HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-04 Correspondence�1� I CITY OF IOWA CITY - -
4d(2)
RA N D U M EMO
Date: September 19, 2011
To: City Council
From: Ann Freerks, Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission Lqf
Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Review of the proposed Downtown Iowa City Self -
Supported Municipal Improvement District
At its regular meeting of September 15, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
the petition for a Downtown Iowa City Self Supported Municipal Improvement District for its
merits and feasibility.
The proposed District and plan of work appear to be consistent with existing laws, plans and
City policies including the City- University Urban Renewal Area, the 2008 Central District Plan,
the 2007 Downtown Market Analysis recommendations and the Comprehensive Plan.
The petition states the SSMID tax levy would begin with FY13 and sunset in four years,
generating roughly $280,000 per year. The University of Iowa has also announced their
intention to partner with the SSMID efforts by contributing an additional $100,000 annually to the
SSMID budget. The combined sources and uses of these funds will allow for the implementation
of SSMID activities as outlined in the petition.
By a vote of 5 to 0 (Plahutnik abstained, Freerks absent), the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the proposed SSMID district be considered for adoption.
A detailed discussion of the Commission's review is contained in the September 15, 2011
meeting minutes (attached).
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 15, 2011 - Formal
SELF SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ITEM:
Discussion of an application for a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District
(SSSMID) for property located within the Central Business (CB -10) zone (Downtown) and
the Central Business Service (CB -2) and the Central Business Support (CB -5) zones
generally located north of Iowa Avenue (Northside Marketplace).
Ford stated that Council received a petition to create a SSMID district on August 25 and that the
petition meets the statutory requirements for the number of owners and the valuation required
for signatures on that petition. The Commissions job on this agenda item is to review and make
an evaluative report to the City Council on the merits and the feasibility in the proposed Self
Supported Municipal Improvement District. Consideration for the evaluation, merits, and
feasibility revolve around the property included to the taxes levied and the plan itself.
Ford stated that the property included in the proposed district meets all of the criteria required
by Iowa law in that it is contiguous, it is zoned commercial, it is within Iowa City boundaries and
it is related in the manner that it is the Central Business District and the support zone between
and including Northside Market place. The proposed tax rate is an extra two dollars per
thousand of valuation and proposes the funds be used for new and enhanced activities or
services within the district.
The operational expenses will include developing and managing a marketing program for the
area; developing and managing special events, activities, doing business retention and
attraction, expanding the park and shop and bus and shop program, and making physical or
other improvements or enhancements to the downtown area including beautification, flower
boxes, plantings and holiday lights. Finally, the SSMD would create two new jobs —a business
development manager and assistant business development manager.
Ford stated that the petition states specifically that the City will not diminish the type and extent
of any of the services that it already provides for the area within the SSMID district if enacted.
The proposed district and plan of work appear to be consistent with all existing laws, plans, and
City policies including the City- University Urban Renewal Plan, the 2008 Central District Plan,
the 2007 Downtown Market Niche Analysis recommendations and the Comprehensive Plan
which states the goals of keeping the downtown area vibrant.
It is stated in the petition that notwithstanding the fact that part of the proposed SSMID district is
within a TIF district the amount of funds that would be derived from an annual SSMID levy from
properties in that TIF district be still made available annually to the SSMID activities and that the
City should take all necessary actions to make that happen. The petition states that the tax levy
would begin in fiscal year 2013 and sunset in four years generating roughly $280,000 per year.
Ford stated that the University of Iowa has also announced their intention to partner with the
SSMID efforts by contributing $100,000 annually to the SSMID budget. The combined sources
and uses of these funds appear to allow for the feasibility for SSMID to actually work.
Plahutnik recused himself.
Payne asked about the wording for the number of property owner representatives on the SSMID
board. Hektoen stated that that would be a question for the petitioners because it is their
phrasing.
