HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-22 OrdinanceN
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 156 -5�51
(REZ11- 00016)
^�- N ®
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING AP ROXIMATLEY1.15 ACRES-J& PI OPE
LOCATED 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET, FROM COM ERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) v_G OW DENSITY
MULTI- FAMkLY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12). (REZ11 -0001
WHEREAS, th applicant, Mark Holtkamp, has re
Governor St. Iowa Ci Iowa, from Commercial Office (C
12); and
WHEREAS, the Com rehensive Plan, Central District
Density Multi - Family Reside tial development; and
WHEREAS, the Plannin and Zoning Commissior
determined that it complies wit the Comprehensive Plai
need for dedication of right -of -w , installation of side
suitable for adequate site distance, d sanitary and st
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 011) provides t
conditions on granting an applicant's re oning reque ,
satisfy public needs caused by the request change; r
sted a rezoning of property located 911 N.
) to Low Density Multi - Family Residential (RM-
, indicates that property is appropriate for Low
has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
provided that it meets conditions addressing the
alks, appropriate location of driveway, setbacks
n sewer easements; and
it the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
over and above existing regulations, in order to
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant ha agree that the property shall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Condition Zoni g Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditio al ning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassifi d fro its current zoning designation of Co -1 to RM -12:
BACONS SD OF BLOCK 1 DEWEY'SADDITIO
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to confc
publication of the ordinance as approved by la
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING A
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditi
City, following passage and approval of this
ECORDING. Upon passage and proval of the Ordinance, the
d to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
County, Iowa, at the Owner's expen , upon the final passage,
as provided by law.
nces and parts of ordinances in conflict h the provisions of this
cial is hereby autt
to this amendme
8,9 &10
tEEMENT. The mayor
Zoning Agreement be?
inance.
ed and directed to change the zoning
pon the final passage, approval and
hereby authorized and directed to
ikn the property owner(s) and the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and dii
Office of the County Recorder, Johns
approval and publication of this ordinan
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordi
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If
invalid or unconstitutional, such adju it
section, provision or part thereof not d
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE D TI
ny section, provision or part of the Ordinance s, 11 be adjudged to be
ration shall not affect the validity of the Ord inanc as a whole or any
judged invalid or unconstitutional.
:. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law/
Passed and approved this day of
MAYOR
20
Ordinance No.
Page 2
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ11-
00016)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), and AB Investments (hereinafter "Owner "), and Mark Holtkamp (hereinafter
"Applicant "). )
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.15 acres of property
located 911 North Governor Str t, Iowa City, Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the Owner h requested the rezo lial Ing of said property from Commercial
Office (CO -1) zone to Low - Density ul siden ti- Family Re (RM -12) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and ning Commissio has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding dedication of righ of -way, install ion of sidewalks, appropriate location of
driveway, setbacks suitable for ade ate site dis ance, and sanitary and storm sewer
easements, the requested zoning is consi tent with th Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (20 1) provi es that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an appli nt's zoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs cau ed Py the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges
reasonable to ensure the development of the
Plan and the need for compatibility with the C
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop his p
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreeme .
certain conditions and restrictions are
rty is consistent with the Comprehensive
District Plan, traffic safety, infrastructure
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration othe mutual
agree as follows:
1. AB Investmenst LLC is the legalfitle holder of the
ra
in accordance with;' the terms
rises contained he the par iM
c
_ -r
\Prt y l egally described as:
BACONS SD OF BLOCK 1 DEWEY'S ADDITION LOTS 8,' & 10
2. The Owner acknowledges th t the City wishes to ensure onformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive PI n and the Central district plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Coe §414.5 (2011) provides tha the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditi ns on granting an applicant's zoning request, over and
above the existing regulati
,/eh
in order to satisfy public need caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the Ci y's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well s the following conditions:
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreement holtkamp.doc 1
a. Dedication of right -of -way to provide a consistent width and to accommodate
sidewalks;
b. The developer is 'equired to install a sidewalk along this frontage and the two adjacent
residential propert es to the south up to the north property line of Happy Hollow Park;
c. To assure adequ to site distance the locatio of the driveway is subject to MPO
Transportation Pla ping staff approval;
d. The front setback *II be sufficient to provide dequate site distance for the drive as
determined by MPO ransportation Planning St ff;
e. Easements will be es ablished for the sanita and storm sewers on the property to
allow repair and replac ent of lines located t re.
4. The Owner, Applicant, and ity acknowledge tat the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to imp a on the land u er Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that
said conditions satisfy public ne ds that are cau ed by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner, Applicant, and City cknowl edge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or ubdivided all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agr ement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Co ition I Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and 'th ti le to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to th la d, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this OTement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assi s f the parties.
7. The Owner and Applicant acknowle ge th t nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to reliev the Ow er or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and feder I regulatio s.
8. The parties agree that this Con
reference into the ordinance rezo
publication of the ordinance, this
Recorder's Office at the Applicant)
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
�gl nal Zoning Nrpe:r ment shall be incorporated by
the subject p y, a nd that upon adoption and
greement shall b recorded in the Johnsgq County
expense. ..77:
MARK HOLT MP, APPLI`T -�
w
C�
By:
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreement holtkamp.doc 2
OWNERS
AB Investments LLC
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
? ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )�
This instrument was acknowl *dged before me on
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Ma�Rr and City Clerk,
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged
Inc.
, 2011 by Matthew J.
of the City of Iowa City.
Notary ublic in and for the State of Iowa
(Starr or Seal)
itle and Rank)
re met on , 2011 by
of ILJ Investments,
Notary Public in nd for said County ana State
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of 20 , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared
, to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreement holtkamp.doc 3
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that (he /she /they) executed the same as
(his /her /their) voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My Comm' sion expires:
("0 1
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPA Y ACKNOWLEDGE ENT:
STATE OF IOWA ) M
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of A.D. 2 before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for th State of Iowa, personally appeared
to me ersonally known, who being by me duly sworn,
did say that the person is (title) of
an that said instrument was signed on behalf of the
said limited liability company by a hority of its managers and the said
acknowledged t execution of said instrument to be the voluntary
act and deed of said limited liability company it voluntarily executed.
Nota Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commNsion expires:
PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGE ENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , 20_, before me, t e undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for the State o/1ty rsonally appeared to me personally
known, who beinduly sworn, did say that the pe on is one of the partners of
an Iowa GeneraPartnership, and that the instrumen was signed on behalf of the
partnership by autthe partners; and the partner ackn l edged the execution of the
instrument to be th y act and deed of the partnership by it, and by the partner voluntarily
executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreement holtkamp.doc 4
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ11 -00016
911 North Governor Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
STAFF REPORT
Prepared By: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern
Date: October 20, 2011
Mark Holtkamp
PO Box 3284
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
319.594.1062
markholtkamp @yahoo.com
AB Investments LLC
4059 Isaac Walton Rd SE
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
319.354.1667
Rezoning from CO -1 to RM -12
To allow for construction of multi - family dwellings
911 North Governor Street, Iowa City
50,007 SF (1.15 acres)
Commercial Office, CO -1
North: Residential, (RS -8)
South: Residential, (RS -8)
East: Residential, (RS -8)
West: Residential, (R3 -B)
Low to Medium Density Multi - Family Development
September 28, 2011
November 12, 2011
The applicant, Mark Holtkamp, is requesting a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Low -
Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) for a 1.15 acre parcel located at 911 North Governor
Street in Iowa City.
The property has been zoned CO -1 since at least the 1980's, and previously housed the
Johnson County Department of Human Services, which leased the property for some years.
The property has been vacant since DHS relocated several years ago.
The only street access point for the use is from North Governor Street, which is a one -way
street. Parking is not allowed on North Governor Street. A sidewalk is provided only along a
portion of the property, but no sidewalk exists between that point and Brown Street to the south.
ANALYSIS:
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
The rezoning application is consistent with future land use and development as identified by the
Central District Plan Map. The Central District Plan map designates the subject property and
lots to the south and west as appropriate for low to medium density multi - family development.
The Low - Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) zone is intended to provide for the
development of high- density, single - family housing and low- density, multi - family housing.
Based on the size of the property (50,007 sq. feet) the zone would allow for up to 18 units. An
occupancy of up to 3 unrelated persons in permitted in the zone.
The Commercial Office Zone (CO -1) zone is intended to provide specific areas where office
functions, compatible businesses, apartments, and certain public and semi - public uses may be
developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The zone provisionally allows for 18
dwelling units on the subject lot, the same density as RM -12, but requires that dwellings be
located above the street level floor of a building to facilitate commercial uses at the street level.
Neighborhood Compatibility
To the west of the subject property is High- Density Multi - Family Residential zoning, R3B.' The
subject property is otherwise surrounded by Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8).
As the applicant states, the commercial zoning of the parcel makes it an "island," while RM -12
would make an appropriate transition between the high- density multi - family R3B zoning to the
west and the medium - density single - family RS -8 zones to the north, east, and south of the
property.
Design Review
Zoning standards help ensure that multi - family buildings include features that define a safe and
attractive streetscape, as well as to ensure that various housing types in any one location are
compatible with one another. New multi - family construction located on property in the Central
Planning District is subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards
contained in Section 14 -2B -6, Multi - Family Site Development Standards.
Traffic considerations
The property is located on a one -way section of North Governor Street. The redevelopment of
this property will likely result in the need to relocate the existing driveway. The driveway must
be located 50 feet from the driveway for property to the north, and a minimum of 25 feet from
the property line. This area of Governor Street is curving with poor site distance visibility and
heavy traffic. Any relocation of the driveway should be subject to approval of Transportation
Planning Staff. Due to site distance concerns along this portion of North Governor, the setback
for units adjacent to the drive may need to be increased.
