business,
and the Commission should consider what type of environment they would want to live in.
Miklo noted that a review of the file found that Pugh lived slightly outside the 300-feet zone; the
300-feet ends in the middle of the street in front of his home.
Randy Stacy, owner of 440 Scott Boulevard, a unit in a four-plex directly across from this
property said that he had spoken to Allen when purchasing his unit and was told that the area
would be open space. His unit faces Scott which has a tremendous amount of traffic. Stacy
said his property is an investment property that has to be very upscale and nice in order to get
top rent and great tenants. Stacy said that he would never have bought a property on one of
the busiest streets in Iowa City if it did not also have the plus of a very desirable open, green
area in the back of the building. Stacy said that the proposed five-plex would sandwich his
property between afive-plex and Scott Boulevard, resulting in a severely reduced property
value. The five-plex would greatly reduce the desirability of the unit. Stacy said that families
like to live in the unit now because they can retreat to the green space in back, but that would
change if there was afive-plex behind it.
Duane Thomas, no address given, said that he lives around the corner from Old Town Village
on the opposite side of Herbert Hoover Highway. Thomas said he is an Iowa City native and
remembers when Joe Zaichek had the junkyard on the corner of Scott and Rochester. Thomas
said he is very thankful for the forward progression that has been made in the Old Town Village
area. He said he is thankful for the commercial zoning put in Old Town village; although he is a
little disgruntled that there does not seem to be a cohesive development plan. Thomas said that
there are huge empty lots between Blackstone and the new Dairy Queen and it is difficult to get
the owners to mow them. Further, he said, there are three nice ponds in the wetlands area, but
more often than not Allen must mow them on his own time in order to keep the area tidy.
Thomas said that he believes that not looking at garages is a good thing. Thomas said that
what is being proposed has several benefits: 1) garages will be blocked from view, and 2)
Foraker's property would still have a wetland view, and 3) there will be an ADA accessible place
to entertain residents' grandchildren and guests. Thomas said there really is not any other
accessible parkland in that area; that there is a huge beautiful sidewalk and nowhere to take it
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 13 of 15
to. Thomas said that he applauds the forward movement that development is bringing to the
area, and that it is refreshing in comparison to the many parts of the development that have
been abandoned in the current economic downturn.
Ed Foraker, 3527 Middlebury, said that he wished to talk about what one sees in terms of
garages. Foraker said that all along Westbury the view is of garages; shielding their four-plex
from view would not change the overall view offered from Westbury. Foraker said that Allen
builds beautiful buildings, as did Larry Lee, and that a lot of thought and planning went into what
the rear of the buildings would look like. Foraker said there is nothing aesthetically wrong with
the view of the back of his four-plex.
There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion, noting that there is additional time on the limitation period so a deferral
is possible.
Koppes motioned to defer REZ09-00010, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc.
for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family
Residential (OPD-8) zone for approximately .44 acres of property located on Westbury
Drive, south of Middlebury Road to allow five additional townhouse style dwelling units.
Weitzel seconded.
Koppes said that she wished to defer because has had concerns about allowing a previously
defined OPD to be changed. She said that while the lot was not technically designated as open
space, by leaving it blank and not designating it as a lot that was going to be developed, much
was implied. Koppes asked Staff if there had been a case where the Commission had allowed
an already developed OPD to go back in and add more. She said she could not think of an
example of it in all her years on the Commission.
Busard said he has concerns about the parking issues five more units would present. He said
he also is uncomfortable with the idea of allowing an OPD to be changed after development has
occurred. Busard said that the original plan was approved for a reason and he has concerns
about changing it.
Freerks asked if there was any topographical reason why the lot to be designated as park space
would be less desirable for development than the more centrally located open space in
question. Kuecker said there are some topographical issues, but there is also a requirement
that townhouses have to have an entrance that face a public street and that would be difficult to
do on the other lot.