Eastham asked if the University does not contribute their promise of $100,000 per year to the
activities of the district is the amount of tax revenue available in the district sufficient to
accomplish all of the elements set out in the petition. Ford stated that the primary elements
would be able to be accomplished. The $100,000 is right now spoken intention and there can
be no stronger commitment from the university because the SSMID Board, with whom they
would be contracted, has not yet been formed. Ford stated that she could not state anymore
regarding the commitment, the budget would allow for some flexibility. She has heard from
appropriate parties that there is interest in getting this off the ground sooner than later.
Dyer asked if businesses that rent property would they be taxed twice, once as renters and the
other as tacked on by their landlords. Ford stated that generally landlords pass taxes on
through their tenants. Any additional taxes associated with this levy would be handled in the
same way by the landlords passed on once through the lease. Dyer asked if renters could be
taxed separately as well. Hektoen stated it is just the property owners. Koppes clarified that it
is a part of the property tax bill that they receive.
Koppes opened the public hearing.
Karen Kubby, 1425 Ridge Street, Iowa City, stated she was the chair of the downtown
association SSMID committee. As an update, they have received more petition signatures and
they now have 54 out of 143 unique property owners signed getting them to just below thirty -
eight percent in the proposed district and forty -eight percent of assessed value represented.
They are excited because even though they were done collecting signatures, there were people
that still wanted to sign. It is an indicator of some of the enthusiasm for this project. When you
look at the signatures on the petition there is a nice balance between northside and downtown.
There is a nice balance between retail on the ground floor and office uses on the second or third
floor. She named all the different representations.
Kubby stated that in terms of the petition itself they feel they have been very clear about the
intent of the language about how the board will be composed and that it is clear to the
committee and it is clear to those that signed the petition. To clarify Payne's question, Kubby
stated that there would be two different, unique people representing certain categories of size of
business and size of property. They feel that if any language change would be made now it
would denigrate the integrity of the signature process. They would like to keep the language as
it is with a clear understanding of what their intent was, how they explained it to people and
what the general understanding of those who signed the petition is.
Payne stated that the first time she read it didn't make sense. It says, 'two from property
owners or their representatives from a single property.' She stated she read that as one
property is going to have two people not two separate properties each having a representative.
Payne stated that once she went back and read it she understood what it meant it is just not
clear up front. She stated that if they were going to have a board that picks your first board
member and everyone understands what it means than that is the important part. Kubby stated
that she felt it was clear to the signers as they were shepherding the process of gathering
signatures.
Dyer stated she was confused by the one representative from the north side. Kubby stated that
they wanted to guarantee that there was at least one but it could be multiple. She stated there
also could be people who lived, whether they owned or rented their dwelling downtown, or
someone who doesn't live, work or own a business downtown who might want to be on the
board. They wanted multiple seats for more diversity in terms of stake holders in the
community.
Dyer asked what the marketing directors are going to market. Kubby stated that they would
market the SSMID area. They want people to know the diversity of things and that there is
something for everyone. They also want to do some larger regional marketing so people know
they can come for the weekend or extended visits. They can park once and walk to do lots of
different activities and then get in their car once to get back home.
Eastham asked if organization committee has given some thought to the possibility of property
owners that did not sign this SSMID petition having representation on the SSMID board. Kubby
stated that anyone that meets the criteria will have the opportunity to apply to be selected to be
on the board so it will not be limited to just those that signed the petition. There are a lot of
people out there that didn't sign the petition, not because they were against it, but because they
made a choice to be neutral on the issue. So just because someone didn't sign the petition
doesn't mean they are against it.
Koppes closed the public hearing.
Weitzel moved to approve the SSMID.
Payne seconded.
Weitzel stated that he was excited to see this move forward it has great potential to bring great
things to downtown.
Payne stated that it is a unique way for businesses to partner together to promote the downtown
and the Northside area. It will be a good thing for the community in the long run.
Eastham stated that the University of Iowa seems to be willing to contribute money to the
marketing efforts is commendable step on their part as well as the business owners and their
willingness to pay a small additional amount of property taxes in order to support the marketing
activities of the district.