Pedestrian access
A sidewalk is present only along the northern half of the property, with no sidewalk between this
point and Brown Street to the south. With the additional residential uses being introduced on the
' R313 is a designation from a previous zoning code. The present designation on the zoning map for this
property is the result of a court order form the 1970s. The property is now developed with a density
allowed in the RM -20 zone)
site, Staff believes it is appropriate to complete the sidewalk network in this area to provide safe
access for pedestrians and an alternative transportation route in a neighborhood that is close to
downtown and the University of Iowa campus. Staff would recommend that a condition of the
rezoning require the dedication of right -of -way in order to provide space for a sidewalk, and that
the applicant be required to install a sidewalk along the frontage of the subject property as well
as the two single - family properties to the south. This sidewalk will connect up to the north
property line of Happy Hollow Park. We would recommend that the re- zoning only if the City
commits to constructing a sidewalk running along the east side of Happy Hollow Park south to
Brown Street.
Utilities
Two utilities, a sanitary sewer line and a storm sewer line, cut across the center of the property
from its north east corner to the south west corner. Building may not be located over these
sewer lines. Easement should be established to provide access for repair and replacement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ11- 00016, a rezoning of approximately 1.15 acres at 911
North Governor Street from CO -1 to RM -12, subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of right -of -way to provide a consistent width and to accommodate sidewalks;
2. The developer is required to install a sidewalk along this frontage and the two adjacent
residential properties to the south up to the north property line of Happy Hollow Park;
3. Location of the drive -way is subject to Transportation Planning staff approval;
4. The front setback will be sufficient to provide adequate site distance for the drive as
determined by Transportation Planning Staff;
5. Sewer easements should be established on the property to allow repair and
replacement of lines located there.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Applicant's statement
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Legal Description:
BACONS SD OF BLK 1 DE WEYS ADDITION LOTS 8, 9 & 10
Statement to warrant zoning change:
The property located at 911 N. Governor Street warrants being rezoned from
CO -1 to RM -12 due to the following factors. The current zoning of CO -1 puts this
parcel on an island so to speak, since the parcels all around it are different
zones. The west side of the property is currently a High Density Multi - Family
Residential Zone and the other 3 sides is a Medium Density Single Family
Residential zone. By rezoning this property to RM -12 it will make a good
transition from High Density Multi- Family to Medium Density Single Family.
f,
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 (REZ11-
00016):5c:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY 1.15 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET, FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO LOW DENSITY
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12). (REZ11- 00016)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Holtkamp, has requested a rezoning of property located 911 N. Governor
St. Iowa City, Iowa, from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Low Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, indicates that property is appropriate for Low
Density Multi - Family Residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need
for dedication of right -of -way, installation of sidewalks, appropriate location of driveway, setbacks suitable for
adequate site distance, and sanitary and storm sewer easements; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Co -1 to RM -12:
Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Bacon's Subdivision of the south part of Block 1, DA Dewy's addition to Iowa City, IA.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City,
following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
Ci y Attorney's Office
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ11-
00016)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), and AB Investments (hereinafter "Owner "), and Mark Holtkamp (hereinafter
"Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.15 acres of property
located 911 North Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Commercial
Office (CO -1) zone to Low - Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding dedication of right -of -way, installation of sidewalks, appropriate location of
driveway, setbacks suitable for adequate sight distance, and sanitary and storm sewer
easements, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for compatibility with the Central District Plan, traffic safety, infrastructure
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. AB Investments LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
Lot 8, 9 and 10 of Bacons Subdivision of South part of Block 1, DA Dewy's addition to
Iowa City, IA.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central district plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
ppdadm/agt/conditional zoning agreement holtkamp edited.doc
a. Owner shall dedicate to the City the approximate 593.5 square feet shown as
"proposed right of way" on the Right -of -Way Illustration, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference;
b. Upon redevelopment, a sidewalk shall be installed along the frontage of the subject
property and the two adjacent residential properties to the south to the north property
line of Happy Hollow Park;
c. To assure adequate sight distance, the location of the driveway is subject to the
Johnson County Metropolitan Planning Organization staff approval;
d. The subject property shall be developed in such a manner that the front setback will be
sufficient to provide adequate sight distance for the drive, as determined by the
Johnson County Metropolitan Planning Organization staff;
e. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the subject property, sanitary and storm
sewer easements shall be conveyed to the City.
4. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that
said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of , 20_.
CITY OF IOWA CITY MARK HOLTKAMP, APPLICANT
Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
ppdadm /agUconditional zoning agreement holtkamp edited.doc 2
OWNERS AB Investments LLC
Q ` (Name, Title)
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office i v/a j
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
2011 by Matthew J.
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this 1 `� +� day of �3 bQ , 20 1 k , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Mxrk
k4 \ \ \� Yv,T_, to me known to be the identical person named in and who executed the
within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary
act and deed.
Nota lic in and or the S ate of Iowa
My commission expires:
'11311`l
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this 3 `d day of IVoVErABFrz A.D. 20 /1 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared
ppdadm /agt/condilional zoning agreement holtkamp edited.doc 3
r, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn,
did say that the lSerson is OwAieg- (title) of
46 Z„���� -Sy L-r- , and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the
said limited liabili%L, company by authority of its managers and the said
1,neAra %,e e vacknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary
act and deed of said limited liability company by it voluntarily executed.
'r AJs SOND.AE FORT
0 Commission Number 159791 Notary Nota Public in and for the State of Iowa
My Com`� Expires
tow
My commission expires: 3171.VA-1-
ppdadm /agUconditional zoning agreement holtkamp edited.doc 4
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Dickens
Hayek
Mims
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 11/22/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Mims, Wilburn„ Bailey. NAYS: Champion, Hayek,
Wright. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Nick Benson, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
ORDINANCE NO. 11 -4456
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 213-8, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, BY
ADDING A SUBSECTION C TO PROVIDE A TWENTY -FIVE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS OPTION
FOR ELDER APARTMENT HOUSING IN MULTI - FAMILY ZONES EXCEPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RNS -20).
WHEREAS, 2010 U.S. Census data shows a sixty -seven percent increase in the percentage of senior
residents in Iowa City over the last ten years; and
WHEREAS, it is important to provide a variety of housing options for Iowa City's growing senior
population, including elder apartment housing as defined in Title 14 of the Code of Ordinances of the City
of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, density bonuses allow developers to build more dwelling units than otherwise permitted
under zoning laws, enabling development to occur on sites that may be size - restricted, as well as
potentially increasing the project's profitability; and
WHEREAS, adding a 25 percent elder apartment housing density bonus option in all multi - family
zones except for the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS -20) will provide an incentive for
developers to build elder apartment housing while ensuring that densities are in keeping with the rest of
the zone; and
WHEREAS, requiring all developments that utilize the density bonus option to reserve individual
dwelling units for elders and /or persons with disabilities and make individual dwelling units and communal
spaces handicap accessible, as well as restricting the number of bedrooms allowed in each dwelling unit,
will ensure that the purpose of the code amendment is met; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this zoning code amendment and
recommends approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows:
A. By adding a subsection C entitled "Elder Apartment Housing Density Bonus Option" to Section 14-
2B-8, as follows:
C. Elder Apartment Housing Density Bonus Option
1. In the RM -12, RM -20, RM -44 or PRM Zones, Elder Apartment Housing, as defined in
this Title, may be granted a density bonus not to exceed 25 percent of the maximum
number of units otherwise permitted in the applicable zone, provided that:
a. The development is intended for use and occupancy by elders and /or
persons with disabilities;
b. All individual dwelling units and any communal space must be handicap
accessible, as defined in the Iowa Administrative Code Section 661 - 302.20;
c. No more than 10 percent of all individual dwelling units can contain more
than 2 bedrooms;
d. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the owner must submit an affidavit to
the City that all individual dwelling units will be reserved for and occupied by
elders and /or persons with disabilities; and
e. Owners shall maintain a valid rental permit, unless the use is licensed by the
State of Iowa.
2. The City reserves the right to inspect the elder apartment housing to verify
compliance with these provisions.
SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication.
Ordinance No. 11 -4456
Page 2
Passed and approved this 21stday of November 120 11
MAYOR
ATTEST:L� -�J
CITY—CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No. 11 -4456
Page 3
It was moved by Wilburn and seconded by Bail ey that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
x
Bailey
x
Champion
x
Dickens
x
Hayek
x
Mims
x
Wilburn
_
x
Wright
First Consideration 11/1/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration --------------------------
Vote for passage:
Date published 12/1/2011
Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Bailey, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally
passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon
for final passage at this time. AYES:Dickens, Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 (REZ11-
00013)
ORDINANCE NO. 11 -4457
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY HIGH DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY (OPD /RS -12) PLAN FOR 2.73 -ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2785, 2829
AND 2871 HEINZ ROAD. (REZ11- 00013)
WHEREAS, On August 16, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 05 -4171 approving a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan for portions of Saddlebrook Addition Part 1, Lot 3; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mane Gate LLC, has requested a rezoning to amend the Planned
Development Overlay High Density Single Family (OPD /RS -12) Plan for portions of Saddlebrook Addition
Part 1, Lot 3, located at 2785, 2829 and 2871 Heinz Road to allow ground floor residential uses in lieu of
commercial space and to remove the requirement to build 20 garage spaces shown on the original
approved OPD Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed amendments to the
OPD Plan and has recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. The amended OPD Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, for the property described below is hereby approved:
A portion of the Lot 3, Saddlebrook Addition, Part 1 in Iowa City, Iowa as recorded in Recorder's Plat
Book 37, Page 94 lying in the E 1/2 SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of Section 24, T. 79 N., R. 6 W., of the 5th
P.M., Johnson County, Iowa, described as follows: Beginning at the NW Corner of said Lot 3; thence
N89 °56'44 "E - 235.51 feet along the north line of said Lot 3; thence S09 o 42'27 „ E - 349.64 feet along
east line of said Lot 3; thence southerly - 91.85 feet along said east line of Lot 3 along a 2007.00 foot
radius curve concave easterly with a central angle of 2 °37'19” and a chord of S11 °01'07 "E - 91.84
feet; thence S89 °38'31 "W - 311.34; thence N00 005'24 "W - 436.50 feet along the west line of said Lot
3 to the Point of Beginning. Said Parcel contains 2.73 acres.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and OPD Plan and to record
the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as
provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 21 stday of November, 2011.