Plahutnik said he supports deferral as well. Plahutnik said that typically he would view matters
in this way: a person owns a piece of property; there is no open space designation on the
property; the zoning is appropriate for the development; the owner may develop the property.
However, in this case, Plahutnik said, there are a lot of questions to be answered from Staff and
Legal about where the Commission stands. Plahutnik said he is in way over his head on this
and needs more time and more answers. Miklo noted that the lot is developable if the
Commission and City Council allow it. Plahutnik said that what he is looking at is whether or not
there is precedent on changing OPDs; Miklo said none come to mind. Plahutnik said that even
most of the people against this development would agree that in general a person should be
able to develop property they own; Plahutnik said that for him this case is not as clear because
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2009 -Formal
Page 14 of 15
of the way the property was platted.
Greenwood Hektoen said that from a legal perspective the developer has no restriction on their
ability to develop the property other than the OPD plan, for which they are seeking an
amendment. Greenwood Hektoen said that the neighbors do not have vested rights in this land
being open space. Miklo said it is like zoning in any neighborhood. He said you buy into a
neighborhood at one zoning but anyone at any time can propose a change in the zoning. Miklo
said that this is why there is a public process in which the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the City Council vote after weighing the views of the property owners, the neighbors, and
whether or not there is a public benefit or negative.
Weitzel said he agrees with Plahutnik. He said he has to think about a number of issues on the
matter including precedent, the possibility of developing the other lot, site issues, etc.
Freerks said she too had concerns and had things to think about. Freerks said even if the plan
were to be approved she has concerns about the great amount of concrete the drive and
alleyway would represent. She said that people do a lot of their living in the rear of their houses,
especially with a busy street like Scott Boulevard on the front side. She said the alley could be
a massive amount of concrete to look at for people who were accustomed to open green space.
She said there are a number of mitigating factors to consider.
Payne asked if Staff could look to see if anyone has ever asked to have an OPD changed after
development, regardless of whether it has actually been done.
Freerks said that Planning and Zoning could not mediate anything between the neighbors and
the developer but that she would recommend some conversation and discussion between now
and the next meeting.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Eastham abstaining).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 12 & 15, 2009:
Payne motioned to approve the minutes.
Plahutnik seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Eastham not present at time of vote).
OTHER:
Miklo reminded that the Riverfront Crossings meetings were going to be held between
November 11th and November 13th. He said Commissioners are not obligated to attend the
meetings, but that if they could only make it to one or two the Friday evening meeting would be
first priority and the Thursday morning meeting with the City Council and consultants would be
second. Miklo asked Commissioners to RSVP to Karen Howard.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Eastham not present at time of vote) at 8:50
p.m.
Z
O
N
N
~G
~~
00
UU
~ ~
ZWo
N Z N
a
Q W
~ ~
Z_Q
Z
Z
a
J
a
X X X X X X X
o ~ x X X X X X
r
X X X O X ~ X
as
~ X X X X ~ X X
N X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
ti
X X X X X X X
co
~ o x x x x o x
~
~
~n
X
X w
O X X X X
~ X x x x x o x
X X X X X X X
M X X X X X ~ X
N X X X X ~ X X
~ x x x o x x x
~W r-
~ ~
~ M
~ N
~ O
~ O
~ Ch
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
F.X o o o o o 0 0
W
W ~
W }
=
a
m
J J
Q
Z ~
W ~ V Q ~ 2 ~_
Q
Z ~
~
Q
Y W V
~ Y ~
~
=
~ N
a
z ~
= W
^~
vai v~i w a- >- Q ~=
W
~
m Q
w OC
w O
Y Q
a ~
a ~
z
H
W
w
X X X X X X X
r
o ~ X X X X X
T
r X X X X X X ~
N X X X X X X X
M
N X X X X X X X
N X X X X X X X
~ ~ X X ~ X X ~
~w ~ .-
~- c~
r N
r O
~- O
r M
r
WG. r
~
~,n ~
~n ~
~.r~ ~
-n ~
~ ~
~n ~
~n
~X o o o o o 0 0
w
w
J ~
w }
Q W
J J
2 Q Z ~
w v~ =
V z
Q _ = _ ~_
Q ~ w U Y ~
Z _ ~ W ~ W
~ W
Q F- W a Z 2 H
cn
~ cn
Q w
~ a
O }
Q Q
J -
W
m
w
~
Y
a
a ~
Z
~
C9
z
I=
W
w
0
~a
0
Z
X ~~
.'7 ~ ~
~- c a~ ~
~ ~ y E co
~~QZ
n. Q n z
u u
n ~~ w ~
xOOz
>-
w
Y
IP15
MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
October 14, 2009 - 5 p.m.