Koppes stated that SSMIDs have been proven to work in other cities so she feels it is a good
addition for the downtown /north side to help get the word out about what is down there.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0, (Freerks, Plahutnik excused).
r CITY OF IOWA CITY 4g(1)
S MEMORAND
u M -�
Date: September 23, 2011
To: City Clerk
From: Kristopher Ackerson, Acting Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for October 4th, 2011 City Council meeting; Installation of NO PARKING
CORNER TO HERE sign on the south side of the Market Street (300 - block)
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (13); Install one (1) NO PARKING CORNER TO HERE sign on the
south side of Market Street (300 - block) eighty -five (85) feet east of the intersection of Market
Street and Linn Street.
Comment:
This action is being taken to prohibit parked vehicles from blocking the south travel lane on
Sundays from 6AM to 1 PM.
r
10■
CITY OF IOWA CITY 4g(2)
.'.'�h M
MORAND
Date: September 26th, 2011
To: City Clerk
From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for October 4th, 2011 City Council meeting; Installation of temporary traffic
signals at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and the driveway located southwest of
Kinnick Stadium.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (1); Install temporary traffic signals at the intersection of Melrose
Avenue and the driveway located southwest of Kinnick Stadium.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics to help
facilitate traffic flow during construction of the new Children's Hospital. The signals will be
installed for several years and will be removed upon completion of the project.
rl—�
a
c:l
'
=
-
--,
�'` �
7S
C%
r10
r
'"a
=0QM 4 CITY OF IOWA
-,
Date: September 21, 2011
To: Tom Markus
From: Ron Knoche, City Engineer 11
Re: Final Acceptance of Public Improvements
The following are costs associated with the Capital Improvement Project being
presented for acceptance at the October 4th Council meeting:
1) 420th Street Improvements Project (Revised Actual Cost)
Contractor.- Minger Construction
❖ Project Estimated Cost: $ 4,620,000.00
❖ Project Bid Received: $ 4,455,235.80
❖ Project Actual Cost: $ 4,347,184.53
1) 2011 Wales Street Water Main Improvements Project
Contractor.- Carter & Associates
❖ Project Estimated Cost: $ 105,000.00
❖ Project Bid Received: $ 73,111.00
❖ Project Actual Cost: $ 82,241.32
cc: Rick Fosse
I --
�.!,�, ®�� CITY O F IOWA CITY 4g(4)
.� MEMORANDU
Date: September 26, 2011
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Ronald R. Knoche, City Engineer:,
Re: Competitive Quotation Results
2011 WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Competitive quotations for the 2011 Water Main Improvements Project were opened on
September 23, 2011 and the following quotes were received:
Lynch's Excavating West Branch, IA $ 55,780.80
Maxwell Construction Iowa City, IA $ 57,746.00
Engineer's Estimate $ 98,000.00
Public Works and Engineering recommended and the City Manager awarded the
contract to Lynch's Excavating of West Branch, Iowa. The project will be funded with
Water revenues.
Marian Karr
From: Nic Arp <arp.nic @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:17 PM
To: Council
Subject: downtown survey
Dear City Council:
4g(5
I just completed an online survey at the request of Divars Real Estate about downtown Iowa City.
Unfortunately, there was an element of downtown development that was quite conspicuous in its absence in the
survey: the near -total absence of anything about the importance of local entrepreneurs being given the
opportunity to open businesses and compete downtown. For instance, there were questions focused on which
big national chains should be brought downtown. I have nothing against luring such businesses downtown, but
where's the city's emphasis on encouraging local entrepreneurship, which is the only way that downtown will
have a truly unique atmosphere?