I 11A ner.
ateNE � ►
ATTEST:��! c�� Approved bCC
CITY CLERK City Attornece /O
U-
Y4 r
Ordinance No. _i i-4457
Page 2
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Champion that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
x
Bailey
x
Champion
x
Dickens
x
Hayek
g
Mims
x
Wilburn
x
Wright
First Consideration 10/18/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Hayek, Mims,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 11/1/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Wilburn,
ABSENT: Dickens.
Date published 12/1/2011
Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion.
Wright, Bailey Champion. NAYS: None.
8��� �g E � �'��11 ■A
c0 P) Y 5 �d$ � �U�`�•Rm� O. Q &• � R 0- tl it• 4� !•{•.
lo 3
Q � �. y Q �+ e O �����08 = ap'E�� � ��: $ 9 i.^ a � �: 9 'c� j� ����•• i." > „•R''§
a o� m ?� d gee y$�3 a g§ B ms E a n° a Ch- '
m;ps �s � a "s rn has a a 8I 1 n.;$� @a
It
s �°
�aa�$a y �o bm Time us
d
a
S
y � 5
e
w °
0�
w 1
iwd••"
sari • I
g J '6PI9 I
I
1 .3 r 1
Fn
Vs
g ^
1
a"g nN L
V a
P e °
z
I 'r3pls '
,
\
0
U m�<B�Yr ���r�E� • 11
ga��m ssSN ss ° °�
S
C
?
L p
E z
a E ,sa
0�
W
s
L U
16
cd
LL
�z.�3
^o
ca
� 3
c
� N
CLL?a
_I
Cd
°
e
°
g
g
o
8
8��� �g E � �'��11 ■A
c0 P) Y 5 �d$ � �U�`�•Rm� O. Q &• � R 0- tl it• 4� !•{•.
lo 3
Q � �. y Q �+ e O �����08 = ap'E�� � ��: $ 9 i.^ a � �: 9 'c� j� ����•• i." > „•R''§
a o� m ?� d gee y$�3 a g§ B ms E a n° a Ch- '
m;ps �s � a "s rn has a a 8I 1 n.;$� @a
It
s �°
�aa�$a y �o bm Time us
d
a
S
y � 5
e
w °
0�
w 1
iwd••"
sari • I
g J '6PI9 I
I
1 .3 r 1
Fn
Vs
g ^
1
a"g nN L
V a
P e °
z
I 'r3pls '
,
\
0
U m�<B�Yr ���r�E� • 11
ga��m ssSN ss ° °�
MJ� f
Prepared by: Marian Karr, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5041
ORDINANCE NO. 11 -4458
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, ENTITLED "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS,"
CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "TAXICABS," BY ADDING THE DEFINITION OF CALIBRATOR TO
SECTION 5 -2 -1, "DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 5 -2 -2 TO CLARIFY COMPANY
RESPONSIBILITY WHEN A VEHICLE IS NO LONGER OPERATING AS A TAXI; AMENDING
SECTION 5 -2 -7 TO PROVIDE PROVISIONS FOR ONE RATE PER COMPANY PER
CALIBRATION FORM; AND SECTION 5 -2 -8 BY REMOVING THE OPTION OF OWNER NAME
INSTEAD OF BUSINESS NAME.
WHEREAS, City Code sections 5 -2 -1 established definitions for enforcement of a taxicab ordinance;
5 -2 -2 establishes requirements for operating a taxicab business; 5 -2 -7 sets out provisions for rates and
rate changes; and 5 -2 -8 sets out provisions for vehicle requirements; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to define calibrator, establish company responsibility for vehicles no
longer meeting the requirements to be licensed, clarify one rate per company per rate card and outline
procedures for rate changes; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to amend current regulations for "taxicabs ".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," is hereby
amended as follows:
5 -2 -1: DEFINITIONS.
CERTIFIED CALIBRATOR: Individual who possesses a certificate showing completion of a taximeter
calibration course. Said certificate must state the individual qualifications to program, calibrate, repair
and maintain a taximeter. Said certificate must also include the name of the meter manufacturer(s), and
models for which the individual is qualified to calibrate. Said certificate must be filed with the city
equipment superintendent or designee for all vehicles starting with the 2012 licensing year.
5 -2 -2: TAXICAB BUSINESS LICENSE; VEHICLE DECALS:
D. DECALS
3. Issuance Or Denial Of Decal; Nontransferability:
d. The applicant shall return the decal and remove the bubble light and lettering immediately when
the vehicle is no longer operating as a taxicab. Failure to comply with this provision is grounds to
revoke the taxicab business license.
5 -2 -7: RATES; HOURS; COMPLAINTS:
3. Rates must be based on time, distance, or a combination thereof. A rate based on distance includes
destination rates. A rate based on time must utilize a taximeter. All other rates, charges, or fees, except
for extra rider stipulations and clean up rates, are prohibited. Only one rate may be certified by the
calibrator at one time, and said rate must match the rate card filed in the city clerk's office and verified by
the city equipment superintendent or designee.
5 -2 -8: VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS:
A. Lettering Required: Each taxicab shall have the name of taxicab business on each side of the
vehicle in letters at least two inches (2 ") in height. Pedicabs and horsedrawn vehicles may use
lettering smaller than two inches (2 "). Removable signs shall not be allowed.
SECTION ll. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Ordinance No. 11 -4458
Page 2
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall apply to taxicab business licenses effective
March 1, 2012 and inspections that apply to licenses issued for the time period beginning March 1, 2012.
Passed and approved this 2?nd day of November , 2011.
ATTEST: _//'1/! _ ri e. /i2i
CITY CbERK
Ap ed
1= � ( ( — I :�', _(
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No. 11 -4458
Page 3
It was moved by Bailey and seconded by Champion that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
_x_ Bailey
x Champion
x Dickens
x Hayek
x Mims
x Wilburn
x Wright
First Consideration 11/1/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration -
Vote for passage:
Date published 12./1/2011
Moved by Bailey, seconded by Mims, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted
on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be
suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final
passage at this time. AYES: Dickens, Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
Y=
Prepared by: Marian Karr, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5041
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, ENTITLED "BUSINESS =11TION LICENSE REGULATIONS,"
CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "TAXICABS," BY ADDING THE OF CALIBRATOR TO
SECTION 5 -2 -1, "DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION/5-2-2 TO CLARIFY COMPANY
RESPONSIBILITY WHEN A VEHICLE IS NO LONGER ERATING AS A TAXI; AMENDING
SECTION 5 -2 -7 TO PROVIDE PROVISIONS FOR NE RATE PER COMPANY PER
CALIBRATION FORM; AND SECTION 5 -2 -8 BY REM O ING THE OPTION OF OWNER NAME
INSTEAD OF BUSINESS NAME.
REAS, City Code sections 5 -2 -1 establishes def itions for enforcement of a taxicab ordinance;
5 -2 -2 est ishes requirements for operating a taxicab siness; 5 -2 -7 sets out provisions for rates and
rate changes, and 5 -2 -8 sets out provisions for vehicle r quirements; and
WHEREA , City Council wishes to define calibrat , establish company responsibility for vehicles no
longer meeting th requirements to be licensed, clar' y one rate per company per rate card and outline
procedures for rate anges; and
WHEREAS, it is in a best interest of the City t amend current regulations for "taxicabs ".
NOW, THEREFORE, E IT ORDAINED BY T CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDM TS.
1. Title 5, entitled "Busi ss and License egulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," is hereby
amended as follows:
5 -2 -1: DEFINITIONS.
CERTIFIED CALIBRATOR: Individual o ossesses a certificate showing completion of a taximeter
calibration course. Said certificate musts a the individual's qualifications to program, calibrate, repair
and maintain a taximeter. Said certificate t also include the name of the meter manufacturer(s) and
models for which the individual is qualifie to c librate and the time period during which the individual is
qualified to calibrate. Said certificate mu be file with the city equipment superintendent or designee for
all vehicles starting with the 2012 licens g year.
5 -2 -2: TAXICAB BUSINESS LICEN E; VEHICLE DEG' ALS:
D. DECALS
3. Issuance Or Denial Of ecal; Nontransferability:
d. The applicant sh I return the decal and remove the bub e light and lettering immediately when
the vehicle is no I ger operating as a taxicab. Failure to co ply with this provision is grounds to
revoke the taxic business license. ,
5 -2 -7: RATES; HOUR'S; COMPLAINTS:
3. Rates must be ased on time, distance, or a combination thereof. A rate based on distance includes
destination rates. rate based on time must utilize a taximeter. All other rates,` charges, or fees, except
for extra rider sti ulations and clean up rates, are prohibited. Only one rate may be certified by the
calibrator at one Pme, and said rate must match the rate card filed in the city clerk's office and verified by
the city equipmqht superintendent or designee.
5 -2 -8: VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS:
A. Lett ring Required: Each taxicab shall have the name of taxicab business on each side of the
ve cle in letters at least two inches (2 ") in height. Pedicabs and horsedrawn vehicles may use
le ering smaller than two inches (2 "). Removable signs shall not be allowed.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or, unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section„ provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall apply to to icab business licenses effective
March 1, 2012 and inspections that apply to licenses issued for the time p iod beginning March 1, 2012.