PRELIMINARY
MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
Members Present: David Bourgeois (5:30 pm); Lorin Ditzler (5:30 pm), Maggie Elliott, Aaron
Krohmer, Margie Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Craig Gustaveson
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson
Others Present: Del Holland
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
Farmers Market Evaluation & Discussion:
After recommendation from Commission at a previous meeting, Tammy Neumann, Mike Moran
and Barb Coffey (City of Iowa City Document Services Director) worked together to draft a
Farmers Market Survey. Staff is asking for Commission to review and give their approval. If
approved, there will be a note included in all City water bills directing people to the website for
the survey or to the locations where they may pick up a hard copy. There is also a survey
specific to vendors of the farmers market. These surveys will be mailed directly to the vendors.
Moran will write a cover memo to City Council that will also include the surveys for their review
at their work session on Monday, October 19. The deadline for feedback is December 18. Staff
will report results to the Commission at the January 2010 meeting. Raaz asked if these surveys
would be handed out to customers during the last few farmers markets. Neumann reported that
they would be as long as they are available. Elliott asked if changes will be made to the market
in the upcoming season based on these surveys. Moran reported that it depends on the extent
of the changes desired as some may take longer to put into place than others.
Moved by Krohmer, seconded by Raaz to distribute the Iowa City Farmers Market
surveys as written. Motion passed 6-0 with Ditzler, Bourgeois and Gustaveson being
absent.
BUDGET UPDATE:
The budgets are due to the City Finance Department on Friday, October 16. Moran reported
that initially staff was told that there was a need fora $750,000 reduction in the budget. That
number has since increased to more than a one million dollar reduction. Directors have been
informed not to request additional staff. The previously submitted cuts for FY10 are still on the
table and will be reviewed and prioritized for FY11. The revenues for Parks and Recreation will
be submitted in December. Of note is that the department has put in a $10,000 line item in the
farmers market budget to allow for free parking during the Saturday morning markets. This
amount is to reimburse the Parking Division for their revenue loss.
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 2 of 10
Moran handed out the current CIP list to Commission members for their review. The
Commission will need to prioritize CIP projects for FY11, 12 & 13. Moran and Robinson have
discussed a couple of projects that may no longer be feasible. For example, the request for an
outdoor skating rink at the skate park.
O'Leary asked if all City departments are asked to cut the same amount. He further stated that
he would advocate that the Parks & Recreation Department maintain a strong budget as there
are components that affect the quality of life for the community. He is startled at the simplicity of
the idea of cutting uniformly across the board. He hopes that the City is sophisticated enough to
determine if some departments need to cut more or less than others
Krohmer discussed a franchise fee that is being considered for energy use through
MidAmerican. He stated that this can be used for public safety or economic development and
that Council is planning to limit the fee amount to what is required to add a fourth fire station and
a few additional police officers. His idea is recommending to Council that instead of budget cuts
in parks and recreation, as well as other City departments, that the franchise fee be increased
so as to fund existing public safety expenditures, freeing up funds for other departments.
Westefeld asked if Krohmer would be willing to draft a letter to Council regarding this topic.
Krohmer agreed to draft a letter and bring to Commission for their review and approval.