It seems everything I read about downtown development has to do with giving wealthy developers like Moen
Group tax incentives to develop buildings, or about marketing firms being hired to market downtown. These are
important issues - -we need good development and marketing. But a much bigger problem is that for a local,
small -scale entrepreneur with a good idea for a unique retail business, it is extremely difficult to get started
because of the very high rents downtown. If the city really wants to develop a more diverse, dynamic, unique
shopping and dining destination, one that uniquely reflects our community, it would do well to create some sort
of incentive program to give entrepreneurs an opportunity to compete downtown.
Perhaps a mneans- tested loan program with low interest and extended repayment terms -- giving entrepreneurs
two or three years to establish their businesses to the point of viability - -would draw the kind of eclectic mix that
Iowa City was once known for and that would draw more families and out -of -town visitors downtown. Because
of the high rents for retail spaces, much of the retail downtown falls into two categories -- targeted to college
students (because they can move so much volume of inexpensive goods) or to the affluent (because they can
move high - priced goods). But there's not much for the middle - ground -- families, average middle -class residents,
and out -of -town visitors who are looking for more than a party atmosphere.
One thing for certain is that we can't out -mall Coral Ridge Mall. We can't just bring in the same kinds of
businesses and environment and hope to stand out as unique. Instead, we need to compete on our strengths - -the
eclectic spirit and diversity of our city - -by encouraging its residents to move forward with bringing good ideas
to the market.
Please do more to include the development of locally owned retailers in discussions of downtown's future.
Please consider offering financial incentives to small entrepreneurs as much as you do to Moen Group and other
developers.
Thank you.
Nic Arp
2843 Brookside Dr.
Iowa City IA 52245
319- 621 -7905
arp.nicAgmail.com
Marian Karr
From: Caroline Dieterle <caroline- dieterle @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:50 PM
To: Council
Subject: Follow -up to my remarks at Sept. 20 Council Meeting
This correspondence will become a public record.
Councilors:
Besides the obvious gearing of the survey toward demonstrating a demand for chain stores (rather than the
economically much preferable local businesses), there are further troubling features of the survey to which I referred:
1. A chance to register for a drawing for a premium is listed as a reward for taking the survey.
Reputable surveys do not make offers of any reward for participation. I learned this while New Pioneer Co -op was
working with an expert from the University of Iowa to develop a customer satisfaction survey for New Pioneer members.
2. There is apparently nothing to prevent a person from taking the survey repeatedly, in order to maximize his /her
chances of winning the drawing. The survey site readily allowed me to log on and take the survey twice (I did forbear
registering twice for the premium).
This fault ALONE makes the survey worthless.
3. Apparently students were heavily targeted as potential survey participants.
Did invitations to participate go to all with an email address of "uiowa.edu "? If so, that is not a way to get balanced
participation between students and non - students. Also, many new freshmen probably have not had a chance to see the
full range of businesses that Iowa City offers downtown, and would therefore be more inclined to ask for chain stores
with which they are already familiar.
Finally, has 'due diligence' been exercised in the hiring of the consultant, Divartis, and its representative locally John
Millar?
Following the departure of our former city manager, I discovered that a few minutes using the Internet allowed me to
find out why he had left his prior position as city manager in the town in Michigan:
the same reasons he was leaving Iowa City. A background check by Iowa City before hiring him would have saved a
bundle of money and a lot of bad press. Just because a consultant /'head hunter' recommends a candidate for a position
doesn't mean that the candidate doesn't need further screening.
I have heard that the cost of the survey now underway is $15,000. It is valueless. I hope you throw it out and ask that
our money be returned.
Caroline Dieterle
727 Walnut St.
Iowa City, Iowa
Ph. 338- 8674
Marian Karr
From: Caroline Dieterle <caroline- dieterle @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:49 PM
To: regenia @baileyforiowacity.com
Cc: Council
Subject: Re: FW: Downtown Survey Clarification
Regenia -
Thanks for sending me the blurbo the DTA is sending out.
Unfortunately, any way you slice the survey, it is still baloney, because it is so poorly constructed: poorly to the
point of being at the "looks intentionally constructed to be misleading" level.