Passed and approved this day of 20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
M-Ij
Prepared by: Sarah E. Holecek, First Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO. 11 -4459
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, "ADMINISTRATION ",
CHAPTER 8, "ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE DEPARTMENTS ", SECTION 1 -8 -1,
"ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE DEPARTMENTS ORGANIZED" TO UPDATE
THE TITLES OF DEPARTMENTS AND THE HEADS THEREOF AND
AMENDING SECTION 1 -8 -3 "DEPARTMENT HEADS" TO ESTABLISH A
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS
WHEREAS, some restructuring within the City organization has resulted in name changes to
departments and their department head; and
WHEREAS, the City has traditionally required City department heads to live within Iowa City's
boundaries as a condition of employment; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends this ordinance amendment to accurately reflect the
names of departments and the titles of said department heads within the City as well as to
codify the past practice of requiring department heads to live within Iowa City municipal limits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, THAT:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows:
A. Title I, "Administration ", Chapter 8, "Administrative Service Departments ", Section 1 -8 -1,
"Administrative Service Departments Organized ", shall be amended by striking
"Department of human relations" and "Assistant city manager" and replacing
"Department of parking and transit" with "Department of transportation services" and
replacing "Director of parking and transit" with "Director of transportation services ".
B. Title I, "Administration ", Chapter 8, "Administrative Service Departments ", Section
1 -8 -3 "Department Heads" shall be amended by the addition of the following:
G. Reside within the municipal limits of the City of Iowa City. These residency
requirements are a condition of employment.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication.
Passed and approved this 22nd day of November , 2011.
MAYOR LCity
ATTEST:
ka
CITY CLERK
is —c� —//
Ordinance No. 11 -4459
Page 2
It was moved by Wilburn and seconded by Bailey that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
x
Bailey
x
Champion
x
Dickens
x
Hayek
x
Mims
x
Wilburn
X
Wright
First Consideration 11/1/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Hayek. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration --------------- -
Vote for passage:
Date published 12/1/2011
Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Bailey, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally
passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon
for final passage at this time. AYES: Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Dickens, Hayek.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
I
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3197-356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, "FINANCE, TAXATION AND FEES "OF THE CITY CODE
TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER ESTABLISHING THE IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN SELF -
SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (SSMID) PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 386, CODE OF IOWA; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPERATION FUND AND THE LEVY OF AN ANNUAL TAX IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is authorized by Chapter 386, Code of Iowa (the "Act ") to create
a self- supported municipal improvement district in the City, to provide for the existence and operation of
such district, to provide for the maintenance of improvements or self - liquidating improvements for such
district, and to levy taxes with respect to such district, all as more specifically defined in the Act; and,
WHEREAS, a petition (the "Petition ") was filed with the City Clerk on August 25, 2011 pursuant to
the Act petitioning the City Council to create the Iowa City Downtown Self- Supported Municipal
Improvement District (the "Proposed District "), to establish an operation fund with respect to the Proposed
District, and to levy an annual tax for such fund for a period of four years, all for the purpose of paying the
operational expenses of the Proposed District.
WHEREAS, the Petition is in compliance with the provisions of the Act; and,
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the City Council received the Petition and referred it to the
City's Planning and Zoning Commission for review in accordance with the Act; and,
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011 the City Council received the report of the City's Planning and
Zoning Commission on the merit and feasibility of the Proposed District; and,
WHEREAS, on October 4-, 2011, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for November 1,
2011, at 7:00 P.M., at which it proposed to take action for the establishment of the Proposed District, and
did direct that notice of such hearing be given in accordance with the Act; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was published in the Iowa City Press Citizen on
2011, and a copy of such notice was mailed by certified mail on , 2011, to all the owners of
record of real property located within the Proposed District as shown by the records of the Johnson
County Auditor, in satisfaction of the notice requirements of the Act; and,
WHEREAS, at the aforementioned time and place, the City Council did meet and hear all owners
of property in the Proposed District and residents of the City desiring to express their views with respect
to the establishment of the Proposed District; and,
WHEREAS, on 2011, the City Council closed the public hearing on the
creation of the Proposed District and found that the Petition and the Proposed District satisfied the
applicable requirements imposed by the Act; and,
WHEREAS, more than thirty days has now passed since the public hearing on the creation of the
Proposed District was closed, and no petition has been filed with the City Clerk opposing the creation of
the Proposed District.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
Section I. That a new Chapter 7 entitled "Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal
Improvement District" shall be added to Title 3, "Finances, Taxation and Fees" of the City Code, as
follows:
1. In accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 386 there is hereby established and created in the
City of Iowa City, a self- supported municipal improvement district as defined in the Act, the
name of which shall be the "Iowa City Downtown Self- Supported Municipal Improvement
District" (herein the "District ").
2. The District shall include all property within the following described boundaries:
Beginning at the centerline of Gilbert Street where it intersects with the extended centerline of the
east -west alley between Bloomington and Davenport Streets in Block 57;
Thence west along said alley centerline to the centerline of Linn Street;
Thence south along the Linn Street centerline to where it intersects with the extended centerline
of the east -west alley between Market and Bloomington Streets in Block 68;
Thence west along the alley centerline to where it intersects the centerline of Dubuque Street;
Thence south along the Dubuque Street centerline to the centerline of Jefferson Street;
Thence east along the Jefferson Street centerline to the sidewalk on the east side of Gilbert
Street;
Thence south along the western boundary of said sidewalk to its intersection with the south
boundary of the east -west alley between Iowa Avenue and Jefferson Street in Block 45;
Thence east along the southern boundary of the alley to the NW corner of Lot 6 Block 45;
Thence south along western boundary of Lot 6 to where said western boundary extended
intersects the centerline of Iowa Avenue;
Thence west along the Iowa Avenue centerline to the centerline of Clinton Street;
Thence south along the Clinton Street centerline to the centerline of Washington Street;
Thence west along the Washington Street centerline to the centerline of Capitol Street;
Thence south along the Capitol Street centerline to the southern boundary line extended of Lot 4
Block 83;
Thence east 182' to the east right -of -way line of Clinton Street;
Thence south to the southwest corner of Lot 5 Block 82;
Thence east along the southern boundary of Block 82 to the centerline of Dubuque Street;
Thence north along Dubuque Street centerline to a point 40' west and 120' north of the southwest
corner of Lot 5 Block 64;
Thence east to the centerline of Linn Street;
Thence south along Linn Street centerline to the southern boundary of block 63 extended;
Thence east along the southern boundary of block 63 to the centerline of Gilbert Street;
Thence north along the Gilbert Street centerline to a point 40' west of the NW corner of Lot 4
Block 44;
Thence east along the south right -of -way line of Iowa Avenue to the. NE corner of Lot 3 Block 44;
Thence north to the northern boundary of the east -west alley between Iowa Avenue and
Jefferson Street in Block 45;
Thence west along the northern boundary of said alley to the eastern boundary of the sidewalk on
the east side of Gilbert Street;
Thence north along the eastern boundary of said sidewalk and crossing Jefferson Street to the
northern boundary of the sidewalk on the north side of Jefferson Street;
Thence west, crossing Gilbert Street, to the NW corner of Gilbert and Jefferson Streets;
Thence west along the sidewalk to the SW corner of Lot 5 Block 59;
Thence north to the centerline of the east -west alley between Jefferson and Market Streets;
Thence east along the alley centerline to the SE corner of Lot 4 Block 46;
Thence north to the northeast corner of Lot 4 Block 46;
Thence north 105' to a point 25' north of the SE corner of Lot 5 Block 47;
Thence west to the centerline of Gilbert Street;
Thence north to the point of beginning, and excepting those properties zoned Neighborhood
Public, which are as follows:
The north 110' of the west 58.5' of Lot 4 Block 65
Lots 7, 8, and the east 20' Lot 6 Block 65
The west 585 of N 110' of Lot 4 Block 65
Lot 5 and the west 28.66' of Lot 6 Block 61
The east 38.3' Lot 6, all of Lot 7, and the west 39.7' of Lot 8 Block 58
3. It is hereby found and determined that all of the property within the District is similarly related
so that the present and potential use or enjoyment of the property is benefitted by the condition,
performance of administration, redevelopment, revitalization and maintenance of the District and the
owners of property in the District have a present and potential benefit from the condition, performance of
administration, redevelopment, revitalization and maintenance of the District.
4. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, there is hereby established and created a self - supported
municipal improvement district operation fund with respect to the District to be known as the "Iowa City
Downtown Self- Supported Municipal Improvement District Operation Fund" (herein the "Operation Fund "),
for which the City may certify taxes (the "Operation Tax ") against the property, as defined in the Act
(excluding property assessed as residential property for property tax purposes), within the District (the
"Property ") each year, in addition to all other taxes, commencing with the levy of taxes for collection in the
fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 for the purposes of paying the administrative and operational expenses
of the District, as defined and authorized in the Act or paying part or all of the maintenance expenses of
"improvements" or "self- liquidating improvements ", as defined in the Act, for a period of four (4) years.
5. The City may disburse the amounts collected in the Operation Fund, in accordance with the
recommendations of a SSMID Advisory Board as described in paragraph 7 of the Petition. Any such
disbursements shall be made to a SSMID Board, as described in paragraph 6 of the Petition and
established in accordance therewith, for one or more of the following purposes:
a) Development and management of activities in support of marketing, business retention and
attraction, including, but not limited to:
Establish databases
Space referrals and assistance
Marketing activities, including media and advertising campaigns and communication materials
Miscellaneous business support services
Establishment and promotion of special events, festivals and activities
Further improvements and expansion of the Park & Shop /Bus & Shop Program
b) Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the
Proposed District, including but not limited to:
Lighting Improvements
Seasonal and decorative enhancements
Signage and banners
Landscaping
c) To hire a Business Development Manager and Assistant Business Development Manager who
will work for the Board to manage the work of the Iowa City Downtown Self Supporting Municipal
Improvement District Board and to fulfill the intent of the Petition.