FLOOD PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS & DISCUSSION:
Moran distributed an updated list of flood property acquisitions on Normandy Drive and Taft
Speedway. There are three more homes to be demolished prior to November. Discussions are
still taking place as to what to do with these properties. One option being considered is using
some of the properties on Normandy Drive as community gardens. Moran reported that the
Library has secured an ecological grant that may assist in funding this type of project. In fact,
some of these funds are going to be used for community gardens at the north side of the
Recreation Center. These particular beds will be used for recreation programs. This project is
being done cooperatively with Backyard Abundance and Project Green. This group will be
meeting again soon to further discuss this possibility for Normandy Drive. The group is aware of
ttie sensitivity in this neighborhood, therefore, they will be working with Steve Long from the
Planning Department who is working closely with this neighborhood. One obstacle, however,
with this plan, is that these vacant properties are scattered throughout the neighborhood rather
than side by side.
O'Leary commented that he would not want see the Iowa City Parks and Recreation name on
any plan for this property other than housing, thus giving the impression that they want people
to leave this area. Moran said that as far as he knows, this has not been the case so far and
doesn't believe that it will happen in the future, further stating that the City will not exercise land
rights on the residents who want to stay in the neighborhood.
Raaz suggested that if the land is not going to be used for trails etc., and since it is next to a
waterway, that the City discontinue mowing, therefore, creating a flood buffer. Westefeld asked
Robinson for his opinion on this. Robinson stated that there is an Iowa City ordinance that
states that once grass is so high it has to be mowed. There is, however, a provision that says
that an area can be turned into a natural area and can be left so that it is not mowed. However,
he would like to make sure that the City has the potential to place a trail through there at some
point. If it is turned into a natural area, then that would not be an option.
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 3 of 10
O'Leary asked if there has been a site chosen for the bridge. Moran reported that there has
been a site picked, however, this is all dependent on funding.
AFFILIATE GROUP DISCUSSION:
Moran distributed the updated affiliate group listing to the Commission for their review and
recommendations. He would like to move ahead with writing a letter to these groups as soon as
possible. He suggested that if we cannot approve the proposal as written tonight, that perhaps
the Commission form a smaller group to discuss and then bring recommendations to the full
Commission in November. His goal is to send out in November or December to affiliate groups.
These fees would go into effect in July 2010.
Ditzler asked to be reminded what the Parks and Recreation agreement is with Riverside
Theatre for the use of the Shakespeare Festival Stage at City Park. Riverside Theatre currently
pays Parks & Recreation $1 per ticket sold during their Shakespeare Festival. Moran reported
that the justification for this is that Parks does not have to prepare the stage for their use, where
ball fields, for instance, have to be prepped etc. by Parks maintenance staff prior to their use.
Ditzler pointed out that if she were a group looking at this number, she would feel that the
proposal is inequitable.
Krohmer asked for clarification for the reason behind this proposal, i.e. is it to recover budget
cuts specifically or is it a policy change for the affiliate groups? He also asked why the goal for
baseball groups etc. is set at a 40% recovery of expenditures and room rentals are proposed at
50% cost recovery, further stating that these numbers seem arbitrary. He questioned whether
Commission might consider no discounts at all for meeting room reservations. He expressed
his concern that the Commission has discussed this topic several times and they do not seem to
have a linear line of thought which makes it difficult for Commissioners to explain if asked.
Moran explained that the majority of the staff has always thought that we should be recouping
some of the department expenses from these groups, however, it has never been agreed upon
by all staff. When the .budget cuts were made known, staff once again talked about using
revenue as a way to improve the budget. The 40% amount was agreed upon as a target as this
is the percentage that the Recreation Division has always strived for when recovering
Recreation expenses. Moran stated that this would, however, be a policy change, not just a
reaction to the budget.