The DTA letter to members has simply provided more material to criticize. For example: from the "unscientific,
qualitative" part of the survey, the DTA is already citing quantified data: "17% of the respondents said they
shop in Des Moines ".... "almost 40% of the respondents said they want an Apple store downtown ". Citing
or relying on numerical statistics from "qualitative, unscientific" surveys is foolish..
As for "the old days" (last DTA paragraph) the "attractors" moved out because there was more money to be
made by moving out. If they had been extraordinarily profitable (or maybe even profitable) they would still be
downtown today. Short of razing the entire downtown and constructing a mall competitive with Coral Ridge,
those "attractors " aren't coming back here.
Chain stores do market studies for new sites and do not go to places unless the market study predicts strong
sales. If strong sales aren't predicted, I don't think even giving them 100% tax abatement would induce them to
come.
Finally, has any effort been made to look into the allegations and suspicions raised by Little Village about
Divartis? That should be done. This DTA statement sounds especially naive in view of the Little Village article:
"This consultant specializes in this method of research for university towns, government towns and
military towns with these unique populations. He was hired because of his unique research method."
"Unique" meaning 'never done successfully before'? If the UI is a co- sponsor of this survey effort, I wonder
if any of the experts on surveys that are on its College of Business or Statistics faculties have even been
consulted about it?
- Caroline
Caroline,
I believe that the concerns you raised the other evening are shared across many groups. See the
information from the DTA (which you may have already received) below.
Best,
Regenia
Regenia D. Bailey
Iowa City City Council, District C
430 Church Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
319.351.2068 (h)
319.321.1385 (c)
www baileyforiowacity.com
Please note: any e -mails that 1 respond to may be subject to State open records laws and considered
information available to the public.
From: regenia - bailey @iowa- city.org [ma ilto: regenia-bai ley@ iowa-city.org] On Behalf Of Downtown
Association of Iowa City
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:45 AM
To: regenia - bailey @iowa - city.org
Subject: Downtown Survey Clarification
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
10
Dear DTA Member:
As you know, there have been some concerns raised about the online survey distributed as
part of the City and UI sponsored research into consumer wants for downtown. Although
DTA is not directly involved with the administration of this research, we obviously have a
stake in its perceived credibility. Below are a few points that highlight the aims of the
research and what part this survey plays. Please take a moment to look them over so we all
fully comprehend the entirety of the research and what it can do for our downtown
community.
There two distinct parts of the study - hard census data research and the
electronic survey.
About the hard data research:
One of IC's challenges in appealing to retailers (local, regional OR national) is that
the $0 household income reported in the census by most students lowers the
estimated buying power of the community to a point that many retailers won't even
take a second look. When you can account for the ACTUAL spending power of those
students (Mom and Dad's bank accounts), estimated buying power changes
significantly.
The way this consultant works with census data was appealing. Instead of simply
using the basic census information on Iowa City, he takes it a couple of steps further
and factors the average household income from the hometowns of all of the UI
students into the average household income for Iowa City. It increases the estimated
buying power significantly and can be used to recruit new businesses, whether they
are local, regional or national.
This consultant specializes in this method of research for university towns,
government towns and military towns with these unique populations. He was hired
because of his unique research method.
Then there is the unscientific more qualitative part of the study - the online survey:
• This is simply gauging interest - to see what people think is fine and what people
think could improve downtown. There needs to be legitimate feedback, to help avoid
making invalid assumptions about what Iowa City shoppers want.
• One reason for the exclusive use of national brand names in the survey is because
they are familiar to most people, and they also represent different categories of
retail. Any data that suggests people would want an Urban Outfitters, for example,
would also be great market research for a local or regional small business with a
similar market for, young, cool apparel in a funky industrial decor setting.
• This is NOT a list of companies anyone is trying to recruit - they simply represent
categories and will provide insight into categories shoppers want at this point.
• While there is a lot of negative feedback about the mere mention of national brand
names, it would be disingenuous to conclude that no one is interested in national
retailers in Downtown Iowa City. (i.e. As of last Friday, almost 40% of the
respondents said they want an Apple store downtown).