6. The rate of the Operation Tax to be levied annually, in addition to all other taxes, as aforesaid,
shall not exceed a rate of two dollars ($2) per one thousand dollars ($1,000) of taxable value of the
Property.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication.
Passed and approved this day of 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
pploved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Dickens
Hayek
Mims
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 11/1/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Bailey, Mims, Wilburn,
ABSTAINING: Hayek, Champion.
Second Consideration 11/22/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Bailey,Mims, Wilburn,
ABSTAINING: Hayek, Champion, Dickens.
Date published
that the Ordinance
Wright. NAYS: NONE. ABSENT: Dickens.
Wright. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
olm�
( l
(A�/�
V4/
r.
V 1
0
CL
i
A
11
_,
drsax.
iSm
211111,0'
I G P
- 12:
j
v
N
C U
�L
pA
O
�
V
4— �
O
N -
N v
i O
"O 0
�
/
W 1
Q d
L
N �
C �
cu
3 L
o Q
o �
_
L
f0 O
{r
Q
Q
tir
E 4
.. a
L d
�
L
�S
O
VN
11
9
hA
0
CL
CL
X
H
1 I I'M!
16 P.
•
41
CU
0-
0
4-
0
-0 CL
0
T
O CL
aj
N
4�
co 0
Qi
I-
I
O
L
A
i
r•�
U
:4i
0
E
2: 4
m
en
N
Q
M
1
L
i ye
LJ
v
a p
o
a N
�- \
V
h
N
0
'a a
Q
Cl-
4-
M
H
C
s
N
C au
Q a
41
4-
Q �
-c3
N
L �
� N
'L
41
t6 0
cto_ Y
Q
{FY
Y�
m A
•!L
0
J
Z. (a
L �
Gj m
c w
3 a
0
, ^1�1
!N
buo
c
047
0
CL
CL
A
p
(37—
I1 0
S P
It"': 141
41
.0
L
(U
0
4—
O
_0 CL
a 0
I En
cu
0
4— cc
0
cu
m 0
C _r_
to
ai
0
CL
CL
X
41
4�
CL
0
0-
0 cn
'n
0
CL
0
m
CU
.>
4�
CU
o CL
CL)
4-- =
0 _0
(1)
cu
41
0
CL
w
0
Mo
c
0
CL
CL
Xr-ld
—C
U
0
CIA' T
U
O
0 Ul)
O Z
ar
aj
o CL
0
aj
4-
cu
CLO 4-
cts
Z
—
C
cu
.2
CL
0
CITY OF IOWA CITY 12
ul! p i
MEMORANDUM-
Date: November 15, 2011
To: City Manager
From: Police Chief Hargadine
Re: Automated Red Light Camera Enforcement for November 22, 2011 City Council
Introduction:
As communities across the United States seek to improve public safety by reducing traffic
violations, several communities have successfully implemented photo enforcement programs in
Iowa, including Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Davenport, Council Bluffs, and others. City Council
asked staff to proceed with next steps toward implementing a red light photo enforcement
program for Iowa City.
Discussion of Solution:
In October, staff issued a request for proposals to photo enforcement system vendors.
Interview(s) will be scheduled in November and a contract with the staff recommended vendor
will be submitted for consideration by Council in December.
In the meantime, I have enclosed the ordinance amendment that will enable staff to implement a
red light camera enforcement program. The proposed automated enforcement systems will be
enacted through this local, municipal ordinance — and civil fine schedule — which are allowed by
the Code of Iowa, though they do not supersede adopted traffic laws. To be clear, the proposed
ordinance (attached) will permit camera enforcement for red -light running violations only, not
speed limit violations.
Recommendation:
There is potential to improve public safety with revenue generated by these systems, as well as
reduced personal injury and property damage. A study by the Center for Transportation
Research & Education at Iowa State University found red light running (RLR) crashes
decreased 20% in Davenport and 90% in Council Bluffs where RLR camera enforcement was
used. Fewer collisions equate to fewer injuries and less property damage.
In light of success of similar programs across Iowa, staff recommends enacting the attached
ordinance enabling a photo enforcement program in Iowa City.
Staff recommends enacting the attached code amendments to enable red light running photo
enforcement. Feel free to contact me in advance at 356 -5271 or Sam- Hargadine(aD-lowa- City. org
with any questions.
Enclosed: Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic"
CC: Kris Ackerson, Metropolitan Planning Organization
John Yapp, Transportation Planner
CADocuments and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.0ut1ook \110CYG8DWIemo to
Council-1 1 9 11.doc
Marian Karr
From: jcwconsult @aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 2:25 PM
To: Council; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Tom Markus; Ron Knoche; Sam Hargadine; Rick Wyss; Jim
Steffen; Rick Fosse; Wendy Ford
Cc: jcwconsult @aol.com
Subject: Possible red light camera program
Attachments: HB821_PA_Oral_Final_11- 11.doc; HB821 _PA_Written_Final_11- 11.doc
Dear Iowa City Officials,
I am one of many National Motorists Association (NMA) members who closely follow the issue of red light cameras. We
frequently see reports of the negative effects on safety for cities that use red light cameras, often in the form of increased
accident rates at camera intersections. We also frequently see reports of the positive effects on safety for cities that
revise their traffic light engineering parameters, instead of using red light cameras. In almost every case, proper
engineering of the lights - particularly in the use of longer yellow intervals - will reduce violations by more than ticket
cameras. And the engineering changes achieve substantial reductions in violations on day one, with no need to punish
citizens for tenths -of- seconds technical fouls caused by faulty engineering that is easily improved at almost no cost.
If improved intersection safety, and not camera ticket revenue, is the true goal for Iowa City, then I urge the city to
thoroughly implement all of the low cost traffic safety engineering improvements before any further consideration is given
to installing red light cameras as a business partner of one of the vendors of these systems.
The NMA was invited to testify at a hearing about red light camera programs before the House Transportation Committee
at the Pennsylvania State Legislature on November 14th. I was chosen as the speaker and presented both oral and
written testimony to the committee. The testimony sections are attached, with many references to the unbiased research
done by organizations with no financial conflicts of interest in the use, or non -use, of cameras.
We would welcome a dialogue with any of you and would hope to see Iowa City first pursue the engineering changes that
almost always improve safety and reduce violation rates by more than ticket camera programs. We are confident that if
you choose this route, your city will no longer see any need for red light cameras.
In closing, we would also note that once installed ticket cameras usually provoke a significant backlash from the
citizens. To date, there have been 23 cities that allowed citizens the opportunity to vote on using or continuing to use
automated ticket cameras. The cameras lost 22 of the 23 votes. It is easy to craft a poll to get positive responses on the
future use of ticket cameras before citizens experience the effects. It is almost impossible to get a positive vote on using
the cameras, once citizens experience the actual results.
Respectfully,
James C. Walker
Member - National Motorists Association
www. motorists. org
2050 Camelot Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
734 - 668 -7842
Testimony for the House Transportation Committee on HB 821
Regarding Future Red Light Camera Programs in Pennsylvania
National Motorists Association
402 W. 2nd Street
November 14, 2011
by
James C. Walker
2050 Camelot Road
Waunakee, WI 53597 Ann Arbor, MI 48104
608- 849 -6000 734 - 668 -7842
ORAL TESTIMONY
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and guests; thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony about the potential future of red light camera programs in Pennsylvania. It is a very
important traffic safety topic for all Pennsylvania citizens and visitors.
My name is Jim Walker and I have been an active member of the National Motorists Association for
16 years. I testify frequently for the NMA on motorists' and traffic safety issues at our state
legislature in Lansing. The NMA is a drivers' rights organization with members in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia and Canada. One of our main goals is to see that all traffic laws and their
enforcement procedures are directed at safety, and only at safety, never at revenue.
The NMA is opposed to the use of red light cameras. We ask that House Bill 821 and the related
Senate Bill 595 not become law. We further ask that the pilot program for red light cameras in
Philadelphia be allowed to permanently expire on December 31, 2011.
Our objections to red light cameras can be classified into three major categories:
Red light cameras are about maximizing revenue, not maximizing traffic safety, and red light
camera programs often increase accident rates, which is unacceptable.
There are less expensive and more effective ways of enhancing intersection safety, ways that
are discouraged or sometimes virtually prevented by the use of red light cameras.
An individual's right to due process is subverted and the vehicle owner is considered guilty
until proven otherwise, a process that is backwards to the American justice system.
If intersection safety is truly the primary concern, then red light cameras are not the answer.
First, the Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported police data that show accidents are up at red light
camera intersections and I was quoted in the article. http://articles.philly.com/2011-lO-
251news130320420 1 red -lLyht- cameras - automated - red -li hg t- enforcement - red - light- intersections /3
We think increased accidents alone should speak loudly to the Legislature that it is time to end the
program in Philadelphia, and not expand it to other cities.
To me it is the Hippocratic Principle — First Do No Harm.