Krohmer suggested that a cover letter be drafted by the smaller group or staff that states the
line of reasoning for why this policy is being written reiterating the need for a clearly written
statement from the start. He further noted that he is comfortable with starting the fee structure at
10% and gradually increasing to 40% cost recovery. However, he remained opposed to
including social service agencies in this group. He thought that it may be good to ask
Commission members for a formal vote on this topic.
O'Leary asked for a clarification of public meeting room use vs. affiliate group usage. His
understanding is that an affiliate group is qualified by a longstanding relationship with Parks and
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 4 of 10
Recreation. Moran confirmed that that is the case. O'Leary then asked how do we distinguish
between one group or another when both are nonprofit.
Krohmer stated that there is a clear federal law that differentiates between the different
organizational tax codes. Discussion would be whether we want to use that as a reason to
differentiate. It would make it easy to explain why one organization is treated one way and
another is treated another way.
O'Leary does not think that social service groups will complain about having to pay 20% of
market value for their room reservations and noted that some of these groups have a significant
amount of usage, and could even see asking them for 40% as well.
Krohmer noted that he spoke with someone from the Neighborhood Center who said that the
dollar amount proposed for them would mean them significantly cutting back their usage which
in turn means cutting services as they do not have $15,000 extra in their budget for reservation
fees and that all of their funds are spoken for. Krohmer said that this is a very worthy program
and would hate to see it cut due to the inability to pay these fees. Krohmer further stated that
while both groups are nonprofit, he sees a philosophical clear difference between Boys Baseball
and Neighborhood Association.
Moran reported that the philosophy for leaving the social service groups off of this list came from
previous discussions with this group, feeling that the majority of the group felt we should not be
charging them. Westefeld asked aside from the Commission, what are staff's thoughts. Moran
stated staff is also divided.
Raaz noted that if they are charged nothing, what is to keep them from taking advantage of the
space. For instance, scheduling more hours than needed.
Krohmer would also contend that we are a city agency and the general policy is to encourage
additional activities, not to discourage them and we would be looking at a policy that would
discourage these activities.
O'Leary asked where the estimate of $15,000 came from. Krohmer reported that this was on the
initial draft. Moran reported that the number was based on actual usage in the last year of our
facilities if they had been charged the full rate. Krohmer noted that the $15,000 was actually
50% of the regular rate.
Elliott agrees that there should be a different policy written based on their tax status. She
doesn't believe that these organizations will take advantage of the room use hours as they do
not have the staff or time to do so. She feels that they should not be charged for their use,
however, there should be boundaries in place regarding number of hours allowed.
Moran stated that we have had experiences where rooms were reserved and then not used due
to perhaps another activity outside of the facility but the group forgot to let us know that they
would not be using the room.
Krohmer stated that there needs to be a rule stating that in the future their use will be more
limited if they don't take advantage of the time scheduled.
Moran stated that staff anticipates that this is what will happen with baseball, softball and
soccer--they will be more cognizant of their schedules.
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 5 of 10
O'Leary noted that he has been approached by three different members of the public. One was
asking if his baseball team could practice at City Park. O'Leary encouraged him to contact
Parks & Recreation. His point being that people have the misconception that it belongs to Boys
Baseball. He has also been involved with trying to schedule things at Scanlon and Grant Wood
and there are groups that think it belongs to them and they do schedule an inordinate amount of
time that does or doesn't get used and this doesn't respect city facilities or resources. He cannot
see moving on a policy like this and taking organizations that have been affiliate groups of the
city for 50 years who have never had a charge before and saying you pay an amount and yet
we have other groups that we can't even charge 5% or 10% of market value.
Ditzler feels it would be reasonable to charge the social service groups a very minimal fee.
Westefeld summarized that there are three ideas in place regarding social service groups: 1) No
fee, 2) minimal fee, or 3) full fee.
Krohmer again noted that there is a clear cut definition of the differences in the tax laws
regarding non-profit groups and there is a clear definition of why a community service agency
would apply and a sport group would not qualify as such. He further stated that he would be
okay with a "token" fee when dealing with the politics of it but would have to be assured that it
would not have an ill-effect on the group or organization.