• The researcher is charged with getting feedback from a large sample of three distinct
consumer subsets (UI students, UI faculty /staff & Iowa City /Johnson County
residents), because each will be markedly different from the other - and because of
concerns about all segments of the population. To do this best, one wants to be able
to separate the responses from each group and analyze separately.
• By last Friday, more than 17% of the respondents said they shop in Des Moines.
Why do they go all that way and and what might fill that need /want here? If we
could capture even a fraction of that market, it would help downtown.
• In the shopping categories where retail already exists in Iowa City (apparel or
bookstores, for example), the research will either indicate there is room for more of
the same category, creating the potential for a cluster of that category, or will
indicate that the market is satisfied.
• In the case where there is room for more, some retailers would agree that clusters of
similar categories are good for drawing more people into the general location. Think
of how car dealerships align themselves on the same road, or think of the cluster of
jewelry stores in Iowa City. I am sure they'd like to be the only store in the market,
however, research has proven that a cluster draws more consumers to the location
when there are more choices to make.
• In the case where it is indicated there is not an interest in expanding a retail
category, then one could surmise that the existing retail in those categories would
remain and competition in that category may not enter the market.
• In some cases, an existing retailer will benefit from the market study by realizing
where the "void" in the market and being first to fill that void.
• The open ended questions are, so far, showing that a lot of residents want nothing to
do with national retailers and this fact will weigh heavily in the analysis and
recommendations to come.
• Remember the "old days" - there were a few anchor stores (national retailers
JCPenney and, for a while, Land's End, and a regional retailer, Younkers), and there
were a lot of local stores nearby (Enzler's, Gifted, the Peaceful Fool, etc., etc.). The
anchors helped attract shoppers that the locals also depended on. When the
"attractors" moved out, the locals had a tougher time of it. This study may give an
indication of the market for a new attractor retailer.
As always, please contact me directly if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Arnold
Executive Director
Downtown Association of Iowa City
Forward email
D
This email was sent to regenia - bailey @iowa- city.org by nickCcbdowntowniowacity.com_I_
Update Profile /Email Address_i Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe❑ i Privacy Policy.
Downtown Association of Iowa City ; 325 E. Washington Street ; Suite 100 1 Iowa City I IA 1 52240
4
'W 1;1."
—TO--04—fl--
4
mmii.L
lo.::;7"Fl lov/ Zl-.7
xc�
0/
19- -ell
LARRY ASCHBRENNE k'�','�
20492 254TH ST SQL;/' prj2/' y
DELHI IA 52223-8422
r�.j
C3
—
lit,
�j
r7l
CA)
Marian Karr
From: frank williams <jm800l55 @hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:16 PM
To: Council
Subject: INTERESTED
Ok we all know now that the city of coralville is going to give 9.5million to Von Maur to open a new store. I was
wondering if the council had any plans to try and convince Von Maur to keep the store at Sycamore open ? ?? i know that
you spend a lot of time trying to revive downtown and seem to do whatever you can to help the businesses there. just
wondering if you are going to put the same amount of energy to saving this store on the SE side, or are you just going to
let the SE side businesses slowly slip away ? ? ?? Frank Williams 1123 Pine St. jm800155 @hotmail.com
Marian Karr
From: Holly Bodin <bodin.holly @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:58 PM
To: Council
Subject: Oakcrest sidewalk request
Iowa City Council,
I am writing to request that a continuous sidewalk along Oakcrest St. between George St. and Woodside be
prioritized on the schedule of sidewalk installations.
In a recent dialog with the city sidewalk division and Kris Ackerson, I was informed that while a continuous
sidewalk on Oakcrest is on a list of sidewalks to be built, it is not among the first on the list. I am asking it be
moved to first on the list.