Philadelphia has one of many red light camera programs where unbiased research reveals increased
accidents. "Unbiased" means reports by groups with no financial conflicts of interest in the outcome
of their research. This should make results of data from camera companies very suspect, if not
outright excluded. We also trust official police data in Philadelphia as unbiased, over data from the
Philadelphia Parking Authority which has a vested interest. And we believe data from groups like
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) which strongly supports red light cameras should
be examined carefully for bias. A University of South Florida report is sharply critical of IIHS
research methods and conclusions about the safety benefits, or lack of benefits, for red light cameras.
http://www.thenewspgper.com/newsl34/3413.gM
Early reports of the Philadelphia program in 2005 showed increased accidents at the first camera
sites, as reported in the Philadelphia Weekly using police data.
http: / /Www.philadelphiaweekly. com/ news - and - opinion /red - light — district - 38401769. html
PENNDOT officials said then it was "premature" to judge the effectiveness of the red light cameras,
yet the current police data confirm the concerns about increased accidents at camera sites were quite
valid, and remain a continuing problem.
My written testimony includes studies from many places in the U.S., Canada and Australia that
document increases in accident rates after red light cameras were installed.
And has anyone noted the irony of camera company presentations showing terrible intersection
crashes — recorded by red light cameras that did NOT prevent the crashes? Most t -bone crashes are
caused by late entries from 2 to over 5 seconds into the red, often by impaired or distracted drivers
who are very unlikely to be influenced by red light cameras.
The new Public Information Research Group (PIRG) report details many ways red light camera
contracts are crafted to emphasize revenue, sometimes with reduced safety. The report explains how
privatized contracts limit data transparency so the public cannot make fair evaluations of programs.
And the report exposes improper lobbying by camera companies plus the use of sham organizations
that look like grass -roots groups favoring cameras, but are actually composed of, or heavily
supported by, camera companies.
The PIRG report shows examples where camera companies aggressively resist ending contracts
early when cities or citizens became dissatisfied, most dramatically in Houston where ATS
threatened to demand $25 million to end the contract early.
If red light cameras are not the answer to increased intersection safety, what is the answer?
The most effective way to dramatically reduce red light violations and intersection accidents is to
use safer, longer yellow intervals. A 2003 Texas Transportation Institute study concluded an
increase of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds in yellow intervals decreases red light violations by at least 50 percent.
Other studies show longer yellows reducing violations by 60% to 90 %.
The same study showed about 80% of all violations occur in the first one second of yellow. Yet
many cities set yellows about one second too short for the ACTUAL approach speeds, by using
commonly under - posted speed limits as the untrue approach speeds. And almost all drivers caught
in the first few tenths of a second of red will clear the intersection before cross traffic arrives, so they
present little or no safety risk.
Please consider one point carefully. Every red light camera sales pitch is partly based on improving
safety and reducing intersection crashes. But if red light cameras actually prevented most red light
violations, how would camera companies make any money? Camera programs require high
numbers of violations just to pay equipment costs, before anyone makes a profit. Reduced violations
with safer, longer yellows are counterproductive to profits which are the only true motive for camera
company business models.
Using too short yellows to improve profits is the cause of many increased accident rates as drivers
panic brake to avoid expensive camera tickets, causing rear end crashes. While many of these
accidents caused by too -short yellows involve minor to moderate property damage, some studies
have documented increased injuries and even fatalities.
Slow- rolling right on red turns or stopping in the "wrong place" are cited in some programs.
Overall, red light violations account for only about 2% of fatalities nationwide and right on red turns
account for only a few hundredths of one percent of fatalities. Right on red is almost always a safe
action and should not be cited unless camera videos reveal an actual safety hazard at that time.
Regarding our objection with due process rights, most red light camera programs use regular mail to
send a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle several days or weeks after the alleged violation.
There is usually no proof the owner ever received notification.
Many don't even know they committed a violation because they never saw the signal turn to red.
Some have no real way to know who was driving at the time. The owner is presumed guilty until
they prove their innocence, which is often an impossible task.
If the person contests their ticket, the right to confront the accuser is impossible, because a machine
cannot be cross examined. A police officer or camera company employee who certifies the violation
did not witness the event and cannot be questioned about the details or circumstances. This problem
is compounded because many court rules prohibit proper discovery procedures.
Some California courts have ruled photo evidence is hearsay when no camera company person is
present to testify to the evidence, and more court challenges are likely.
ht(p:llthenewspaper.com/newsl33/3373.as p
The entire procedure is unfair and contrary to our system of American justice where a person is
presumed innocent until proven guilty and has the right to confront their accuser. The entire system
is designed for revenue generation, not safety.
I have one last point. We know of 23 cities where citizens could vote for or against cameras. And
real votes are FAR more definitive than polls. Cameras lost in 22 cities and the data are attached.
The only win for cameras was last Tuesday in East Cleveland where the city sent off duty police
officers in uniform in police cruisers to go door to door asking voters to retain the cameras. They
used a kind of moral blackmail by telling voters that 36 police officers, 14 firefighters and 10 other
workers would lose their jobs without the ticket camera revenue.
We think East Cleveland should be "the poster child" of what is wrong with red light camera
programs. Cities become addicted to the revenue from cameras and, rather than seek lower violation
rates and greater safety with better engineering, they have to keep the deliberately improper
engineering in place to maintain the revenue stream.
In closing, the NMA believes the real answer is to prohibit red light cameras entirely so cities are
forced to engineer for maximum SAFETY, not for ticket revenue. We ask that the Philadelphia
program be ended and that no further red light camera systems be allowed in Pennsylvania.
Thank you. I would be happy to take any questions.
Respectfully,
James C. Walker
Testimony for the House Transportation Committee on HB 821
Written Testimony in Support of Oral Testimony
National Motorists Association
402 W. 2nd Street
Waunakee, WI 53597
608- 849 -6000
November 14, 2011
by
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THE CASE AGAINST RED LIGHT CAMERAS
James C. Walker
2050 Camelot Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
734 - 668 -7842
The National Motorists Association (NMA) opposes the use of red -light cameras. These cameras serve
no purpose other than revenue generation. Traffic authorities should utilize properly installed and
properly calibrated traffic lights to manage traffic flow effectively with maximum safety.
Red light cameras make our roads less safe by causing more red light violations than properly calibrated
lights will produce and by creating sudden driver reactions that often raise rear end crashes.
The NMA's objections to the use of red cameras include:
• Red light cameras are almost entirely about revenue, not safety
• Needed intersection safety improvements are not done, to maintain ticket camera income
• Red light cameras often cause an increase in traffic accidents at those intersections
• The hypocrisy of claiming that red light cameras are all about safety despite many examples
of camera programs being shut down after becoming unprofitable.
• Ticket recipients are not promptly or verifiably notified
• The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified
• The vehicle owner is presumed guilty until proven innocent (regardless of the driver)
• There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation
• Citizens have voted down photo enforcement almost every time it has appeared on a ballot
Included with this packet of information are summaries of the following studies and case histories:
❖ Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents (Washington Post) - executive summary
❖ Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting from Red -Light Cameras in Small Urban
Areas (North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University) - executive summary
❖ Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase
if they are used in Florida? (University of South Florida) - executive summary
❖ Virginia DOT Study on Red -Light Cameras (Virginia Department of Transportation) - summary
❖ A Long Term Study of Red Light Cameras and Accidents (Australian Road Research Board) —
summary
❖ Evaluation of the Red - Light- Camera - Enforcement Pilot Project (Ontario Ministry of
Transportation) — summary
❖ Longer Yellow Lights Dramatically Decrease Violations
❖ Fifteen States that ban red light and /or speed camera enforcement and Twenty Two Cities That
Have Voted Against the Use of Red Light and /or Speed Camera Enforcement
❖ How one city achieved a vote for red light cameras with drastic measures
Washington Post: Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents
Analysis of accident data shows accidents doubled at intersections with red light cameras
in Washington, D.C.; October 4, 2005
http:/ /www motorists. or /rimed= light- cameras /washing ton -post
But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at
intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the
devices.
Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the
results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries
or collisions.
"The data are very clear," said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at
Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than
intersections without cameras."
and www.thenewspaper.com
Since the District of Columbia installed its first red light camera in 1999, The Washington Post has
championed use of photo enforcement technology on both its editorial and news pages. Now, five years
into the program, the District's largest newspaper has discovered that accidents are up significantly as a
result of their use.
A comparison of accidents at camera intersections before / after they were installed produced the
following results:
The accident doubling effect is not a statistical anomaly, happening in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004. In
2003, accidents did increase, but by less than 200 percent.
AAA and other critics have accused the city of installing cameras in high - volume locations where they
could generate thousands of tickets, regardless of how many accidents happened there. The analysis
raised questions about where police installed the cameras. Nine intersections with cameras had two or
fewer crashes annually in 1998 and 1999; seven reported no crashes that led to injuries or fatalities
during that period. Officials installed cameras at six of the 20 most crash -prone intersections in 1998,
data show.
In total, the city's photo enforcement program has issued two million red light and speed camera tickets
worth $151 million. DC police have never studied the accident data and do not dispute the Post's
findings.
Key Statistic:
The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365
collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to
262. Broadside crashes, also known as right -angle or T -bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106
during that time frame.
Article Excerpt:
Douglas Noble, the chief traffic engineer for the D.C. Department of Transportation, said his office was
examining crash data and plans to review the red -light camera locations. The department collects the
data from police reports and advises police about where to install the devices. Noble said that no studies
have been conducted on the District's red -light cameras in several years but that he "would not disagree"
with The Post's analysis. "I don't necessarily have an explanation" for the trends, he said.
Source: D.C. Red -Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents, Washington Post, 10/4/2005
http: / /www. washingtonpost.comlwp -dyn/ content / article/ 2005/10/03lAR2005100301844.html
Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From
Red -Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas
July 2004
Mark Burkey, Ph.D., Kofi Obeng, Ph.D., Co- Principal Investigators
Urban Transit Institute, Transportation Institute
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University, Greensboro, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
Washington, DC 20590
Executive Summary
Full report at http: / /www. motorists. org/ photoenforce lBurkey_Obeng_Updated Report_2004.pdf
This paper analyzes the impact of red light cameras (RLCs) on crashes at signalized intersections. It
examines total crashes and also breaks crashes into categories based on both severity (e.g., causing severe
injuries or only property damage) and by type (e.g., angle, rear end).
Prompted by criticism of the simplistic methods and small data sets used in many studies of red light
cameras, we relate the occurrence of these crashes to the characteristics of signalized intersections, presence
or absence of RLC, traffic, weather and other variables. Using a large data set, including 26 months before
the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57 -month
period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression
models, we find that:
The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are
associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes. (emphasis added)
An overall time trend during the study indicated that accidents are becoming less frequent, about 5 percent
per year.
However, the intersections where RLCs were installed are not experiencing the same decrease. When
analyzing total crashes, we find that RLCs have a statistically significant (p <0.001) and large (40% increase)
effect on accident rates.
In addition, RLCs have a statistically significant, positive impact on rear -end accidents, sideswipes, and
accidents involving cars turning left (traveling on the same roadway).
The one type of accident found to experience a decrease at RLC sites are those involving a left turning car
and a car traveling on a different roadway.
When accidents are broken down by severity, RLCs were found to have a statistically significant (p <0.001)
and large effect (40 -50% increase) on property damage only and possible injury crashes. There was a
positive, but statistically insignificant estimated effect on severe (fatal, evident, and disabling) accidents.
These results run contrary to the many studies in the RLC literature. Previous studies have sometimes found
an increase in rear -end accidents, but often find offsetting decreases in other types of accidents. While this
study incorporated many advances in methodology over previous studies, additional work remains to be
done. Because accident studies rarely use a true experimental design and data are not perfectly
observable, additional careful study of RLCs is warranted to verify our results.
Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile
Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?
Florida Public Health Review, 2005; 5: 1 -7
Barbara Langland -Orban, Ph.D., MSPH, Associate Professor and Chair
Etienne E. Pracht, Ph.D., Associate Professor
John T. Large, PhD., Assistant Professor
University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, FL
Executive Summary
Full report at hap: / /health. usf edu/NR/rdonlyres/C1702850-8716-4CM-8EEB-
15A2A 741061 A/ 0/ 2008pp0010080rbanetalRedLightPaperMarch 72008formattedpdf
The theory behind red light cameras as potentially effective is that they rely on deterring red light running
primarily through punishment of a specific driving behavior and secondarily by changing drivers'
experience. By definition, the punishable behavior and resulting potentially harmful action will already
have taken place when a ticket is issued. In other words, the crash, injury, and mortality risks do not
change immediately, if at all.
Even if red light cameras could be effective in the long run, which is debatable, they are associated with
an added cost, consisting of fines, crashes and injuries that could have been avoided by using
engineering solutions, which are effective in both the short term and the long run. Because the rigorous
and robust studies conclude cameras are associated with increased crashes and costs, any economic
analysis of cameras should include these newly generated costs to the public. Indirect costs to the public
are usually not considered in the calculation of total revenues and profits generated from red light
cameras.
Cities and counties should follow the state's lead and likewise pursue engineering improvements to
enhance intersection safety for all drivers and passengers. Proven engineering practices and counter-
measures can reduce crashes and injuries due to red light running, as well as other causes of intersection
crashes. A public health approach to improved intersection engineering is particularly needed since 26%
of Florida's traffic fatalities occur at intersections (with and without traffic signals), in contrast to 18%
nationally (NHTSA, 2005). This means that more than 22% of traffic fatalities in Florida occur at
intersections for reasons other than red light running, as red light constitutes less than 4% of total traffic
fatalities. Further, red light cameras are an inefficient means to raise revenue for local and state
governments and can disadvantage the state's economy.
Running a red light can cause severe traffic crashes especially when one vehicle runs into the side of
another. Red light cameras photograph violators who are sent traffic tickets by mail. Intuitively,
cameras appear to be a good idea. However, comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually
increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them. (Emphasis added)
Legislation to permit camera citations has been proposed [in Florida] since the 1990s, but none has
passed to date. This paper explains red light running trends in Florida; effective solutions to reduce red
light running; findings from major camera evaluations; examples of flawed evaluations; the automobile
insurance financial interest in cameras; and the increased likelihood of even higher crash and injury rates
if cameras are used in Florida due to the high percent of elderly drivers and passengers.
Addendum by the NAM, June 2010: Florida Governor Charlie Crist recently approved legislation that allows
the use of automated traffic enforcement on state roads.
Virginia DOT Study on Red -Light Cameras
This was a study by the Virginia Department of Transportation to support the continued use of cameras
in the state. It was presented in December 2004.
NAM Summary: However, the information in the study actually shows red light camera intersections to
be more dangerous. The study showed a definite increase in rear -end crashes and only a possible
decrease in angle crashes. It also showed an increase in total injury crashes.
Full report available at: www. thenewspaper. com 1rlc 1d6cs 105 -vd6t. pdf
A Long Term Study of Red -Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February,1995
NMA Comment: The conclusion of this study was that Red Light Cameras are not an effective
countermeasure and may increase the number of rear end crashes, facts and data known since 1995.
Summary
This study has examined the long term effect on accident -types of red light cameras (RLC) at 41
signalised intersections in Melbourne. The RLC were installed in 1984, and reported accidents for the
period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.
The analysis was addressed in several ways. The first was a grouped analysis taking the predominant
accident -types for all the RLC sites taken together and comparing the changes over time with the
changes in the same accident -types in Metro Melbourne, in the rest of the State, and at signalized
intersections in Melbourne. The second was to separately examine each accident -type for the 41 sites
and look for changes over the whole period. The third was to classify the accidents at individual RLC
sites according to whether it involved the approach on which the camera was installed. The fourth was to
consider the frequency of each accident -type before the RLC installation and stratify the frequencies to
ascertain if there was any difference in effect by initial frequency. The fifth was by considering both the
camera approach and initial frequency. The sixth was to compare the changes at the RLC sites with
changes in accidents at signalized intersections.
The original choice of the RLC sites must be questioned. Three- quarters of the sites had initial annual
frequencies of two or less reported "adjacent approaches" accidents. Low frequency sites are not good
candidates for testing the effectiveness of accident countermeasures.
The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any
reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a
before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.
There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.
Full report available at www.thenewspaper.com/rlcldocsl95aussie.pdf
Evaluation of the Red - Light- Camera - Enforcement Pilot Project
Final Report December 2003
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
NM4 Summary: This study commissioned by Ontario, Canada's Ministry of Transportation shows that
those rear -end collisions can be fatal.
After evaluating the performance of red light cameras at 68 sites over two years, the report concluded
that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage accidents
of 18.5 percent coupled with a 4.9 percent increase in fatal and injury rear -end collisions. Rear -end
collisions involving property damage alone jumped 49.9 percent.
The study compared accident histories of intersections in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Halton, Peel and
Waterloo in the pre- camera period from 1995 to 1999 and the post- camera accident history from 2000 to
2002.
The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. A
closer look at the data found in this government- sponsored report show that intersections monitored by
cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease
of 12.7 percent in the camera -free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).
In fact, the non - camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident
category. The report's overall accident conclusions would have appeared significantly worse had the
camera -free intersections been excluded from the final results.
Full report available at www.thenewspaper.com/rlcldocsl2003-ontario.pdf
Longer Yellow Lights Dramatically Decrease Violations
Loma Linda, California
Straight through violations drop 92 percent after yellow lights are extended by one second
full story at www. thenewspaper.com /news 13013055. asp
The Loma Linda City Council was very pleased with the results of increasing the duration of yellow
lights by one second in November 2009 at busy city intersections that had been previously outfitted with
red -light cameras. The number of left -turn violations decreased from about 240 per month to between
25 and 30 per month as soon as the yellow lights were lengthened, a drop of 80 percent or more.
Straight through occurrences of red -light violations were reduced by an even more impressive 92
percent. The City Council began exploring ways to eliminate the cameras, but not without a fight from
camera vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia.
San Carlos, California
Engineering solutions and an extra second of yellow duration made red -light cameras a money loser
Full story at www. thenewspaper. com 1news 131 /3110. asp
After receiving numerous complaints from motorists about a short yellow light at a red -light camera
intersection, the city found the 3.0 second timing was illegal. The standard was reset to 4.0 seconds, and
in the process, the city refunded over $150,000 to drivers for the invalid tickets that were issued after the
camera was installed in November 2008. After the adjustment to the yellow light interval, the number
of violations for red -light running went down from ten per day to two per day. As time passed, the
violation count dropped even further. The red -light camera was relocated to a higher volume
intersection, where testing showed that, with the longer yellow lights, traffic flow improved and red -
light violations were minimal. Further testing at other intersections failed to find a location where the
ticket camera could be effective. With its photo enforcement program losing money, the San Carlos
City Council voted to eliminate the red -light camera in April 2010.
Springfield, Ohio
Adding one extra second to its yellow lights means less tickets for Springfield
Full story at www.wdtn.com /dpp /news /local /springfieldILonger yellow- light- means - less - tickets
In 2006, Springfield was issuing about 1,700 red -light camera tickets per month. That monthly average
has dropped over 60 percent to 667 citations in 2010, with the police noting that the biggest reason for
the drop was the lengthening of yellow lights from 3.6 seconds to 4.6 seconds, except for one signal at
the bottom of a hill that was increased to 5.0 seconds. Revenue from Springfield's red -light cameras
dropped from a high of $786,000 in 2008 to $431,000 in 2009.
Loma Linda, California
California: Longer Yellows Nearly Eliminate Violations
Full story at www. thenewspaper .com /news /30/3055.asp
The council, on the other hand, was extremely pleased with the results of lengthening yellow lights by
one second in November. The number of left -turn violations dropped 80 to 85 percent from about 240
monthly violations to about 25 or 30 a month immediately after the change. Straight through
violations were reduced 92 percent. (Emphasis added)
"Lengthening yellow lights has produced a tremendous drop in violations," Rigsby said. "The statistics
from January are very telling. For four intersections, there were five straight through violations in total.
That is tremendous improvement in safety. We're talking about huge success of lengthening the yellow
lights... We could have had that safety with lengthening the yellow four years ago instead of installing
red light cameras."
Fifteen States that ban red light and /or speed camera enforcement and
Twenty Two Cities That Have Voted Against the Use of
Red Light and /or Speed Camera Enforcement
From www.thenewspaper.com
States That Red Light and /or Speed Camera Enforcement
Alaska Minnesota New Hampshire Arkansas Mississippi South Carolina
Indiana Montana Utah Maine Nebraska West Virginia
Michigan Nevada Wisconsin
Some measures require explanation. In Arkansas, for example, state law authorizes police to use a photo
radar gun if the officer personally delivers the ticket at the time of the violation. This does no more than
allow a photograph to be used in conjunction with a traditional traffic stop and serves as an
unconditional ban on automated enforcement. In Utah, the legislature has placed so many restrictions on
the use of photo radar -- specifically, banning outsourcing of the ticketing process to private, for -profit
companies -- that no city uses speed cameras. This serves as an "effective ban" on photo enforcement.
Twenty Two Cities That Have Voted Against Red Light and /or Sneed Cameras
Anchorage, AK
Sulphur, LA
Sykesville, MD
Dayton, TX
Houston, TX
Bellingham, WA
Cincinnati, OH Steubenville, OH
College Station, TX Batavia, IL
Peoria, AZ
Monroe, WA
Baytown, TX
Anaheim, CA
Chillicothe, OH
Longview, WA
Mukilteo, WA
Arlington, TX
Heath, OH
Garfield Heights, OH
South Euclid, OH
Albuquerque, NM
Arlington, TX (voted down "traffic management cameras" that could be used at ticket cameras)
How One City Achieved a Vote For Red Light Cameras With Drastic Measures
(to our knowledge, the only time cameras have survived a public vote)
November 01, 2011
East Cleveland Fate Hinges on Red Light Camera Vote
Excerpts:
To most local governments, it's the favored "creative" way to increase revenue during hard economic
times. To most local governments, it's the favored "creative" way to increase revenue during hard
economic times.
"This is strictly as a result of the traffic cameras. If we lose the traffic cameras, this is the safety force
scenario that we are looking at," said Mayor Norton, according to WJW -TV in Cleveland.
At most, Norton is aiming to cut 36 police officers, 14 firefighters, and about 10 other city workers from
their positions.
Full report at http: / /politic365.com /2011 /11 /01 /east- cleveland fate- hinges -on -red- light- camera -vote/
Excerpt:
In East Cleveland, city leaders went to the most extreme lengths of any contest to date to badger voters
into supporting cameras using official resources. Off -duty police officers, in uniform and with their
police cruisers parked on the curb, were ordered to go door -to -door to convince residents to vote to save
the cameras. Last month, Mayor Gary Norton mailed layoff notices to thirty -six cops and fourteen
firefighters, claiming the city would have to fire them if it lost the photo ticketing revenue. The strong -
arm tactics worked, as the city picked up 54 percent of the vote.
Full report at: www.thenewspaper.com/newsl36/3634.asp
la_
Prepared by: Kristopher Ackerson, Asst. Transportation Planner, and Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5247, and 319 - 356 -5030 respectively
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ", CHAPTER 1,
"DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC PROVISIONS ",
SECTION 1, "DEFINITIONS "; AND AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC ", TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 11, AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, TO
ALLOW FOR RED LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article III,
Section 38A of the Iowa Constitution and Chapter 364 of the Code of Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is located in a high- density traffic area and regularly
experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control
devices, exposing its citizens to the dangers of personal injury and property damage; and
WHEREAS, the City is concerned with the violation of State statues concerning traffic signals,
specifically the failure of motorists to stop at red lights and obey 'no turn on red signs;' and
WHEREAS, apprehending motorists who fail to obey traffic control devices through law
enforcement observance, chase, and citation is difficult, dangerous, and expensive and requires
the City to commit additional personnel that would not be necessary with the use of automated
traffic infraction detectors with image capture technologies (i.e., red -light cameras); and
WHEREAS, local governments in different parts of the State of Iowa and nation have
demonstrated that the combination of traffic infraction detectors with traditional traffic law
enforcement methods enhances vehicular and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS, automated traffic enforcement laws are authorized both by Iowa home rule and the
Iowa Supreme Court, in City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008), all of
which recognize the rights of municipalities to utilize traffic infraction detectors to regulate
municipal traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City finds that implementation of the enforcement program set forth
in this ordinance will promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens
consistent with the authority of and limitations on the City pursuant to case law, the Constitution
of the State of Iowa, and the Code of Iowa.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic", Chapter 1, Definitions, Administration and Enforcement of
Traffic Provisions ", Section 1, "Definitions" is amended by adding the following defined terms:
AUTOMATED TRAFFIC CITATION: A notice of fine generated in connection with the
automated traffic enforcement system.
Page 1 of 4
2. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTOR: The company or entity, if
any, with which the City of Iowa City contracts equipment and /or services in connection
with the Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
3. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM: An electronic system consisting of
a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in
conjunction with an official traffic controller or police department employee to
automatically produce photographs, video or digital images of each vehicle violating a
standard traffic control device or speed restriction.
4. VEHICLE OWNER: The person or entity identified by the Iowa Department of
Transportation, or registered with any other state vehicle registration office, as the
registered owner of a vehicle.
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 11, "Automated Traffic Enforcement" is added as
follows:
1. General. The City of Iowa City, in accordance with its police powers, may deploy, erect
or cause to have erected an automated traffic enforcement system for making video images of
vehicles that fail to obey red light traffic signals at intersections designated by the city manager,
or a designee. The systems may be managed by the private contractor that owns and operates
the requisite equipment with supervisory control vested in the city's police department. Video
images shall be provided to the police department by the contractor for review. The police
department will determine which vehicle owners are in violation of the city's traffic control
ordinances and are to receive a notice of violation for the offense.
2. Vehicle Owner's Civil Liability for Certain Traffic Offenses.
A. The Vehicle Owner shall be liable for a fine if such a vehicle crosses a marked
stop line or the intersection plane at a system location when the traffic signal for that
vehicle's direction is emitting a steady red light or arrow.
B. The violation may be exempted from liability as outlined below in section 5 of this
chapter, and other defenses may be considered in connection with the appeal process.
C. In no event will an Automated Traffic Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa
Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of
being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record.
3. Notice of Violation; Fine.
A. Notice of the violation will be mailed to the Vehicle Owner for each violation
recorded by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System or traffic control signal
monitoring device. The Automated Traffic Enforcement Contractor shall mail the notice
within 30 days after receiving information about the Vehicle Owner. The notice shall
include the name and address of the Vehicle Owner; the vehicle make, if available and
readily discernable, and registration number; the violation charged; the time; the date;
and the location of the alleged violation; the applicable fine and monetary penalty which
shall be assessed for late payment; information as to the availability of an administrative
hearing in which the notice may be contested on its merits; and that the basis of the
notice is a photographic record obtained by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
Page 2 of 4
B. Any violation of section 2 of this chapter shall result in a civil fine issued to the
Vehicle Owner in an amount set by City Council by resolution, payable to the City of
Iowa City.
4. Contesting an Automated Traffic Citation. A Vehicle Owner who has been issued an
Automated Traffic Citation may contest the citation as follows:
A. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request for an administrative
hearing to be held at the Iowa City Police Department before an administrative appeals
board (the "Board ") consisting of one or more impartial fact finders. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days of the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle
Owner. After a hearing, the Board may either uphold or dismiss the Automated Traffic
Citation and shall mail its written decision within 10 days after the hearing to the address
provided on the request for hearing. If the citation is upheld, then the Board shall include
in its written decision a date by which the fine must be paid, and on or before that date
the Vehicle Owner shall either pay the fine or submit a request for a judicial hearing
pursuant to section 4(B) of this chapter.
B. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request that in lieu of the
Automated Traffic Citation, a municipal infraction citation be issued and filed with the
Small Claims Division of the Iowa District Court in Johnson County. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days from the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the
Vehicle Owner. Such a request will result in a court order requiring the Vehicle Owner to
file an answer and appearance with the Clerk of Court, as well as setting the matter for
trial before a judge or magistrate. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the
municipal infraction, state mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this chapter.
5. Exceptions to Owner Liability. There shall be no liability pursuant to this chapter if:
A. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the
violation in question pursuant to Title 9 of the Iowa City Code or Iowa Code Chapter 321
(2011) as amended; or
B. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state
registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen,
provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle
Owner at the time of the alleged violation; or
C. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle; or
D. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question
was lawfully participating in a funeral procession; or
E. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines.that the vehicle in question
reasonably entered the intersection in order to yield the right -of -way to an emergency
vehicle.
Page 3 of 4
6. Failure to Timely Pay or Appeal. If the recipient of an Automated Traffic Citation does
not either pay the fine by the due date stated in the citation or appeal the citation as provided
herein, late fees may be assessed, as approved by City Council through resolution, and /or a
municipal infraction citation may be filed by the Iowa City Police Department and a fine may be
sought in accordance with Iowa City Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Section 2(B), Violations, Penalties
and Alternative Relief, rather than section 3 above. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of
the municipal infraction, State mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this section.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as
a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of 12011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Page 4 of 4