O'Leary stated that organizations thrive or fail based on their resourcefulness. It is a sensitive
issue when Kickers, for instance, has offered free membership for kids from Neighborhood
Centers. He is on board with a set fee. He is not entirely in support of increasing the for profit
groups up to 40% in less than 10 years. He doesn't feel that, for instance, Neighborhood
Centers paying 10% of a room rate compares to a sudden charge to Boys Baseball of $20,000.
He suggests that each percentage level should remain in place for two or three years at each
benchmark.
Westefeld asked Moran what his timeline is for getting a final decision. Moran said that these
groups generally will meet in January to start working on their fees and schedules. He would like
to have a letter to them no later than December so that they can put this item on their agendas.
Based on this information, Westefeld suggested that the Commission schedule a full or smaller
group meeting between now and the regularly scheduled November meeting.
Krohmer would be comfortable with having a small group meeting. He would like to get a show
of hands here tonight to give Moran some direction of how people are feeling about things like
the nonprofit affiliate groups etc. Moran agreed that this would help him get a sense of how the
Commission wants to proceed.
After some discussion, Krohmer suggested that the entire Commission schedule an informal
meeting prior to the regularly scheduled November meeting. This would allow the public to
attend if they wish, however, they would not be able to speak at such a meeting.
Lcomer asked how do we encourage the public to attend. Moran said by posting the agenda on-
line and on City Hall and Recreation Center bulletin boards, noting that there is not time for a
more formal process. O'Leary said that since they would not be able to speak at an informal
meeting, they should be encouraged to attend the regular meeting in November where they can
comment.
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 6 of 10
Ditzler noted that she is in agreement with scheduling an informal meeting, however, would like
to have an alternative plan to consider so that if initial plan is voted down, there is something
else to vote on.
Raaz suggested that we have a group meeting to come up with two or three options prior to the
regular November meeting. Then let affected people know that they can speak at the November
Commission meeting, and then the Commission will vote on it after comments are heard.
Westefeld summarized the process. He said that Commission has time to first, hold an informal
meeting prior to the regular meeting, second have public speak at regularly November
Commission meeting, then third, vote on the proposal. He questioned if this should be
scheduled in three separate meetings
Elliott said that she had the impression when coming into the meeting tonight that this proposal
was created to make up for budget cuts, however, tonight she is hearing it is strictly a policy
change.
O'Leary recalled that the catalyst for this discussion was when meeting with Dog PAC about
their fee structure, it was mentioned that there are other groups who pay nothing or a very small
amount. This happened to coincide with the budget discussions.
Ditzler said that she recalled it differently because she thinks that this discussion did arise out of
a budget conversation.
Moran noted that increasing revenues was part of a package put together by staff to help with
budget cutbacks and was to be proposed to Council, however, it never went that far.
Krohmer stated that he believes it started with discussions with Dog PAC and that is when we
became aware of other agencies who were not being charged and Commission asked for more
information on this. Those discussions coincided with the time that the need for budget cuts was
announced. However, this proposal was not created because of budget alone.
Westefeld feels that for the public to give input and react there needs to be something for them
to react to and it doesn't feel to him that we have anything that exists to present to them.
Krohmer proposed that as a possible solution that the Commission agree to meet again in two
weeks, create a few alternative plans and get Commission consensus. Next schedule a second
meeting two weeks later for public input and finally a third meeting for a Commission vote.
Moran stated that based on the discussion he could put together three different policy drafts for
Commission to review in two weeks.
O'Leary is not comfortable about developing a policy without having feedback from the affiliate
groups stating that this is a very important part of the process. He is concerned that establishing
a policy and telling them what it is, is not a good idea..
Raaz stated that he did not sign up for the Commission to write cover letters or policies. He said
that the Commission is an advisory board.
Del Holland, audience member, suggested that the Commission open this topic up to the public.