I live at 835 Oakcrest St. with my husband and four children. We walk to school most mornings to Horn
Elementary. I am often pushing a double stroller. Last week, a distracted driver almost clipped our
stroller. We were walking on the edge of the street because there is no sidewalk along that section. I saw the
driver coming towards us, yelled and waved my hands and he swerved at the last second, narrowly missing me
and my two young daughters. I am not the only one traveling along this stretch of road. There are numerous
walkers /joggers/bikers that use Oakcrest Street. The section without a sidewalk is on a bus route, a curve, and a
hill. Visibility is low even in the best of conditions. And traffic is not light as many drivers use Oakcrest
traveling to and from work, as well as students traveling to and from the U of I. We currently attend Horn
Elementary even though we are zoned for Roosevelt. Next year Roosevelt will close and more students from
our area will be attending Horn, thus only increasing the pedestrian traffic along Oakcrest. I want my children,
as well as the other children in our neighborhood to have a safe way to get to school.
Please reconsider the placement of a continuous Oakcrest sidewalk on the schedule. Please put it first on the
schedule. It is the only way to prevent a serious accident on this stretch of road. It is the only way to keep the
many pedestrians and kids safe.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Holly Bodin
bodin.hollyg gmail.com
Marian Karr
From: Bonnie Nolan < bnolan @sgbholdings.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:02 PM
To: cityclerk @dmgov.org; Council
Subject: SGB Holdings, LLC
Good Afternoon:
4g(9)
I am confirming that there is not a requirement in terms of licensing for SGB Holdings, LLC which is a purchasing precious
metals company. We have Iowa on the extended forcast for November. We are very prideful in making sure all
necessary requirements are fulfilled before we come to designated cities. Please confirm at your earliest convenience
that I am correct on this matter.
Yo u rs,
Bonnie Nolan
Bonnie Nolan
SGB Holdings,LLC
485 E 17th Street
Suite 500
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
bnolan @sgbholdings.com
(949) 722 -1149 x 8445
Marian Karr
From: Dale Helling
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:51 AM
To: 'Bonnie Nolan'
Cc: Marian Karr; Adam Bentley; Tom Markus
Subject: RE: SGB Holdings, LLC
Bonnie,
Your inquiry that appears to have been directed to the Des Moines, IA City Clerk was also received by the Iowa City, IA
City Council, apparently in error. If my assumption is incorrect, please be advised that Iowa City has no local licensing
requirements with regard to this kind of activity.
Thank you.
Dale Helling
Dale E. Helling
Assistant City Manager
City of Iowa City, IA
(319) 356 -5013
dale-hellinq(@iowa-city.org
From: Bonnie Nolan [mailto:bnolan @sgbholdings.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 20113:02 PM
To: cityclerk @dmgov.org; Council
Subject: SGB Holdings, LLC
Good Afternoon:
I am confirming that there is not a requirement in terms of licensing for SGB Holdings, LLC which is a purchasing precious
metals company. We have Iowa on the extended forcast for November. We are very prideful in making sure all
necessary requirements are fulfilled before we come to designated cities. Please confirm at your earliest convenience
that I am correct on this matter.
Yo u rs,
Bonnie Nolan
Bonnie Nolan
SGB Holdings,LLC
485 E 17`h Street
Suite 500
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
bnolan @sgbholdings.com
(949) 722 -1149 x 8445
Marian Karr
From: Mary Knudson <mary_knudson @msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:09 PM
To: Council
Subject: Miller- Orchard neighborhood meeting with Superintendent Murley
Attachments: murley.sept20.docx
Dear Members of the City Council,
4g(10)
I have attached a summary of the September 20, 2011 meeting the Miller- Orchard Neighborhood had with
Superintendent Murley regarding plans the District has to do with the Roosevelt site. I want to make special
note about, first, what the neighborhood wants, and second, what they don't want.