He believes that Commission will get some pertinent information by doing so.
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 7 of 10
Westefeld suggested that we meet on November 4. In the meantime Moran will formulate a
series of options. At that meeting Commission will discuss those and try to arrive at some kind
of a decision. The public will be given the opportunity to speak at the regular November
Commission meeting. At the following meeting Commission will make a decision.
Elliott suggested that perhaps we had enough information to vote tonight.
Krohmer asked who was in support of charging the social service agency groups for their room
usage. Those in favor of charging a minimal fee were Bourgeois, Ditzler, Loomer, O'Leary, and
Raaz. Those in favor of charging no fee were Elliott and Krohmer.
O'Leary said that if it is a foregone conclusion that these three options can exist, he thinks the
three options come from the feedback, and that we flip-flop the meeting. He see's a problem
with establishing one policy and take that to a meeting to get feedback. We already know what
the three options are. Why not take the three options to the public and then come up with a
policy based on the feedback.
Moran supports the idea of meeting for an informal session on November 4, then hold our
regular meeting on November 18 (moved from November 11 due to the holiday) where the
public can speak. He doesn't feel that we can give the public a fair amount of information
without the Commission meeting again prior to the regular meeting.
Consensus is for the Commission to meet again on November 4 to get more united on a policy.
Schedule a second gathering for public input on November 18. Then vote on the policy during
the December 9 Commission meeting.
Commission will meet on November 4 at 5:30 p.m. in meeting room B for an informal meeting.
MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION:
Moran reported that based on the minutes of last month this group was going to prioritize the
goals. He asked if the subcommittee should meet again to finalize the priorities. Ditzler felt that
the priorities are set and would not change her mind if another meeting was scheduled.
Krohmer said he too is comfortable with the priorities as they have been set. Moran will proceed
with those priorities as listed.
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Ditzler mentioned that she was very pleased to see the Master Plan noted in a recent staff
report.
Krohmer brought up the possibility of the need for a policy regarding snow removal on trails,
noting that perhaps some be left with snow cover to allow cross-country skiing, etc. Especially
since there seems to be more trails added but not more staff to maintain them.
Krohmer had previously discussed with Tammy Neumann the possibility of having a contracted
minute taker start recording the minutes for the Commission meetings. Due to time constraints,
and staff having many other duties, the Commission Minutes are summarized in comparison to
minutes from Planning and Zoning etc. which are verbatim. Krohmer feels it is important to have
more complete transcripts of the Commission Meetings, therefore, allowing Council insight into
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 8 of 10
how policies/ideas come forth He is waiting for a response on the cost to do this and will report
back at the November 18 meeting.
CHAIRS REPORT:
Westefeld reported that he and Ditzler went to the Council Meeting and reported activities of the
Commission. He thanked the Council for their support in renaming Sand Lake Recreation to the
Terry Trueblood Recreation Area.
Westefeld reminded the Commission that it is time to nominate a Chair and Vice-Chair for the
2010 Commission. Members that are interested in participating in this committee are to let
Westefeld know as soon as possible.
Westefeld announced that the Parks and Recreation Foundation will be holding their annual
meeting on October 15.
Westefeld suggested that since November 11 is Veterans Day and City offices are closed, that
the November 11 Commission meeting be rescheduled for Wednesday, November 18.
Members were in agreement.
Westefeld reminded Commission that an informal meeting will be scheduled for November 4 at
5:30 p.m. and that the regular Commission meeting will be scheduled for November 18 at 5 p.m.
Westefeld wanted to thank everyone for the discussion earlier this evening. He noted that the
Commission has had a lot of time consuming issues in the past year and he really appreciates
the way that people have provided input and attended meetings.
DIRECTORS REPORT
Terry Trueblood Recreation Area (TTRA): Moran distributed a map of the TTRA. He reviewed
the trail plan with Commission. The McCollister bridge is now complete. There will be a north
parking lot and a crushed limestone access point to the trail with two access points to the park.