In an ideal world, the neighborhood would like to keep the original Roosevelt building for historic reasons (it
was built by Proudfoot) and use it either for non - profits or for educational reasons. It would remain a
community anchor. They would like to keep the playground. There is concern about loss of green space with
the loss of this site as many people use the playground for recreation. The Benton Hill Park, where the
equipment is geared towards pre- schoolers, was designed to be a complement to this playground. The green
space allotment for this neighborhood is not fulfilled by the Benton Hill Park, again raising concern about the
loss of this green. Furthermore, to illustrate the neighborhoods commitment to the playground, when monies
were sought to pay for the new playground (put in around 7 years ago), many neighbors contributed to this
fund, knowing how much the residents use it.
If the District sells the property where the building is demolished, the neighborhood very much wants to keep
high occupancy developments from going into this space; instead, wanting a development that is aesthetically
pleasing along with a low occupancy development and low traffic flow. Some additional green space would
be appreciated.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this summary. As you also see, decisions to be made
for this property will take place rather shortly.
Regards,
Mary Knudson -Dion
Miller- Orchard Association
725 West Benton St.
The following is a recap of the meeting between the Miller- Orchard Neighborhood Association and
Superintendent Murley.
First, I will provide a little background. From October of 2010 to February 2011 a Repurposing
Committee chosen by the District met (they were a District Committee, not a Board Committee). They
came up with four categories in which the Roosevelt site could be used:
1. The District Repurpose the property
2. The District sell to another public entity or non - profit organization.
3. The District sell to a private entity with stipulations.
4. The District sell to a private entity.
Last April, Superintendent Murley met with the Miller Orchard Neighborhood (MONA) to discuss these
four points. While there were no plans to discuss with the neighbors at that time, Superintendent
Murley and MONA residents discussed what they would like (or not like) to see in the property. As
MONA has already a high number of apartments in the neighborhood, and because MONA desires a
building being put in the Roosevelt spot that enhances the neighborhood and doesn't add significant
traffic to Benton Street, neighbors expressed they did not want high density apartments put in the site.
Ideally, they would like to see the original building (built by Proudfoot) kept with a multiuse purpose
and the green kept. People throughout the area use the playground to play soccer, football, cricket,
bike, swing, amongst many other things. (As an aside, the green area in MONA is under what the City
recommends. The design of Benton Hill Park was done to focus on preschoolers as the playground
focused on older children and adults. Hence, the park was designed as a complement to the playground).
If the property is sold and the building demolished, MONA residents would like to see low density
housing or other businesses (that do not include liquor stores and bars). In addition, these buildings
need to be aesthetically pleasing. Again, some additional green space and community use of the
building for meetings for the neighborhood would be nice. Neighbors also thought the City purchasing
the property for a park and use the building for community education would also be an excellent idea.
Neighbors were not keen on having the building mothballed. Superintendent Murley stated he would
meet with the neighborhood again as more specific plans came to fruition.
The Sept. 20 meeting was designed to discuss these new plans. Superintendent Murley informed
MONA that the District is not going to repurpose the property; and discussions with the City and the
University of Iowa have led the District to believe there is not interest from these two parties in the
Roosevelt property. That leaves the last two options as the main two options the District is considering
regarding use of the Roosevelt site. The points the neighborhood made at the April meeting were re-
stated by Superintendent Murley at the Sept. 20 meeting. Superintendent Murley stated several times
during the meeting that he intends the District to be a good neighbor to the neighborhood, which meant
that he does not want the site be used for something the neighborhood strongly objects to. He said the
District will also work with the City to help ensure that nothing is put in that the neighborhood doesn't
want.
12
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240 -1826
(319)356 -5041
September 28, 2011
Mayor Matt Hayek
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
At the September 27, 2011 meeting, the PCRB voted in open session to request a 45 -day
extension in addition to its regular 45 -day reporting deadline for the Public Report according to
the City Code for PCRB Complaint #11 -01 for the following reasons:
• Due to timelines and scheduling
• Public Report presently due November 4, 2011
45 -day Extension request — Report would be due on December 19, 2011
The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
KT
Donald King, Chair
Police Citizens Review Board
cc: City Attorney