This phase is to be complete in late November or early December.
Krohmer asked if we could find out from Public Works if they plan to do any screening of their
facility along McCollister Blvd. Robinson reported that the way that site sits right now they aren't
planning on developing any screening because that site is supposed to change and they are
planning on constructing a new facility that will combine Equipment Division and Streets Division
etc.
Moran noted that the contract with Snyder & Associates, who developed Phase 1 and the trail
plan for TTRA, will end after completion of Phase 1. Moran and staff would like to have them
continue on this job with Phase 2. CIP plan shows that $1.25 million dollars is scheduled for
TTRA development next year which will start July 1, 2010.
Future Council Meeting Dates: The upcoming Council meeting dates are October 20, November
2, November 17, December 1, and December 14. Let Moran know if you can go to any of these
meetings. You can use the Friday updates if you need points to talk about.
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 9 of 10
Ditzler reported that initially we had talked about Commission reporting quarterly to Council.
Moran said that is the case, but now during budget time Commission may want to attend more
regularly.
Subcommittees and Informal Commission Meetings: Moran stated that when holding informal
meetings or work sessions, we will have to publicize the agenda and minutes. If you meet as a
subcommittee there have to be 4 or less in attendance so as not to meet a quorum. The legal
staff recommends that you do not communicate by email.
Trail applications and awards process: Moran gave an update on trail applications. 1) Court Hill
Trail Phase 3 of 3. This is a $580,000 project and we requested $464,000. Staff should hear on
that one next month. 2) Staff applied for a transportation enhancement application, which is
mostly for signage for $19,500 and requested $15,600. Staff just met yesterday with the JCCOG
trails group and recommended funding for that. This is a joint project between Coralville, North
Liberty and Iowa City. It will be used for signage for river trails and land trails. 3) The third
application is an Iowa Water Trails Program Phase I of the Iowa River Water Trail. We received
$24,000 which will pay for a kiosk and some water signage from the Iowa Light and Power
Bridge to Napoleon.
Packet Distribution: If you are interested in packet distribution electronically please let Tammy
know. We have been cleared to do that through the City Clerks Office.
O'Leary noted that he appreciates the email confirmation of attendance.
Foundation Meeting: The Foundation will be reviewing and hopefully approving a gift catalog
that will be distributed to funeral homes and to anyone interested in pledging money to the
Foundation.
Hazard Mitigation Funds: Moran reminded Commission that staff is applying for hazard
mitigation funds for safe rooms at various parks. Initially staff was proposing placement at Court
Hill Park, Kiwanis Park and South Hickory Hill Park. As Court Hill Park and Kiwanis Park are
both in a flood plain, they do not qualify for the grant. Staff will be meeting with residents in the
Hickory Hill Neighborhood to show the plan for such a building. This building will be very similar
to the Norton Wayside Shelter that has been recently placed at Hickory Hill.
Senior Swim Update: Staff is now placing sandwich board signs in the game room area noting
the time of Senior Swim. Staff is also keeping track of attendance during these times. Moran will
continue to update Commission as necessary.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Ditzler, seconded by Krohmer, to adiourn the meeting at 7 p.m. Motion passed
7-0 with Gustaveson and Raaz being absent.
PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Page 10 of 10
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2009
NAME
TERM
~ rl
N .-i
M ~
~ M
~ O
~ o0
^ ~
~ Q1
a, ~
° ~
~ ~
~
EXPIRE
S
David 1/1/11 X O/E X O/E X X X X O/E X
Bourgeois
Lorin Ditzler 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X
Maggie Elliott 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X
Craig 1/1/11 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E
Gustaveson
Aaron 1/1/13 O/E X X X X X O/E X X X
Krohmer
Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E X X O/E X O/E X X X
l.oomer
Ryan O'Leary 1/1/10 X X O/E X X X X X X X
Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X X X
John 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X X
Westefeld
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum