Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-12 Info PacketIII,97 �►' � CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 12, 2012 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MARCH 6 WORK SESSION - 5:00 PM IP2 Work Session Agenda — April 17, 2012 [Revised to Council distributed on 4/17/12.] IP3 Memo from Planning & Community Development Dir.: Broadway Street Name Change IP4 Memo from Housing & Inspection Services Dir.: Public Sidewalks — Snow and Ice Removal Procedures IP5 Copy from Council Member Throgmorton: Proposed Resolution Relating to the Death of Trayvon Martin IP6 Memo from Parks & Rec. Dir. and Public Art Coordinator: BenchMarks Project IP7 Pending Work Session Topics IP8 Memo from City Clerk: August Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP9 Copy of memo from Planning & Community Development Dir. and Transportation Planner: Update on status of Request for Proposals for Riverfront Crossings Mixed Use Development IP10 Memo from Housing and Inspection Services Dir. and Animal Services Coordinator: Allowing the keeping of "backyard chickens" in residential Iowa City neighborhoods IP11 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP12 Copy of email response to Council Member Throgmorton: Elevating Dubuque Street IP13 Copy of letter from John Thomas to Rod Lehnertz: The Iowa River Walk IP14 Bar Check Report — March 2012 IP15 Quarterly Investment Report January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012 IP16 Fire Safety Compliance Report January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012 IP17 Police Citizens Review Board Community Forum IP18 Memo from Adm. Asst. to the City Manager: Announcement — Board & Commission Training April 12, 2012 Information Packet (continued) 2 IP19 Iowa City Area Development Group (ICAD): Vision 2030 Campaign Leadership Breakfast IP20 City Council Economic Development Committee Approved minutes March 13 IP21 City Council Economic Development Committee Approved minutes March 20 IP22 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Minutes — January 17 IP23 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Minutes — February 13 Email to City Clerk: UISG City Council Liaison [Distributed to Council at 4/17/12 meeting] DRAFT MINUTES IP24 Airport Commission: March 15 IP25 Airport Commission: April 5 IP26 Housing and Community Development Commission: March 8 IP27 Telecommunications Commission: March 26 IP28 Human Rights Commission: March 20 April 12, 2012 Information Packet (continued) 2 IP19 Iowa City Area Development Group (ICAD): Vision 2030 Campaign Lead rship Breakfast IP20 City Council Economic Development Committee Approved minutes arch 13 IP21 City Co cil Economic Development Committee Approved min es March 20 IP22 Criminal J tice Coordinating Committee Minutes — January 7 IP23 Criminal Just! Coordinating Committee Minutes — Febrtary 13 DRAFT MINUTES IP24 Airport Commission: Mar 15 IP25 Airport Commission: April 5 IP26 Housing and Community Develo ment Com fission: March 8 IP27 Telecommunications Commission: arch 6 IP28 Human Rights Commission: March 20 04 -12 -12 A IP City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule 1 ,I �_ April 12, 2012 '+i�l 1 ®� CITY OF IOWA CITY Subject to change Date Time Meeting Location `r„„y ra P � � � , -' Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall '51121", IPI P¢,IIi9 (, ail , 3rv��;" 9yil ~��x „') ( "��:. i' � .I ?; r '"'” k r.'00,w�� 11 I" f z` ( I. �A, ''I ��S.�V, ,k'!'� " .- , «�1�....L� a,. Ili(` fP "I Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Tuesday, May 01, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, May 28, 2012 Memorial Day City Offices Closed v LI , ',II i,',G' 08 �A..I 'i,'ylj Ilq�� ', (I'I' r` I'IL7�� gyp g, l lllv��!� G�RISE,, t f " � '�r� 6 � ' u,�" 'I � r P:.'iit F .. „ 4 ON (ePk Tuesday, June 05, 2012 5:00 PM :'' ..N b.. .. .-a Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:30PM Joint Meeting Johnson County TBA .•A.., +„" ' �'',il4 ii.'i�I'J ��'P� Ip?"€N i'� - c,() iii � ' '(�i d s t o i ��+ .. ` � Wednesday, July 04, 2012 Independence Day -City Offices Closed Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, July 31, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 6t w ii r�,4,P;7'- y4, � � 1 I �! L i�I "jl;l � � t� sit , Pa �, z :�I Session Meeting Emma Harvat Hall,�, Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:00 PM Work Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall --ow CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.1cgov.org REVISED City Council Work Session Agenda April 17,2012,5:00 P. M. Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street • Council Appointments [Agenda #37] • Planning & Zoning Items • Agenda Items • Exterior design of 114 S. Dubuque Street [Agenda #181 • Broadway Street Name Change [IP # 31 • Proposed Resolution Relating to the Death of Trayvon Martin [IP # 5] • BenchMarks Project [IP #6 ] • Information Packet Discussion [April 12] • Council Time • Pending Work Session Topics [IP #71 • Meeting Schedule/ Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations [IP #8] `Item to be re- scheduled at a later time W iP2 CITY OF IOWA CITY City Counci Work Ses ion Agenda April 17, 012, 5: OP. M. Emma J. Ha at H I - City Hall 410 E. Was in_ on Street ■ Council Appointments [/bq 3 ] ■ Planning & Zoning Items ■ Agenda Items ■ Exterior design of 114 S. a Street[ ■ Broadway Street Name IP # 3] ■ Public Sidewalks — Snow Removal ■ Proposed Resolution Re the Death BenchMarks Project [IP Information Packet Discpril 12] Council Time Pending Work Session T #7] Meeting Schedule/ Upco mmunity E #18] 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org [IP #4] Martin [IP # 5] ncil Invitations [IP #8] r �*W-00 ®4, CITY OF IOWA CITY IP3 '' C) ESANDUM 1VI E � Date: April 6, 2012 To: Tom Markus; City Manager Geoff Fruin; Assistant to the City Manager From: Jeff Davidson, Director, Planning and Community Development Re: April 17 Work Session Discussion: Broadway Street Name Change Introduction The City has been approached by Southgate Development Services LLC (Southgate Development), on behalf of Wetherby Condos South LLC ( Wetherby Condos), who has requested that the portion of Broadway Street south of Highway 6 be formally re -named to Redwood Street (request attached). History/Background Wetherby Condos is the owner of several properties along Broadway including the Broadway Condominium complex at 1956 Broadway Street. Southgate Development is currently in the process of rehabilitating the condominium complex for a cost of $2.2 million dollars. Wetherby Condos has indicated that they are also in the process of renaming the condominium complex. The organization feels that the success of their rebranding /rehabilitation effort centers on renaming the street that the property fronts on. Staff has written a letter outlining the request and forwarded it to all residents /property owners that would be directly affected by a formal street name change. The letter was intended to gauge the neighborhoods interest in the proposal to formally change the name of Broadway Street to Redwood Street. Southgate Development is also prepared to provide some assistance to businesses, residents, and property owners for costs associated with a formal change of the street name. Financial Impact There will be minimal financial impact with a renaming of Broadway Street to Redwood Street. The costs to the City will be in the form of new signage and associated labor costs for installation at approximately $300. There will be some additional staff time to update maps and contact other map providers (Iowa DOT, phone book publishers, on -line mapping services etc.) to notify them of the street name change. Conclusion After solicitation of comments from the neighborhood, staff has received correspondence from two individuals to date; one in favor of the change, and one in opposition (attached). One additional comment in opposition of the proposal was sent directly to the City Council prior to the mailing of staff's letter and appeared in the February council packet (attached). In terms of transportation planning, the name change alone will have minimal impact on traffic operations. Should the City move forward with a name change, staff recommends that both old and new street name signs remain posted along the corridor for up to a year to minimize any confusion this may cause for guests, deliveries, or emergency services. The action required by Council would be approval of a resolution officially changing the street name. We would notify affected parties on Broadway Street when the resolution consideration is scheduled. Please let us know how you would like to proceed. cc: John Yapp; Transportation Planner Kent Ralston; Assistant Transportation Planner Glenn Siders; Southgate Development Services Honorable Mayor Matt Hayek & City Council Members 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Mayor Hayek: Please consider this correspondence as a formal request to rename a portion of Broadway Street south of Highway 6. As you and the Council are well aware, Wetherby Condos South is currently undertaking a rehabilitation of the Broadway Condominium complex in the 1900 block of Broadway Street. The 2.2 million dollars of construction is funded in part with CDBG funds awarded to us last year. Our primary driving force for this project was at that time, and still is, to make this area of Iowa City a safer and more desirable place for families to live. We feel one of the critical components to achieving our goal is to rebrand this complex and the environment that surrounds it. We wish to remove all negative memories and instill a new and positive outlook. We are in the process of renaming the complex itself and reworking any legal paperwork that may be necessary. We also feel that a large part of our success will be the renaming of the street the complex fronts on. We ask that the City rename this street to Redwood Drive or a name the City feels suitable that is not connected with past . Enclosed with this letter you will find some information that hopefully will assist you in your decision. We are prepared to assist any business or home owner that would be impacted with the changing of the street name. If the Council desires I would be more than happy to appear before you and go into more detail concerning our assistance. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Gd&� C4 Leo-, Glenn Siders Vice President of Property Development Southgate Development Services, LLC %nnnnn/ .qni ifhnatairnniar if%i rnm Kent Ralston From: Keller, Linda L <linda- keller @uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:52 AM To: Kent Ralston Subject: Renaming Broadway Street I would be totally fine with renaming Broadway Street to Redwood Street. It is generous for Southgate to possibly help property owners with costs associated with a formal change of the street name. Linda Keller Orthodontic Department 219 Dental Science S The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 -1001 319 - 335 -7288 (Tel) 319 - 335 -6847 (Fax) Kent Ralston From: Joseph Cannistra <jccannistra @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:55 AM To: Kent Ralston Subject: Proposed Name Change to Broadway Street Dear Mr. Ralston/Kent, It is my opinion that changing Broadway street to Redwood street will do more harm than good to the Broadway neighborhood and here is why. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," and although this is the antithesis of the Broadway area - -it is anything other than a rose and smells no where close to sweet - -it is a great analogy for what you are trying to do. Essentially, simply changing the name of the street will not change the culture, nor the behavior, of the people in the greater Broadway area; it will cause anger and a reactionary outpouring, I think, that might ultimately become a political issue of racial profiling. This is because the area is mostly low income housing, and although a lot of the non -low income housing is taken up by students attending any of the Universities or Colleges in the area, a lot of the people residing along Broadway street and Cross Park are mainly in the minority, trying to better themselves, while barely being able to afford housing. This leaves little time for parenting and education. What is needed, in addition to an upgrade of the exterior and interior of the housing in that area, is a sense of community and brotherhood, which I currently do not feel within the neighborhood. I feel that to really "improve" the area, a city park should be erected as a place for kids to go play, instead of being left alone, unchaperoned, in the streets; it should also include a basketball court for the young men and women who, instead of roaming around at night time, either downtown or in the neighborhood, could put that energy into something constructive such as sport. I also feel that an expansion of the Broadway community center and the child care facility along Broadway could help bridge the gap between parenting philosophies and help to the teach good values and beliefs to the children that attend. I really feel that there is a sense of segregation and tension within the community between the minority and majority, where people cannot seem to come to a moderate middle ground with a sense of respect and understanding. In order to really effect change I think the city should think along the lines of actually improving the neighborhood and not just renaming it every time a company wants to remove the stigma of an area; the average renter does their homework on a neighborhood and when friends of theirs are asked about "Redwood Street" they will ask where it is and when described, they will say that it is just the old Broadway neighborhood and recite the pros and cons of living there. The biggest of these of course is that the rent is fairly cheap for the quality provided; however, the community is still not thought of as being particularly safe. I am not sure if you have received any other feedback, but if you have any questions for me, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Joe Cannistra 2030 Broadway Street Apt. G Iowa City, IA 52240 jecannistra@yaboo.com Marian Karr From: Risa Dotson Eicke <risamde @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:31 PM To: Council Subject: Broadway St I think renaming Broadway St. will change nothing except cause confusion. And, if it were to be re- named, naming it after a non - native tree would make the city look foolish. Thank you, r._ -ke r CITY OF IOWA CITY iP- ""` MEMORANDUM Date: April 9, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City M From: Douglas Boothroy, Director of RbtrTjnd`aRff_1nsp�ction Services Re: Public Sidewalks — Snow and Ice(ftemoval Prod *dures Issue: Whether or not the City should allow property owners to clear only four feet of an eight foot sidewalk? Discussion: Public sidewalks are intended to provide safe and level walkways especially during inclement weather. Based on the high number of citizen complaints received after a snow and /or ice event, it is evident that the public expects sidewalks to be maintained as a safe place for everyone to walk. The City's snow and ice removal requirements and procedures in effect since 1993 (see attached) are designed to ensure that the entire width of sidewalks are cleared of all snow and ice 24 hours after a snow fall of one inch or more or any accumulation of ice. The snow and ice accumulation removal is done on a complaint based enforcement procedure. Complaint based enforcement relies on citizens to report when snow /ice accumulations on sidewalks that are not properly cleared. The winters of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 had heavy snow /ice accumulations Which resulted in a total of 1442 complaints. Only 22 complaints out of 1442 concerned 8 ft. sidewalks. The very low number of complaints about 8 ft. sidewalks indicates that property owners (commercial and residential) are meeting the public's expectations and /or City snow /ice removal requirements. If property owners make the effort to clear their sidewalk, it's HIS experience that citizens don't complain. Staff surveyed several other cities as to how they enforce snow /ice removal on 8 ft. sidewalks. The survey results show some cities require only 4 ft. cleared while others the entire 8 ft. width of a sidewalk. Des Moines like Iowa City requires the entire 8 ft. width cleared. Cedar Rapids requires the property owner to clear 4 ft. and the City clears 4 ft. Ames and Coralville require the property owners to clear 4 ft. Iowa Code Section 364.12(2)(b) states that the abutting property owner is responsible for the removal of natural accumulations of snow and ice from sidewalks within a reasonable amount of time and may be held liable for damages caused by their failure to do so. According to the legal department, while the City may choose not to enforce this obligation, it does not have the power to pre -empt state law and tell property owners that the duty imposed on them by the state no longer exists. Legal advises that if the enforcement policy changes, both the ordinance and policy will need to be revised both to be clear that the owner is not absolved of liability and to preserve the immunity afforded to the City by state law for acts /omissions of city employees when the damage is caused by a third party not under the control of the City April 9, 2012 Page 2 Recommendation: Where sidewalks are provided it is the public's expectation that the entire sidewalk will be safe to use even in inclement weather. The Iowa Code places the responsibility to remove natural . accumulation of snow and ice from sidewalks and the liability for failure to do so with abutting property owners. The City does not have the power to preempt state law. Since 1993 the snow /ice removal message from the City to the public has been clear, consistent and effective in getting the entire width of sidewalks cleared. The very low number of complaints about clearing snow /ice off 8 ft. sidewalks indicates the City does not have an enforcement problem with property owners taking responsibility for clearing 8 ft. sidewalks. Therefore, I recommend against doing anything to suggest that property owners need not fulfill their state statutory duty to clear the entire width of sidewalks abutting their property. Hisadm /memos /publicsidewalks.doc OPERATING POLICY FOR SIDEWALK SNOW REMOVAL (A) Notice to Public In November of each year or as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager or his /her designee, the public will be notified of the requirements of the sidewalk snow removal laws by various means. (B) Areas of Snow Removal Enforcement of the snow removal provisions of the Code of Iowa City on the basis of citizen complaints shall be as follows: When a citizen complains about a public sidewalk adjacent to a specific street address that has not been cleared within 24 hours after the cessation of snowfall of one inch (1 ") or more or any amount of ice, the Director of Housing and Inspection Services shall cause the complaint to be investigated and, if valid, the notification, reinspection, and removal procedures as outlined herein may be initiated. The field investigation of the complaint and the enforcement action may not be limited to the specific address given, but may include the entire frontage from intersecting street to intersecting street. (C) Measurable Snowfall and Enforcement Twenty —four hours after a recorded snowfall of one inch or more or any amount of ice has ended, the complaint response for sidewalk snow removal will be administered as outlined above. All complaints shall be forwarded to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services and inspections will be carried out by the department. Public walks shall be completely cleared the entire width of the sidewalk down to concrete and suitable for public use. If the inspector finds that the public walk has not been cleared of snow and ice as required herein, the property will be posted with a notice reminding the occupant of the code requirements to clear the sidewalk. The property owner or agent of record will then be sent a letter of violation by regular mail informing them that subsequent violations will be abated without further notice and may result in a citation for a municipal infraction. The City will attempt to do a follow -up inspection within twenty -four hours after notice of the ordinance requirements has been left at the property to see if the removal of the snow has been accomplished in accordance with this rule. If the snow and ice have been removed in compliance with this rule, the enforcement will be terminated. If the ice and snow have not been cleared as required, the inspector will authorize an approved snow removal contractor to remove the snow and /or ice from the sidewalk in violation and invoice the City for the work. The City Accounting Division will then invoice the property owner for the expenses incurred with the abatement process which includes both the charges from the contractor and an administrative fee from the City. * Distributed by Council Member Throgmorton at April 3 Work Session IP5 Proposed Resolution Relating to the Death of Trayvon Martin Early last week several hundred people, black and white, young and old, gathered together at the fountain on the Ped Mall as part of the "Million Hoodie March" to express outrage and grief at the killing of an unarmed 17 -year old boy by a neighborhood watch leader in a gated suburban neighborhood near Orlando, Florida. I believe we should respond to that event by adopting a resolution expressing our dismay and outrage about the senseless killing of this young man. The fact that a young man is black, wears a hoodie, and is walking in a predominantly white neighborhood does not mean necessarily mean he is dangerous or has done anything wrong, and does not justify the killing of an unarmed person. And yet I aware that some of you think our council should refrain from expressing its views about what the federal government or other local governments do. I disagree with that view, but understand it. With that objection in mind, I'd like to suggest that we adopt a resolution containing language similar to the following: ■ Whereas we recognize that Trayvon Martin's killing has caused grief and outrage among many Iowa Citians, and has produced the widespread desire to honor Trayvon Martin and to see a truly objective inquiry into his death so that justice can be served, ■ whereas "Stand Your Ground" ordinances enable people to kill other people simply because they fear that they are in danger, ■ whereas research has amply documented that fear of another person often is a function of one's predispositions and beliefs (including racial profiling) instead of the other person's actual behavior, ■ whereas we recognize that there are deep and important differences in how people have interpreted and responded to the killing, and ■ whereas we are aware that that such differences can be found in Iowa City as well, and ■ whereas we recognize that the full facts of the case are not yet known and probably never be fully known, and ■ whereas Iowa Citians have a long and admirable history of resisting racism and racial profiling. Now, therefore, we call upon ourselves, our staff, private security guards, and the people of Iowa City to reject racism and racist behavior in all its forms, to follow the truth wherever it leads, and to do everything possible to ensure racial, ethnic, and economic justice in our city. ®fir CITY OF IOWA CITY - ®�7 MEMORANDUM Date: April 12, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Mike Moran, Parks and Recreation Director Marcia Bollinger, Public Art Coordinator Re: BenchMarks Project Introduction: Staff has been contacted by the Downtown Iowa City SSMID regarding their interest in implementing the BenchMarks Public Art Project; utilizing downtown and Northside Marketplace park benches as a "canvass" for local street artists. They would like to kick off the BenchMarks project by painting four pilot benches and using those as examples to promote an expanded project this summer and fall coinciding with Arts Fest, Jazz Fest, Sand in the City and Oktoberfest. History/Background: The benches being used for this project are City property and located on City property so guidelines will be necessary to implement such a program (see attached). The tentative locations of the bench for this pilot project include two benches on Washington Street (near Discerning Eye and M.C. Ginsberg), one bench in the Pedestrian Plaza (near Textiles) and one in the Northside Marketplace (outside of T- Spoons). The Downtown Iowa City SSMID has secured the interest of area artists to participate in this pilot project. It is expected that these artists will also coordinate an expanded project and serve as team leaders for each event. Discussion of Solutions: In order to meet the schedule of completing the four benches for the 2012 U.S. Olympic Wrestling Trials scheduled for April 21 -22, we ask that the City Council review these guidelines now for this pilot project with a more formal Call to Artists developed for review in the upcoming weeks. Artwork for this pilot project will be reviewed and approved by City staff and the Chairperson of the Public Art Advisory Committee to ensure the guidelines have been met. The expanded program implemented throughout this summer will follow guidelines to be established by the Public Art Advisory Committee. Financial Impact: The Downtown Iowa City SSMID will be responsible for all costs associated with this program. City staff will provide support as necessary. Recommendation: City Council approves the guidelines and process for the pilot program of BenchMarks with the expectation that a more formal Call to Artists will be developed and available for review in the upcoming weeks. BenchMarks Project Guidelines The artist may paint, sculpt, transform or adorn the bench, but may not compromise its structural integrity and functionality. The seating area of the bench must remain clear of decoration except for paint in order to retain its usefulness. The benches will be placed in areas fully accessible to the public. In creating a design, please consider carefully the weather and other elements of nature, including sun, rain, wind and dirt. Designs should be created with durability and public safety in mind. If you are adding height to your bench, please ensure that it is stable and will not tip over. Although objects may be attached to the benches, they should be very sturdy as vandalism could occur. Any object added to a bench should be attached in such a way that it cannot be easily removed. Designs that are religious, political or sexual in nature will not be accepted. Additionally, corporate logos, advertising, suggestions of smoking or alcohol drinking will not be allowed. Production of Benches Artists will create their designs on site where the benches are permanently located. In order to maintain a safe work area, artists must keep all equipment, tools, etc. out of the main pedestrian walkways while work is in progress and remove same when not working on the project. All surface around the bench must be protected from damage, paint or other materials. All work must be completed within 5 working days. The artist must prime the entire bench before painting. Any raw edges must be finished with an outdoor spackling paste or wood putty and then exterior oil primer. (Suggested primers are Kilz or Zinzer.) Acrylic paint can be used to paint or spray a design on the bench. All surfaces (front and back) of the bench must be decorated. To complete the artwork, each bench must be finished with a minimum of two (2) coats of varnish. An exterior grade sealer that is non - reactive, not - toxic, UV- resistant and waterproof is strongly recommended. (Polycrylic by Minwax is sold in a matte, semi -gloss and gloss finish.) Remember, this is an outdoor bench, so it must be finished appropriately. Rights and Entitlements: By submitting your application, you confirm that: 1. You are the original creator of your design 2. You have not copied anyone else's original work 3. Your design does not infringe on anyone else's intellectual property rights (for example, trademark, copyrights, trade dress or design patent). 4. Ownership of the artwork will revert to the City of Iowa City upon completion. IP7 r JTY,,, PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS April 12, 2012 May 1, 2012 May 15, 2012 1. Follow -up Presentation on the Disposition or Relocation of Public Housing Units Pending Tonics to be Scheduled 1. Continuation of the Discussion to Consider Consolidation or Structural Changes to City Boards and Commissions 2. Discussion of the Police Citizen Review Board's Annual Public Forum to be held on May 9, 2012 3. Strategic Plan Status Report (June 2012) r CITY OF IOWA C I T Y IP8 MEMORANDUM Date: April 11, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 10 Re: August meeting schedule �_ Council Member Dobyns has suggested the August 21 meeting date be moved to August 14. Your summer (June- August) schedule currently is: • June 5 • June 19 • July 10 • July 31 • August 21 Please check your calendars and come prepared to discuss the schedule. lP r CITY OF IOWA CITY T MEMORANDUM Date: April 3, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager From: Jeff Davidson, Director, PCD wr, John Yapp, Transportation Planner? /1r---' Re: Update on status of Request for Proposals for Riverfront Crossings Mixed -Use Development Introduction and Background: In February, we issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Riverfront Crossings Mixed -Use Development, to be located on the old St Patrick's Parish Hall at the corner of Linn St / Court St. The City acquired this site for a mixed -use parking structure after St Patrick's moved to their new church on Lower West Branch Rd. The project is envisioned as a privately -owned mixed - use residential /commercial facility to be constructed in conjunction with a publicly owned and operated parking facility. The City engaged Neumann - Monson Architects to develop a massing study and concept plans for the site (see attached image). Based on the massing study, the site can physically accommodate approximately 85,000 SF of residential space (up to 100 units), 23,000 SF of office /retail, 20,000 SF of townhomes /live -work units and a 575 -space parking facility. The specific breakdown of residential and commercial space will be determined through the final design process with the selected developer. The massing study and concept plans are consistent with the goals of the Riverfront Crossings District and City Council priorities for this site, including: the development of public parking to support existing and anticipated parking demand south of Burlington St, the construction of modern office and commercial space, and construction of workforce housing units near downtown available at price points attractive to households in the 60% to 150% of area median income range. Status of Request for Proposals: We have received two proposals for the project, and have been discussing the project with both proposers. Our next step is to schedule presentation interviews with both proposers and our interview team. Ultimately, this will result in the selection of a preferred developer with whom we will negotiate a purchase agreement for the property and final design for the project. We are hoping to schedule interviews in late April / early May. We have clarified to both proposers that any request for City financial incentives will be evaluated in accordance with the City's adopted Economic Development Process and Policies. Let us know if you have any questions CD O O 7C' (fl O C (D .-r 0 a = i n ti.rw n� Y/MWMF Wek3ff/e4kA^,w st: "Y A 4. M' LwHwy.•.. ^ y �� w Mal" mom ... ,.. MOW- �I,® CITY OF IOWA CITY I�Pa'%o ff E Mo RAN DUM � Date: September 2, 2009 To: City Council From: Douglas Boothroy, Director of Housing and Inspection Services Misha Goodman, Animal Services Supervisor Re: Allowing the keeping of "backyard chickens" in residential Iowa City neighborhoods .An interest has been expressed that Iowa City allow the keeping of a few chickens (four to five) in residential areas. The primary reason is immediate access to homegrown fresh eggs. The Zoning Code prohibits raising any farm animals (including chickens) in any residential area. Under the current Zoning Code, raising farm animals in residential areas is considered not to be compatible with urban residential uses. Housing and Inspection Services The Department of Housing and Inspection Services does not recommend amending the Zoning Code to allow the keeping of chickens in residential neighborhoods. Raising chickens can be a nuisance within an urban environment, and the worst -case situation will happen. Some of the issues include but are not limited to the impact on property values /neighborhood compatibility; the development of nuisances related to odor, noise, the high ammonia content of excrement, diseases, attracting rodents, predators, and the containment of chickens. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that the City's Zoning, Nuisance, Building and Rental Housing laws are enforced in order to protect public health and welfare of our neighborhoods. At this time, the Department does not have the staffing level to adequately handle enforcement issues associated with raising "backyard chickens" in residential neighborhoods. "Backyard chickens" which are not properly managed or maintained are a nuisance. Animal Services The Division of Animal Services recommends that the City review the possibility of amending the Animal Code and the Zoning Code to allow keeping small amounts of chickens on specific lots within the Iowa City city limits. We recommend, however, that the City consider delaying approval of this amendment for at least one year due to staff dealing with flood recovery and budget constraints. There is no doubt that some violations are likely to take place which may include; animals getting loose, failure of the owner to clean enclosure and dispose of waste in a timely manner, or complaints from neighboring residents. However, chickens can be maintained in escape -proof enclosures, that when built appropriately, will deter most predators. If maintained appropriately, chickens (hens) cause no more noise than other animals commonly maintained within the City. Odor can be controlled through appropriate removal of waste. Rodent attraction can be controlled through proper feeding methods and removal of waste. I have spoken with both zoning and animal control departments in numerous cities who allow the keeping of chickens. In Madison for example, a limited number of chickens are allowed on residential lots. Madison has had their code in place for five years now and has had very few issues. The major issue has occurred when a single family home was located next to an apartment complex. Their code was originally written to require approval from each resident in the apartment complex. They have found this to be unreasonable and are in the process of amending to require the owner's approval only. They have not had noise complaints except in the instance where someone has obtained a rooster without kowing it and the animal is required to be removed immediately. They have not had problems with odor, animals at large or rodents. September 2, 2009 Page 2 Occasionally on unfenced property, they have had dogs cause some problems, but handle these complaints like any other dog at large. Madison zoning stated that the keeping of chickens was very popular when the ordinance first passed. Madison has a population of 231,916. For 2009, Madison received a total of 53 applications to keep chickens. Recommended enforcement standards If keeping of "backyard chickens" is allowed, then it is absolutely essential that effective performance standards for keeping of "backyard chickens" be adopted to ensure accountability, avoid the development of nuisances, and to protect the neighbors' right to the enjoyment of their property. Housing and Inspection Services and Animal Services recommend the following standards: 1. A person wishing to keep chickens must acquire a permit from the City prior to acquiring chickens, and a permit fee should be paid. a. The permit would be for one year and renewed annually with inspection and fees paid. b. The property on which the chickens are going to be kept is subject to inspection prior to the issuance of a permit and the acquiring of any chickens. c. The property would be subject to annual inspections as a condition to renewing the permit. In addition, the permittee must give the City the right to inspect on demand, as a result of complaints received concerning the activity of raising chickens. 2. The permit is not transferrable and does not run with the land. 3. The permit is a limited license for the activity and no vested zoning rights arise from the permit being issued. 4. Private restrictions on the use of the property shall remain enforceable and take precedent over the permit. The private restrictions include, but are not limited to, deed restrictions, condominium restrictions, neighborhood association bylaws, covenants, and rental agreements. 5. Permit issued to a person whose property is subject to private restrictions that prohibit keeping of chickens is void. Interpretation and enforcement of a private restriction is the sole responsibility of the private properties involved. 6. Prior to issuing the permit, the person applying for the permit must notify abutting property owners and must provide verification that all abutting property owners have been notified that an application to keep chickens has been filed. The abutting property owners are to be given 10 working days to comment to the City concerning the permit. A "no" from a neighbor can be grounds to deny a permit. 7. The property cannot be currently in violation of any state law or local ordinance. 8. In addition, a person who keeps or houses chickens shall do the following: a. Keep no more than four hens b. Principal use of the person's property must be single - family. c. Shall not keep any rooster. d. Shall not slaughter any chickens within the City. e. Shall not sell eggs. f. All eggs shall be removed within two days of being laid to avoid rotting. September 2, 2009 Page 3 g. Shall keep chickens in the back yard only. Back yard means the portion of the lot enclosed by the property's rear lot line and side lot lines. h. The chickens shall be provided with a covered enclosure and kept in the covered or fenced enclosure at all times to prevent escape and protect the birds from the elements and allow proper freedom of movement. All enclosures shall be constructed, repaired, and maintained in a manor to prevent rodents from being harbored underneath or within the walls of the enclosures. i. All feed and other items associated with the keeping of chickens shall be so protected so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. j. Chicken coops and enclosures shall be at least 25 feet from any residential structure on the property or adjacent property. The enclosure shall be maintained to ensure proper sanitation for maintaining the health of the birds and the keepers. Feces must be removed and disposed of in a sealed, enclosed container at a minimum of once weekly to avoid odor. k. Adequate food, water, and shelter shall be provided at all times. I. Chickens at large would be a violation of the permit. 9. If any of the requirements are not fully complied with, the City may revoke the permit granted and /or initiate prosecution for a civil infraction violation. 10. Chicken Coop and Pen Requirements Chicken coops and exercise pens must be built with the following specifications: a. Be easy to clean and with good drainage b. Protects the flock from extreme temperatures and wind c. Keeps out rodents, raptors and other predatory animals d. Provides adequate space for the amount of fowl e. Is well ventilated f. Is free of drafts and maintains a uniform temperature g. Has a roosting area h. Has nests that entice hens to lay indoors L Offers plenty of light, both natural and artificial j. Provides heat in colder temperatures k. Includes sanitary feed and water stations 11. Coop Building Requirements a. A minimum of 4 square feet of space must be provided per bird inside .a coop. b. Coops shall be built of solid materials such as wood, metal or plastic. c. Coop floors shall be of wood or cement set a minimum of 1 foot above ground level with a slight slope toward the door or other opening to prevent puddling. d. Walls shall be insulated. September 2, 2009 Page 4 e. Coop must have at least one solid door and window that can be opened for ventilation. Inner framing of door and window must have heavy gauge mesh wire affixed to keep birds secure or coop may be attached to a secure enclosed pen. f. Windows must face south. g. Coop must be tall enough to stand in or have a hinged roof for cleaning. h. Coop must have at least one light for heat. i. Coop must be built in a well- drained area to prevent standing water. j. Coop must have roosts (perch) a minimum of 2" wide allowing a length of 10" per bird, built a minimum of 2' above the floor and 18" from parallel wall. k. Coop must have one nesting box per four birds. Nesting box shall be raised at minimum 12' above the floor and set in a dark area. I. Bedding such as wood pellets or pine shavings shall be provided to reduce odor. Straw may not be used for bedding. 12. Pen Building Requirements a. The pen shall be securely attached to the coop. b. A minimum of 4 square feet of space per bird in outside pen. c. Pen shall be constructed of wood, chicken wire or heavy gauge mesh wire with material buried a minimum of 1' below ground level to prevent escape or entry from predators. d. Pen shall be covered with secure wire or netting to prevent escape or entry from predators. e. Pen shall be built on well- drained area to prevent standing water. hisadm /mem /chickens9- 1 -09.doc � *I- = _4 CITY OF IOWA CITY 04 -12 -12 Ift 'PA MEMORANDUM 1pll� Date: April 11, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show At your April 3 work session meeting the Council Members agreed to the following schedule: April 18 - Mims April 25 - Champion May 2 - Throgmorton May 9 - Hayek May 16 - Rick Dobyns May 23 - Champion May 30 - Hayek Future commitments: July 18 — Rick Dobyns September 19 — Rick Dobyns November 21- Rick Dobyns U: radioshowappts.doc Marian Karr IP12 From: Tom Markus Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:25 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Elevating Dubuque St. Please include this in the next info packet. From: Melissa Clow Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:21 PM To: 'jthrogmo @yahoo.com' Cc: Ron Knoche; Rick Fosse; Tom Markus Subject: RE: Elevating Dubuque St. Jim — It is my understanding that you spoke with Rick Fosse about this issue last night, but I still wanted to follow up with you in an email. Your question is a good one and I can tell you that decision is still in front of us. At this time, we are wrapping up our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Study in anticipation of having approval from the Iowa DOT and the Federal Highway Administration in late summer. The preferred alternative presented in the EA will be the alternative that receives a full analysis of social and environmental impacts and the one that we move into final design with. For the NEPA study, we will seek approval for the elevation of Dubuque Street at the 500 -year flood event level + 1 foot. At the time of NEPA approval, the design will be considered 10% complete. It's important to note that the preferred alternative will exhibit maximum impacts so that they are minimized and or mitigated during final design. If, in final design, any financial or physical constraints are determined with respect to the elevation of Dubuque Street, a lower elevation will be considered. The other elevations that are being considered are the 2008 flood event + 1 foot with the 100 -year flood event + 1 foot being the minimum. It is important to note that in addition to providing an uninterrupted transportation corridor and minimizing backwater that was created by the Park Road Bridge in 2008, elevating Dubuque Street will give the Army Corps of Engineers at the Coralville Reservoir greater operational flexibility. They have the capacity to release water at 20,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), but Dubuque Street is currently impacted (lanes begin to flood) when the flow in the river is approximately 12,OOOcfs. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Melissa Clow, El, LEED AP City of Iowa City, Engineering 319 - 356 -5413 phone 319 - 330 -1420 cell APlease consider the environment and do not print this email unless necessary. From: Tom Markus Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:53 AM To: Rick Fosse Cc: James Throgmorton (jthrogmo @yahoo.com) Subject: FW: Elevating Dubuque St. Please respond with cc to me. From: James Throgmorton [mailto:jthrogmo @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:36 AM To: Tom Markus Cc: Rick Fosse Subject: Elevating Dubuque St. Tom, I read the update on flood - related activities, and realize that I have a question concerning the elevation of Dubuque St. The question is this: why does the road need to be elevated 12' above its current level? (I think that's the amount planned.) Could it not be elevated by a lesser amount, say 6 feet, while still achieving substantial flood protection? Would there be a meaningful cost difference between a 12 ft scenario vs. a 6 ft one? Are there other benefits that might derive from using the lower elevation? It's possible that Rick has already addressed this in an earlier work session, but if so I do recall his answer. Jim March 21, 2012 Rod Lehnertz, Director of Planning, Design and Construction Facilities Management University of Iowa 250 University Services Building Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Dear Mr. Lehnertz Thank you for moderating the presentation of the flood - related projects last month at Art Building West. As tragic as the loss of so many University buildings has been, it was inspiring to see the proposals. During the question and answer period, I asked about the development of the open spaces in the general vicinity of the building projects. I hope the University and the Iowa City community will explore the opportunity this series of open spaces offer: an extraordinary sequential experience along the Iowa River, linking and integrating new and existing campus buildings with a beautiful riparian landscape setting. I have developed a short narrative describing that future experience to suggest Its rich potential. The Iowa River Walk I call this experience The Iowa River Walk, as it consists of so many features reflecting Iowa's cultural and natural identity. The Iowa River Walk runs from the Iowa Memorial Union, the University's great social hub, to the new Hancher Auditorium, the State of Iowa's finest performing arts facility. The Walk begins at the Iowa Memorial Union Terrace and Outdoor Theater, one of Iowa City's most popular outdoor social spaces. Before crossing the.lowa River on the nearby pedestrian bridge, one is greeted by the bridge's newly renovated formal landscape treatment, which contrasts with the naturalistic river landscape on the bridge's western approach. Once on the west side of the river, the next point of interest is the former studio of Iowa's greatest painter, Grant Wood. Interpretive signage tells his extraordinary story. Continuing north, the walk becomes an allee of native riparian trees, perhaps River Birch, which will both define the path and provide shade. Along the allee, sculptures and native plantings have been incorporated into the lawn expanses for interest and beauty, as well as to give the landscape a sense of place. The grounds surrounding destinations such as the Theater Building and Lagoon Shelter House have been enhanced with colorful flowering perennials. This segment of the Iowa River Walk's half -mile journey from the Memorial Union ends with Iowa City's only destination public garden, Hancher Gardens, located between the new Hancher Auditorium and the Iowa River, and south of Iowa City's major recreational facility, City Park Hancher Gardens fulfills a vision whose origins can be traced to the botanical garden proposed in the Olmstead Brother's 1905 report, currently the location of the Iowa Memorial Union. In addition to providing a beautiful display of Iowa's prairie associations, the Gardens will include rain gardens as part of Hancher Auditorium's storm water management system. In summation, the flood replacement projects offer the University a once -in- many - lifetimes opportunity to create a landscape of great beauty, revealing Iowa's unique sense of cultural and natural identity. I hope you agree the Iowa River Walk deserves further consideration. It is a vision that I believe greatly benefits both the University and the City of Iowa City communities. Sincerely, 'Q- ohn Thom s 509 Brown Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245 j ohnfredericth omasOgmail.com cc Matt Hayek, Mayor of Iowa City Tom Markus, City Manager of Iowa City Dane Allen and Cindy Parsons, Co- chairs of Project Green Z IP73 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Business Name Occupancy Monthly Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under 21 PAULA (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) Bar Bar Ratio Ratio = University of Iowa Under2l PAULA Under2l PAULA Checks Checks (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 120 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Airliner 223 _- 3 0 0 104 0 44 0 0.4230769 Airliner 223 7 0 2 104 0 44 0 0.4230769 American Legion 140 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0.1111111 Aoeshe Restaurant 156 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 165 0 0 0 Baroncini— 0 0 0 Basta 176 0 0 0 Blackstone— 297 0 0 0 Blue Moose- 436 6 0 0 96 7 5 0.0729167 0.0520833 Blue Moose— 436 7 0 0 96 7 5 0.0729167 0.0520833 Bluebird Diner 82 0 0 0 Bob's Your Uncle 260 0 0 0 Bo-James—' 200 7 0 0 44 0 0 0' 0 Bread Garden Market & Bakery 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 22 20 4 238 ' 81 62 0.3403361 0.2605042 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 12 4 1 238 81 62 0.3403361 0.2605042 Brown Bottle, [The]- 289 0 0 0 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar- 189 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 El - aliente Night Club 498 5 0 0 34 ` 3 2 0.0882353 0.0588235 El -arl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 2 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 El "arlos O'Kelly's^ 299 0 0 0 El Monday, April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5 'hef's Table 162 0 0 0 -hili Yummy Yummy Chili '' 1 0 0 10 0 1 0 0.1 :hili Yummy Yummy Chili 2 0 0 10 0 1 0 0.1 Monday, April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5 ❑Chipotle Mexican Grill- 119 ` 0 0 0 ❑Club Car, [The] 56 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ❑Coach's Corner 160 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 ❑Colonial Lanes- 502 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 ❑ Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ❑d DC's 120 11 0 1 85 9 6 0.1058824 0.0705882 ❑ DC's 120 5 3 1 85 ' 9 6 0.1058824 0.0705882 W Deadwood, [The] 218 6 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 ❑ Deadwood, [The] 218 2 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 ❑ Devotay- 45 0 0 0 �Donnelly's Pub 49 5 0 0 23 1 0 0.0434783 0 ❑Donnelly's Pub 49 3 0 0 23 1 0 0.0434783 0 El Dublin Underground, [The] 57 2 1 0 20 - 1 0 0.05 0 WDublin Underground, [The] 57 5 0 0 20 1 0 0.05 0 ❑Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 315 0 0 0 ❑EI Banditos 25 0 0 0 ❑EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 ❑EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 104 0 0 0 ❑EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 161 0 0 0 ❑ Elks #590, [BPO] 205 0 0 0 ❑EnglertTheatre- 838 0 0 0 W Fieldhouse 178 7 0 0 100 10 2 0.1 0.02 ❑Fieldhouse 178 9 1 1 100: 10 2 0.1 0.02 El First Avenue Club- 280 0 0 0 ❑Formosa Asian Cuisine- 149 0 0 0 W Gabes- 261 1 0 0 49 12 3 0.244898 0.0612245 ❑Gabes 261 5 0 0 49 '" 12 3 0.244898 0.0612245 El George's Buffet 75 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 El Gilbert St Piano Lounge 114 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 ❑Givanni's' 158 0 0 0 ❑Godfather's Pizza-- 170 0 0 0 d❑ Graze^ .. 49 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 mss P ❑Grizzly?uth S� Pub 265 1 1 0 8 4 3 0.5 0.375 Cis Mondaymril 09p,201 ' Page 2 of 5 ❑Hawkeye Hideaway 94 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 ❑Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ❑ IC Ugly's 72 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 El India Cafe 100 0 0 0 ❑Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 71 0 0 0 ❑Jobsite 120 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 Doe's Place 281 5 0 0 52 2 0 0.0384615 0 ❑l Joe's Place 281 12 0 0 52 ; 2 0 0.0384615 0' ❑Joseph's Steak House— 226 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑ La Reyna 49 0 0 0 El Leaf Kitchen 0 0 0 © Library. [The]— 420 4 0 0 94 0 12 0 0.1276596 El Library. [The]— 420 12 0 0 94 0 12 0 0.1276596 ❑Linn Street Cafe 80 0 0 0 ❑Los Portales 161 0 0 0 ❑Martini's 200 b 4 0 101 46 4 0.4554455 0.039604 (]Martini's 200 12 10 0 101 46 4 0.4554455 0.039604 ❑Masala 46 « 0 0 0 ❑ Mekong Restaurant— 89 0 0 0 OMicky's^ 98 7 0 0 34 0 4 0 0.1176471 ❑Micky's— 98 3 0 1 34 0 4 0 0.1176471 ❑1 Mill Restaurant, [The]— 325 5 0 0 14 1 0 0.0714286 0 ❑ Moose, [Loyal Order of] 476 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑ Motley Cow Cafe- 82 0 0 0 ❑ Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 ❑Okoboji Grill— 222 0 0 0 El Old Capitol Brew Works 294 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 ❑One- Twenty -Six 105 0 0 0 ❑Orchard Green Restaurant— 200 0 0 0 ❑Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87 0 0 0 ❑Pagliai's Pizza — � 113 0 0 0 ❑Panch (Clin=St)�, 62 0 0 0 ❑Panchero s.Grill (6%(ers(4 11.— 95 0 0 0 -zz: Monday, April 09,2%2 Page 3 of 5 ❑ Perries 0 0 0 ❑ Pints 180 4 0 0 97 21 3 0.2164948 0.0309278 R1 Pints 180 12 4 0 97 21 3 0.2164948 0.0309278 ❑ Pit Smokehouse 40 0 0 0 ❑Pizza Hut^' 116 0 0 0 ❑ Pizza Ranch- 226 0 0 0 ❑Quality Inn /Highlander 971 0 0 0 WQuinton's Bar & Deli 149 4 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 El Ridge Pub` 0 0 0 ❑ Riverside Theatre- 118 0 0 0 OSaloon 120 3 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 ❑Saloon 120 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 ❑Sam's Pizza- 174 0 0 0 21 0 19 0 0.9047619 ❑Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 ❑Shakespeare's 90 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 ❑Sheraton 0 0 0 ❑Short's Burger & Shine 56 1 0 2 13 0 2 0 0.1538462 W Short's Burger & Shine- 56 5 0 0 13 0 2 0 0.1538462 ❑Sports Column 400 9 1 0 137 22 31 0.1605839 0.2262774 OSports Column 400 6 5 2 137 22 31 0.1605839 0.2262774 ❑Studio 13 206 1 0 0 25 0 0 0 "' 0 ❑d Studio 13 206 4 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 ❑Summit. [The] 736 12 2 0 259 43 93 0.1660232 0.3590734 WSummit. [The] 736 20 12 5 259 43 93 0.1660232 0.3590734 ❑Sushi Popo 84 0 0 0 ❑Takanami Restaurant- 148 0 0 0 ❑d TCB 250 7 0 0 101 4 1 0.039604 0.009901 ❑TCB 250 6 0 0 101 4 1 0.039604 0.009901 ❑Thai Flavors 60 0 0 0 ❑Thai Spice 91 0 0 0 ❑Times Club@ Prairie - Lights ,r_ - 60 0 0 0 ©Union Bat. 854 10 8 1 207 60 54 0.2898551 0.2608696 El Union BJIJ .1w 854 8 0 1 207 60 54 0.2898551 0.2608696 Monday, April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 5 ZS ❑VFW Post #3949 197 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 WVine Tavern, [The]- 170 4 0 0 38 4 5 0.1052632 ❑Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 154 0 0 0 cam.. ❑Yacht Club, [Iowa City] 206 7 0 0 82 2 2 0.0243902 " WYacht Club, [Iowa City] 206 4 0 0 82 2 2 0.0243902 ❑Zio Johno's Spaghetti House 94 0 0 0 ❑Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 0 0 0 Totals 337 76 22 4192 654 688 0.1560115 Off Premise 0 0 8 1 0 0 187 0 Grand Totals * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance 30 875 0 0.1315789 0.0243902 0.0243902 0.1641221 0 Monday, April 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5 0 cam.. 30 875 0 0.1315789 0.0243902 0.0243902 0.1641221 0 Monday, April 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5 IP15 CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012 Finance Department Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. The rolling average return on the six -month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 0.07% at 3/31/12. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 0.47% which is 40 basis points higher than the threshold. (See exhibit A) Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the third quarter of this fiscal year had an average return of 0.34 %. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the third quarter were approximately 7 basis points lower than investments purchased at this time last year. Municipalities in Iowa are still having trouble finding financial institutions willing to accept public funds. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. The Federal Open Market Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions- - including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run - -are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014. (See exhibit B). The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 0.05% in January, 0.05% in February, and 0.05% in March 2012. Q H m x w CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 3/31/2012 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 13- Jun -02 N/A $ 3,000,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 12- May -09 N/A $ 4,000,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 28- Oct -09 N/A $ 15,000,000.00 VARIABLE HILLS BANK MONEY MARKET 30- Mar -10 N/A $ 9,290,781.67 VARIABLE WELLS FARGO SAVINGS 20- Apr -10 N/A $ 10,000,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 08- Apr -11 N/A $ 15,000,000.00 VARIABLE IPAIT 2006A GO IPAIT 17- Apr -09 N/A $ 1,060,988.51 VARIABLE IPAIT 2007 GO IPAIT 11- Dec -09 N/A $ 900,788.45 VARIABLE IPAIT 2008 GO IPAIT 15- Jul -09 N/A $ 1,952,160.55 VARIABLE IPAIT 2009 D GO IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ 213,030.50 VARIABLE IPAIT 2009 C GO IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ 1,386,335.74 VARIABLE IPAIT 2010 B GO IPAIT 12- Aug -10 N/A $ 2,452,765.23 VARIABLE IPAIT 2011 A GO IPAIT 08- Jun -11 N/A $ 4,441,675.12 VARIABLE WELLS FARGO CD 19- Apr -11 30- Mar -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Apr -11 06- Apr -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.370 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Apr -11 13- Apr -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.400 UICCU CD 06- May -11 20- Apr -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.360 UICCU CD 06- May -11 27- Apr -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.360 UICCU CD 06- May -11 04- May -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.410 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 24- May -11 11- May -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.250 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 24- May -11 18- May -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.250 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24- May -11 23- May -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.340 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 19- Apr -11 31- May -12 $ 4,000,000.00 0.700 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 24- May -11 01- Jun -12 $ 1,000,000.00 0.650 BANKERS TRUST SLGS 08- Jun -11 01- Jun -12 $ 10,822,057.00 0.200 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10- Jun -11 01- Jun -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.450 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10- Jun -11 01- Jun -12 $ 300,000.00 0.350 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10- Jun -11 08- Jun -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.550 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 30- Jun -11 15- Jun -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.450 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 30- Jun -11 22- Jun -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.450 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 30- Jun -11 29- Jun -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.500 WELLS FARGO CD 24- May -11 01- Jul -12 $ 500,000.00 0.650 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Apr -11 02- Jul -12 $ 500,000.00 0.700 AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CD 12- Dec -08 12- Dec -13 $ 6,197,315.00 3.750 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 12- Dec -08 12- Dec -13 $ 2,000,000.00 4.180 UICCU CD 28- Jun -10 26- Jun -15 $ 846,700.00 2.510 UICCU CD 28- Jun -10 26- Jun -15 $ 300,000.00 2.510 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Aug -11 03- Aug -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.400 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Aug -11 10- Aug -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.400 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Aug -11 27- Jul -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.350 BANKERS TRUST SAV 28- Jul -11 01- Jun -12 $ 0.94 N/A MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Sep -11 07- Sep -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.350 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Sep -11 31- Aug -12 $ 1,000,000.00 0.400 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Sep -11 24- Aug -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.400 UICCU CD 21- Oct -11 01- Jun -12 $ 4,000,000.00 0.275 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Oct -11 19- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.380 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Oct -11 12- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.350 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Oct -11 05- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.320 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10- Nov -11 01- Jun -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.255 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10- Nov -11 26- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.300 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 10- Nov -11 02- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.350 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 18- Nov -11 15- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.310 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 18- Nov -11 09- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 14- Dec -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.310 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 21- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.260 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 30- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.280 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 07- Dec -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.290 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 3/31/2012 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 04- Jan -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.280 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 19- Jan -12 11- Jan -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.330 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 02- Jan -13 $ 1,290,000.00 0.270 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 03- Dec -12 $ 1,135,000.00 0.260 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 27- Feb -12 27- Feb -14 $ 2,112,014.00 0.450 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 27- Feb -12 27- Feb -14 $ 450,000.00 0.450 UICCU CD 9- Mar -12 01- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.285 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 9- Mar -12 08- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.335 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 22- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.340 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 28- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.360 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 31- May -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.380 TOTAL $ 178,151,612.71 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2012 INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 12/31/11 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE PURCHASES 1/01/12 TO 3/31/12 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 04- Jan -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.280 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 02- Jan -13 $ 1,290,000.00 0.270 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 03- Dec -12 $ 1,135,000.00 0.260 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 19- Jan -12 11- Jan -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.330 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 27- Feb -12 27- Feb -14 $ 2,112,014.00 0.450 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 27- Feb -12 27- Feb -14 $ 450,000.00 0.450 UICCU CD 9- Mar -12 01- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.285 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 9- Mar -12 08- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.335 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 31- May -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.380 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 22- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.340 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 28- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.360 TOTAL PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 1/01/12 TO 3/31/12 WELLS FARGO CD 16- Mar -11 03- Jan -12 $ (1,200,000.00) 0.300 IPAIT CD 14- Jan -11 13- Jan -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.850 WELLS FARGO CD 10- Feb -11 27- Jan -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.300 WELLS FARGO CD 10- Feb -11 03- Feb -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Mar -11 24- Feb -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.370 IPAIT - WATER CD 28- Feb -08 27- Feb -12 $ (450,000.00) 4.100 IPAIT - WATER CD 28- Feb -08 27- Feb -12 $ (2,234,789.00) 4.100 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Mar -11 02- Mar -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.450 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Mar -11 09- Mar -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.520 IPAIT 2007 GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 11- Dec -09 N/A $ (164.37) VARIABLE IPAIT 2008 GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 15- Jul -09 N/A $ (24,055.35) VARIABLE IPAIT 2009 C GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ (3,930.25) VARIABLE IPAIT 2010 B GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Aug -10 N/A $ (25,291.11) VARIABLE IPAIT 2011 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 08- Jun -11 N/A $ (50,942.52) VARIABLE IPAIT 2008 GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 15- Jul -09 N/A $ (24,707.90) VARIABLE IPAIT 2009 C GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ (285.85) VARIABLE IPAIT 2010 B GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Aug -10 N/A $ (56,386.85) VARIABLE IPAIT 2011 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 08- Jun -11 N/A $ (285,946.05) VARIABLE TOTAL REDEMPTIONS INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 3/31/12 $ 178,521,097.96 $ 15,987,014.00 $ (16,356,499.25) $ 178,151,612.71 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND 3/31/12 3/31/11 FUND INVESTMENT INVESTMENT TYPE AMOUNT AMOUNT ALL OPERATING FUNDS GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND BOND RESERVE FUND TOTAL CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION $139,698,525.77 $113,559,275.04 $ 24,257,057.94 $ 13,845,000.00 $ 14,196,029.00 $ 19,728,804.00 $178,151,612.71 $147,133,079.04 TOTAL $178,151,612.71 $147,133,079.04 3/31/12 3131/11 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT DEPOSITORY NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT LIMIT BANK OF THE WEST $ - $ 4,000,000.00 $ 75,000,000.00 BANKER'S TRUST $ 10,822,057.94 $ - N/A CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST $ 7,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ - $ - $ 15,000,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK $ - $ 2,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 HILLS BANK &.TRUST $ 9,290,781.67 $ 9,290,781.67 $ 25,000,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 49,407,744.10 $ 37,953,282.37 N/A LIBERTY BANK $ - $ 9,000,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 MIDWESTONE BANK $ 55,225,000.00 $ 32,500,000.00 $ 75,000,000.00 TWO RIVERS BANK $ 9,197,315.00 $ 6,197,315.00 $ 10,000,000.00 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ 13,146,700.00 $ 1,146,700.00 $ 50,000,000.00 US BANK $ - $ - $ 65,000,000.00 US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES $ - $ - N/A WELLS FARGO BANK $ 24,062,014.00 $ 42,045,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 WEST BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 TOTAL $178,151,612.71 $147,133,079.04 N N r CL o- w C Q N E co 'C N -I- U (a cu N LL U -� N U cu cu 3 U) cu a) cu cu d od �e y R O v 'd -0 73 ^C1 'G t3 'C T) 'G 'U -0 'O -0 'O "C1 -0 •L1 'O 'tJ 7C "C) 'C '. TJ " .. v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0.0 C C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 zzZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZzZZZZZZZZZZZZ 0 0 0 0101010 o 01010 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d U. to 'Ll �cd Ln pQ R N M O °O r 4 � E O O d V^ v (� " u _ G, O " 4.1 v cC W rl a C M b V O (n O u GN O ' 0 O u C O U 4-1 y v �M N — O v sa Cl v ai U � C C C `3 w P. C .b s O W O O 0 ` W c4 � U a N y �+ b v C7 O o O �' -4 C U �' L4 "Q u Q c� y Q 0 m u v v .0 `� v w v U ^- U V v u v 0 `� v p 8 v cu [Co f11 pq Pq W = pq m tom' � U U U U U Q Q Q Q I m o �O N G O v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v y j y j j v V] v VJ v V1 v (n v fn v N v fn v (n v In v (/) v try v (/� v fA v V7 v fn v Vi v y v V) v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v O O O O O O O fn fn N VJ VJ VJ to N VJ fn fn h N h y N VJ y (n N N N fn h VJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 h C 0 fn C 0 h C 0 N C 0 y g 0 y C 0 to C 0 VI C N C C V1 C y C (n C C N C V] C h C Vi C y C N C N C N C N C N C 0 C w C N C 0 C w C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 0 0 ..0-0 0 0 ZzZzzzzzzzZZZzZZZZZZZzzuuzzzzzzzzzzzzZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 010,010 0 0 0 .o o ~ C N cc v � v O p^ O C u N En O C U U p^p u'w U _ � 0 r u c� ., _ v m v O sc'i O j � N O m ai m' v � U � o ��j c1 H °-1 � �G� � S ` ) x a Q � � � o � u c� ° u '" `+ v �' B N °_ v N -14 C U o _ v �" sa U G4 2 a ° Ch V) v v u v �' CIO — i v oo °° "O (7 ° 0 y W U (� cc�q v s v N .� N � —tg c 0 -4 � c C o - v o U wwwww wv w 7 couc700� 7w � ° ° a a Z0m 0 d O y E y C O v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn G 0 N o 0 m o 0 w Q 0 m Q 0 w C 0 VJ C 0 w o 0 w o 0 h o 0 N Q 0 G 0 0 G 0 0 q 0 0 o 0 C 0 C 0 c� ccI 'iJ cd '� cd cd «t ca «t 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 � 0-0-0.0-0 cK 0 cd 0 cd 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZZZZZZ uZZZZZ u ullZZZZZZZ R m F7 C—% Q V O N 0 d (� N u �� �� i v.^ N u K! I � o� m v N cv U r C, O v � ° x o - q m v pq o U0 N N Pq 0 0 � � .v �,-• � o o P Ki P P ��UO a ��� d o �O � e y ro O Q) V u Q) N V N u VJ h y O O O O O V) O N O h O y O N O N O h O fn O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O Vi O to O (n O zi (d B O O O� r{O� O O .00 � 0 O { O� — { rO� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O zzz _Uzzzzzzzzzz ,O W 7 l0 1p +" ~ F� N o Ci N w g _t v �t L " O a� N u Q C-S o a ��x v 0 a N U V) 0 �'uFG�� °o z y 0 �oo� CL oz G— -4 Ur " -4 �" > cd u •� cn w 00 a� B U a O O c� m cn Ems- IU- � F � � N I N . S O x 0 s 0 V ii V 0 v 0 U M aCi a" A+ N W •� U N ILI � N w , w O N � W v v w w •-C%Q ao w We invite YOU to attend a forum. IP17 The City of Iowa City WHEN: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 TIME: 7:00 PM WHERE: Iowa City Public Library, Rm A 123 South Linn Street, IC TOPIC: The Police Citizens Review Board will be holding a Community Forum on the Complaint Review Process and purview of the Board; and also for the purpose of hearing Citizens' views on the policies, practices and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. (Find ICPD General Orders at www.ic ov.orq under Police Dept) QUESTIONS & COMMENTS: Send your questions or comments you'd like addressed at the forum to the following by Monday, April 30th: Please include full name and address. (All correspondence is public) City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Or e-mail to PCRB staff: kellie - tuttle @iowa - city.org The Board will attempt to address all correspondence received. The forum will be taped for rebroadcast. l `���- p CITY OF IOWA CITY '2'" IP18 MEMORANDUM ENENEN�� Date: April 2, 2012 To: City Council From: Adam Bentley, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager Re: Announcement- Board and Commission Training Introduction /Announcement: On Tuesday, May 22"d from 6 -8pm at the Iowa City Public Library Room A, the City will be sponsoring a training session for members of our Boards and Commissions. The session will be facilitated by Jeff Schott from the Institute for Public Affairs. The City will also tape the presentation so that it may be referenced at a future point in time. The City Council is welcome to attend. If you are interested, please RSVP to the City Clerk. BOARD AND COMMISSIONER TRAINING This two -hour program — delivered at the client's site— presents the basic laws and concepts that apply to local government boards and commissions. TOPICS INCLUDE: Legal Requirements Public Records L.; " i N.. Law Conflicts-of-Interest Purchasing and Contracts Other Important La Doing What is Right Beard Duiies and Responsibilities h; Policy Development and Analysis Policy and Er gr rn Evaluation and Oversight Enhancing Board Effectiveness Strategies for Enhancing Board Eecvess Board Orientation Te ni o .1 Decision- Acting Strate , Questions to sk as Board Mer, The training can be provided for just one city (or even one Board or Commission) or jointly for a number of communities in a geographic area. Fees: $250 per community (unlimited registration) plus direct expenses The Institute of Public Affairs Tel: 319.335.4520 124 Grand Ave Court Email: jell -schott@uiowa.edu Iowa City, IA 52246 julie - Collins @uiowa.edu www.ipa - uiowa.org * City Clerk Karr will make reservations if .you are interested * v No S i on Iowa CITY AREA DEVELOPMENT IP19 ICAD.Group is e'AMvx1U cuting a bold, new game plan. Vision 2030 is forward thinking and pivotal to our region's well -being and community quality of life. Please join the ICAD Group Board of Directors and our Vision 2030 Campaign Leadership for breakfast on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at the Hotel Vetro.' TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012 HOTEL VETRO 201 South Linn Street, Iowa City GRAND BALLROOM Doors open at 7:00 a.m. Breakfast and Program from 7:30 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. Please call (319) 354 -3939 to reserve your seat or visit www.icadgroup.com /vision2030. RSVP DEADLINE IS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18. Pike Powers, co- founder of the Texas Technology Initiative and a nationally recognized authority on high technology economic development, will speak about accomplishing "economic transformation." Mr. Powers championed a collaborative approach between business, academia and government, which transformed the city of Austin and Central Texas into a global center for venture capital and technological innovation. IP20 MINUTES APPROVED CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MARCH 13, 2012 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Matt Hayek, Susan Mims, Michelle Payne Staff Present: Wendy Ford, Jeff Davidson, Geoff Fruin, Tracy Hightshoe, Kevin O'Malley, Tom Markus, Eleanor Dilkes Others Present: Gigi Wood, Gregg Hennigan, Marc Moen RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Payne moved to recommend to the City Council the request for Financial Assistance for Redevelopment of 114 S. Dubuque Street, as discussed. Hayek seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mims at 8:05 A.M. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS: Chairperson Mims welcomed everyone and asked that those present introduce themselves. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 23, 2012, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING: Chairperson Mims asked if there was approval of the minutes as submitted. Jeff Davidson noted that the record should reflect that City Manager Markus was also present at this meeting, albeit late from another meeting. Hayek moved to accept the February 23, 2012, meeting minutes as amended. Payne seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF 114 S. DUBUQUE STREET: Davidson addressed the Members concerning the proposed project at 114 S. Dubuque Street. He noted that the applicant, Marc Moen, is also present and available for questions that may arise. Davidson began by explaining the location of this project — the current Wells Fargo building on the pedestrian mall. This would be a mixed -use building, with retail on the first floor and either retail or office on the second floor, with two additional floors of office, and then various residential units on the remaining floors. Davidson added that the applicant is required to have retail on the first floor, but that the other floors of retail /office are at the developer's discretion. This is an almost $11 million project that will have a positive impact on the City's tax base. Davidson continued, explaining the parking requirements that must be met in this development. Davidson stated that the developer is requesting $2.5 million in TIF financing for this project. He added that he has hard copies of the formal request including the building concept plans, and a letter from the City Attorney's office regarding issues with Black Hawk Mini -Park for members. The discussion continued, with Davidson noting that the applicant has stated that without TIF assistance from the City, this project will not be built. Projections show that the $2.5 million could be paid back by new taxes generated by the project in approximately 18 years. Davidson described the impact to the pedestrian mall during construction, should this project move forward. He also spoke briefly about the City Attorney's letter addressing other issues with the ped mall. Marc Moen then addressed Members. He stated that in working with staff, they have tried to come up with a building that addresses the stated need for office space and affordable residential units downtown. Moen continued, stating that he read the City Attorney's letter last night and that he is somewhat concerned with what she has stated. A major concern is the possibility of future development of the Black Hawk mini park next to this site. City Attorney Dilkes responded to concerns, further clarifying her recent letter regarding this project. The discussion continued, with staff and members weighing in on what, if any, development might occur in the area surrounding this project. Members agreed that the Black Hawk Mini -Park would most likely stay a park — an integral part of the pedestrian plaza. They also agreed that some sort of assurance to this would be helpful for the developer. Dilkes stated that another way to assure that this area isn't developed in the future would be to dedicate it as right -of -way. Another issue under discussion was 'air rights,' concerning the balconies being proposed for this building and the overhang of the alley, for example. Dilkes gave Members a brief history on this issue, and Davidson noted what other communities have done in similar situations. Moen then responded to Members' questions regarding this project. Members noted their concern with the term of this proposed TIF project — 18 years for the City to repay itself from the new taxes generated by the project. Mims stated that she believes this will be a successful project and that there's a chance for earlier repayment if valuations are higher than predicted. She added that she would be in favor of recommending this project to the full Council. Hayek agreed, stating that the 18 years is longer than he would like to see, as well, but that he believes these are conservative estimates. The Members agreed that the City Attorney will look into the right -of -way issue as discussed. Payne moved to recommend to the City Council the request for Financial Assistance for Redevelopment of 114 S. Dubuque Street, as discussed. Hayek seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. REPORT ON DISBURSEMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR BUSY COWORKING LLC: Ford addressed Members regarding Busy Coworking LLC. She explained how the coworking model works, stating that it is an office that can house 20 people at a time, has wireless internet connection and other office amenities, such as a copy machine and printer. This type of space allows people either to work individually on their own work, or to even have collaborative efforts with others in the coworking site, all while having an `office' to work from. The location of Busy Coworking LLC is in the Chait Building at 218 E. Washington Street, on the third floor. Ford then responded to questions, giving further clarification of the operations at Busy Coworking LLC. Tom Markus also clarified how this operation will work. STAFF TIME: Ford stated that the meeting scheduled for next week is not a sure thing at this point. She will let Members know if this meeting is going to be postponed. Hightshoe added that a request had been received for CDBG funds, but that after review, staff could not make a favorable recommendation to the EDC. She briefly explained how they arrived at this decision. COMMITTEE TIME: None. OTHER BUSINESS: The next Economic Development Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, March 30, 2012, at 8:00 A.M. in the Helling Conference Room at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: Hayek moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M. Payne seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused TERM N w w NAME EXP. 4 N w w ►� o Michelle 01/02/14 X X X Payne Matt 01/02/13 X X X Hayek Susan 01/02/13 X X X Mims Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused IP21 MINUTES APPROVED CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2012 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Susan Mims, Michelle Payne Members Absent: Matt Hayek Staff Present: Wendy Ford, Tracy Hightshoe, Geoff Fruin, Jeff Davidson, Tom Markus, Others Present: Gigi Wood, Nancy Quellhorst, Joe Raso RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Payne moved to recommend to the City Council the request for Financial Assistance for Plant Expansion at Alpla, 2258 Heinz Road, Iowa City. Mims seconded the motion. Motion carried 2 -0; Hayek absent. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mims at 8:11 A.M. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS: Chairperson Mims welcomed everyone and asked that those present introduce themselves. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PLANT EXPANSION AT ALPLA LOCATED AT 2258 HEINZ ROAD: Wendy Ford addressed Members, giving them some background information on the Alpla facility in Iowa City. She stated that Alpla has approached the City regarding an expansion of their production facility. The expansion will occur here in Iowa City, or at their Jefferson City, Missouri, facility. They have approached the governmental bodies at both locations to compare incentives available for such an expansion. This project involves a $12.2 million capital investment by Alpla, about $1 million of which would be the taxable valuation of a 10,000 square foot addition. Previous Alpla projects also received economic development grants— one, a 4 -year and the other a 5- year TIF rebate. Staff then determined that if they did a 4 -year TIF on the new value created for this expansion it could mean a potential $170,000 property tax savings for Alpla over the four years. She further noted that this amount is smaller than the previous expansions due to the taxable value portion of the proposed project. The overall value of the project is high due to the new technology that will be used, and due to the addition of 34 new jobs. Mims stated that she would like to clarify that a large portion of the capital investment is in machinery and equipment, which under Iowa State Law is not taxable. 2 Ford continued, noting that of the 34 jobs, 20 will pay above the current county median wage. At the end of three years, all of the jobs are expected to exceed the county median wage. The existing 190 or so employees will be retained. Ford stated that staff took a tour of the Alpla facility recently and noted that they have made several expansions without City assistance, as well. Jeff Davidson stated that staff is asking for recommendation to Council for a 4 -year TIF rebate project, not to exceed $170,000, for Alpla's expansion. Members then asked questions of staff regarding this request. Mims stated that she believes this is a good request and that she would entertain a motion to recommend to the full City Council. Payne moved to recommend to the City Council the request for Financial Assistance for Plant Expansion at Alpla, 2258 Heinz Road, Iowa City. Mims seconded the motion. Motion carried 2 -0; Hayek absent. STAFF TIME: None. COMMITTEE TIME: None. ADJOURNMENT: Payne moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 A.M. Mims seconded the motion. Motion carried 2 -0; Hayek absent. Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused TERM N w w NAME EXP. -4 N w 3 w N o Michelle 01/02/14 X X X X Payne Matt 01/02113 X X X O/ Hayek E Susan 01/02/13 X X X X Mims Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused IP22 MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE: JANUARY 17, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introductions...................................................................................................... ............................... l Update on the Pre - Schematic Design Process Including Review Of Issues Addressed and Work Remaining, Timeline and Process for Completion ............................ ..............................2 JailDesign ............................................................................................. ..............................3 Site Plan Schematic Designs ................................................................. ..............................4 StaffRecommendations ........................................................................ ..............................7 Report from Alternatives and Treatments SubCommittee ................................ .............................14 Report from Public Information/Outreach SubCommittee ............................... .............................14 JailDeficiencies ................................................................................... .............................14 Report from Facilities SubCommittee ............................................................... .............................15 Addition of New Members to the Committee ................................................... .............................15 Additional Comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members ........................15 SetNext Meeting Date ...................................................................................... .............................15 Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 4:30 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan. Absent: Janelle Rettig. Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present were: Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion, Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, County Attorney Janet Lyness, Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Judge Doug Russell, Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton, and Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston. Absent: MECCA Director Ron Berg, University of Iowa Student Representative Drew Lakin, Public Defender's Managing Attorney Peter Persaud. Staff present: Executive Assistant Andy Johnson, Deputy Auditor Nathan Reckman, and Auditor's Office Recording Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz. INTRODUCTIONS Those present introduced themselves as follows, Supervisor Rod Sullivan, Supervisor Sally Stutsman, Supervisor Pat Harney, Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek. CJCC Members: Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton, Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, Bar Association Representative Jim McCarragher District Court Judge Doug Russell, Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion. Neumann Monson Architects Principal Kim McDonald, Neumann Monson Architects Principal Dwight Dobberstein, Venture Architects Design Director and Principal John Cain, Venture Architects Project Manager and Principal Tom Poweleit, Facilities Manager Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 2 Eldon Slaughter, Major Steve Dolezal, Captain Dave Wagner, Lieutenant Kevin Bell, Board of Supervisor's Executive Assistant Andy Johnson, Deputy Auditor Nathan Reckman, Supervisor Terrence Neuzil, and County Attorney Janet Lyness. UPDATE ON THE PRE- SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROCESS INCLUDING REVIEW OF ISSUES ADDRESSED AND WORK REMAINING, TIMELINE AND PROCESS FOR COMPLETION. Neumann Monson Architects (Neumann Monson) Principal Dwight Dobberstein said he met this morning with County Attorney Janet Lyness and County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek. Venture Architects (Venture) Design Director and Principal John Cain distributed several handouts. He said he and Dobberstein have met with all department heads and have also discussed the individual building designs with Lyness and Pulkrabek. During those discussions, they led each group through a discussion of site and master plan options. Cain said the design team has received recommendations from county staff members about which options they want to pursue. He said Venture Architects would like to narrow these eight options down to two or three today, in order to ask Construction Cost Systems, Inc. (CCS) to prepare some preliminary budget estimates. Cain would expect to present the options and budget estimates at the next Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) meeting. Then he would hope the CJCC would select one design which will likely include some modifications. CCS will then prepare another estimate to present at the March 7th CJCC meeting. The final presentation is expected on April 4th. Cain said CCS will not have time to complete the estimate between today and February 1st. He asked permission to reschedule that meeting to February 8th. Board members agreed they can meet on February 13th at 4:30 p.m. Cain said there are four buildings in this project, two new and two refurbished buildings. These include the reuse of the historic Courthouse and the existing Jail, a new 8 -room courts building, and the new 245 -bed jail building. Cain said the first plan in the handout shows a typical courts floor. There will be two floors in this project, each of which will have four courtrooms for a total of eight. The public corridor is designed at the top of the plan. Elevators would bring the public up to that floor. There will be entrances into each of the courtrooms and there are some multipurpose rooms and attorney conference spaces along the public corridor. The public will only have access only to the corridor, the conference rooms, the restrooms, and the entrances into each courtroom. The back portion of the building will house the judges' chambers and their staff support offices. A staff corridor will run along the back of the building. The intent is to separate staff and judges from the public. Cain said an inmate elevator has also been included in the plan. Inmates will ultimately end up in the inmate elevator for transportation to the holding area, regardless of where the new jail is constructed. There will be a third path; the public will come Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 3 from one side, the staff from another, and the inmates and offenders coming from a third. That is an important concept in a modern courthouse. This plan is a response to increase security in the courthouse. Sullivan asked what the red area represents in the lower right of the plan. Cain said that will be a staff elevator. Sullivan said he assumes the side corridors will require key card access. Cain said yes. Part of this plan is to eliminate staircases in each of the four corners of the building, while still providing two exits. The jury deliberation rooms are located off a secure corridor in the middle of the plan. There can be controlled access for the use of those rooms in a non juried environment, and the rooms can be used as conference rooms rather than sitting empty all the time. Bar Association Representative James McCarragher asked if the jury rooms on the outside are accessed through the same corridor. Cain said there are three jury deliberation rooms programmed for the entire building, two on this floor, and a larger deliberation room in another floor plan which Cain is not presenting today. McCarragher said the deliberation room on the right side has a private corridor. He asked if the deliberation rooms on the left have the same access to that corridor. Cain said the two jury deliberation rooms are to be used by all four court rooms. McCarragher clarified that the corridor is primarily to access the jury deliberation rooms. Cain said yes, but the corridor can also serve as access to the judges' chambers. It provides the public with access to that area through a controlled entrance, without having to walk through the courtrooms. Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen asked how many inmates the holding area can accommodate. Cain said there are two holding rooms programmed now. One holding room could house one person and the other might hold up to five or six. The building is fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and they are discussing installing a hydraulic lift in the courtrooms. Jail Design Cain referred to the plan for the jail. He clarified that the plan shows a 245 -bed jail, not 280 beds. The plan includes forty -eight dorm beds, with the remaining 197 beds on the other floor. The plan includes a podular design. Podular- direct is a design configuration where staff is located directly in the housing areas face -to -face with the inmates. Podular- indirect is where staff is separated from inmates by security glazing. This plan includes a combination of both. There would be 64 beds under direct supervision, and the remaining beds under indirect supervision. This occurs in two housing pods. Cain said modern jails are two levels. There is a main floor and a mezzanine level, so that when entering the day rooms cells will be seen up above and straight ahead. This design is driven by lines of sight and staffing efficiency. A control center is located in the center of the pods with views directly into the individual pods allowing offenders to Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 4 be classified differently. Males and females can be located in the same area yet remain out of view from each other. Cain said another pod will include both direct and indirect supervision. While this plan does not show it, they are also discussing incorporating special needs cells. These cells would be used for inmates of different health needs classification, such as medical and others who cannot function properly in a group environment. All cells are envisioned to be sized so they can be doubled and comply with the State's jail standards. Cain said there are multipurpose spaces in the plan, which will be located off the housing pods resulting in greater staff efficiency. Each pod area will include multipurpose spaces for classrooms and other activities, and outdoor and indoor exercise areas exposed to natural daylight and ventilation. Those have good lines of sight from the officers' station. Staffing is the major cost of operating a jail and can represent as much as 80% of the cost. They will always be working toward a staff - efficient design. Site Plan Schematic Designs Cain said he will present eight site plans, most of which are affected by the General Services Administration (GSA) parking lot. They asked what they could design using only the land of the Courthouse block. They understand there is the potential to use some land on Harrison Street and a narrow strip of County -owned parking land adjacent to the GSA lot. Early on in the study, they determined it made sense to remodel the existing Courthouse into the County Attorney's Offices. The first floor of the building would include multipurpose conference spaces. The second floor would be reserved for the criminal division of the County Attorney's Office. The north half of the third floor would be reserved for the juvenile and civil divisions of the County Attorney's Office. The historic Courthouse will be reused as a courtroom. Inmates would not enter that courthouse. Design Concept A Cain said the Sheriffs Office would be located in the remodeled Jail. He said the yellow portion in the diagrams represents the proposed jail, while the pink color represents the courts. In design concept A, the new building is located behind the Courthouse. The main entrance is located in a plaza to the south of the Courthouse. That would be the main controlled entrance point to the building. The three levels of the proposed jail would be tucked into the hill. There is approximately 30 feet of height between Capitol Street and the back of the Courthouse. There would be about two and a half floors of the jail in that height. Three floors of the courts would be located on top of the jail. The movement of inmates would occur through an elevator between the jail below and the courts up above. Future expansion would occur to the south, as appropriate. Design Concept B Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 5 Cain said design concept B is similar to A, except the courts portion has been rotated. The building entrance is closer to the street and more easily seen by the public. The back of the Courthouse is also more visible because the three stories of the courts building would not be blocking the view. He thinks the common consensus of the CJCC is to try to preserve views of the Courthouse. Design Concept C Cain said design concept C is considerably more radical. The proposed jail and courthouse would be separated into standalone facilities. The jail would be five levels on Capitol Street. There is only one pod per floor which makes this design more staff inefficient. Concept C includes only two court rooms per floor which may compromise the economy of scale. Since judges are not assigned to a particular courtroom, there may be a lot more movement of staff in that staff elevator. Both buildings certainly create a smaller footprint and impact on the site. Preserve the views of the Courthouse is ideal. McCarragher asked if there are two separate entrances in this design, one for the jail and one for the courthouse. Cain said he thinks they will have two separate entrances anyway. There will be a secure courthouse entrance, but there is a support floor to the jail. There is discussion of locating an arraignment room there, and, there is also movement of work release offenders using that main entrance. It may not be desirable to move all of those people through the main entrance of the courthouse. McCarragher said he thought the goal was a singular entrance for both the jail and courthouse to reduce the areas that require security. Cain said the staffing of both buildings is part of the design. The jail entrance will need to be staffed 24/7. Technically, they would want to look at that after they decide where the buildings might be located because if there is a chance to have a single entrance, then maybe they will. McCarragher said he is about to proceed with presentations to the public and he needs this information. One of the things included in the publication was that there is single entrance into the justice center building. Cain asked if McCarragher can say there is a single entrance into the courts. McCarragher said they were talking about having a single entrance into a building and then going one direction for the jail and one direction for the courts. Cain suggested revisiting that question later because in some of the other options there may be some challenges to that, depending on where the buildings end up being located. Stutsman asked if the view of the Courthouse from the south is obstructed in concept C. Cain said yes. Harney asked if that would happen anyway with the University of Iowa's (UI) parking ramp on the other side of the street. He said he thinks the ramp is supposed to be four or five levels. Cain said probably so. Design Concepts D, E, and F Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 6 Cain said design concepts D through H will talk about separating the jail from the courts. Design concept D is the first design with the three -story jail on the south block and the proposed courthouse building running north to south along S. Capitol Street. The red dashed line in the diagram indicates encroachment on the GSA property to the east. They discussed whether it is possible to build away from the red line. If that is the case, they are talking about having a cantilever not past the property line on the west side. Clearly, placing the jail on the west one -third of the GSA block forces the discussion of the status is of the GSA land acquisition. It is beginning to have an impact on the justice center options. Allen asked how the jail would be connected to the courts building. Cain said the red arrow on the design represents a secure connection between the buildings. Allen asked if the connection is above or below ground. Cain said it will not be below ground, but could be an on -grade connection, connect a floor above, or maybe it could be a bridge connecting the roofs of both buildings. The important thing is the connection will be secure and used by inmates with their escorts. Cain said this may be the place to discuss the second entrance issue. In the designs they just reviewed, it may be possible, depending on how the jail and the courts relate to each other, they could take the single entrance down to the jail level. Perhaps what is more problematic in design concept D is a corridor with one side that is secure and the other side is for the public. Depending upon the configuration, it would be reasonable to think that somewhere on the street level there might be an entrance to the jail that meets the jail's needs without having to enter through the proposed courthouse. Cain said design concept E rotates the proposed courthouse building to run east to west along E. Harrison Street and preserves some views of the Courthouse. This diagram shows that over time, parking could be developed on the north -west corner of the Courthouse block. In fact, proposed parking is included in all the designs. Courthouse expansion is proposed to the north. If the land to the east of the proposed jail is available, the jail could expand in that direction. Cain said design concept F rotates the proposed jail to run east to west along E. Harrison. There may be the potential for a land swap with the GSA. The City of Iowa City might have some additional plans which might include a master plan for development along S. Clinton Street. Cain said design concept G tightens up the five -level jail to a smaller footprint and placed it on the northwest corner of the GSA block. This has the least impact on the lot with expansion possibilities to the south or perhaps the east. Cain said design concept H tackles the question of whether the jail could actually fit in the narrow strip of land to the west of the GSA property as well as taking a three -story courts building and pulling the Clerk of Courts out into a one -story building facing east. Then, the courts are on two levels to the back. Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 7 Staff Recommendations Cain said design concept B was the preferred option in being on the block with the Courthouse. This is if the County is not able to build on the GSA lot for the time being. He said there was discussion about concepts E and F and suggested County Attorney Janet Lyness and County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek's had different preferences, but that Lyness respected County Sheriff opinion on where the jail should be located. Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion asked Pulkrabek how the Sheriff's Office will be connected to these buildings. Pulkrabek said it does not appear they will be connected, but they are still discussing it. Champion said she thinks that would be really inconvenient and Pulkrabek agreed. McCarragher said another piece of information included in the public information letter is that the Sheriff's Office would be located inside the structure enabling prompt responses to emergencies in the justice center. Sullivan said the County does not own the GSA property and he does not think plans can be made as though they do own it. It is really difficult for him to imagine going to the public with a plan that includes land the County does not have access to. They should only present the public with a plan that only includes land the County owns. He thinks they can show some future expansion goals, but if he was voting on this as a member of the public, he would not vote for a plan that includes land the County does not own or may never acquire. That may be a deal breaker to some voters. Judge Doug Russell asked if the future expansion of the jail portion might include transferring the Sheriff's Office to the expansion area and vacating the present Sheriff's Office. Pulkrabek said no. The Sheriff's Office is considering whether the cost benefits are in remodeling the Sheriffs Office or selling it and incorporating it in there. That is yet to be determined. Russell asked what Pulkrabek's preference is. Pulkrabek said he prefers to incorporate the Sheriff's Office in the new justice center and sell the old Sheriff's Office property. Champion said she cannot support a project that does not include the Sheriff's Office in the jail. Pulkrabek said he is hearing that $39 million is not enough money to build the Sheriff's Office and jail in the same building. Stutsman said it seems like space is a limitation and she wondered if more money would really address that issue. Pulkrabek said if they sell the Sheriff's Office and invest those proceeds into the justice center, then that might be enough money. At this point, the UI has not made a firm offer on the Sheriff's Office, and Pulkrabek has not yet heard what it would cost to refurbish the Sheriff's Office. Cain said the construction cost estimates will be completed in a few weeks. But with the information Cain has available today, he thinks it has become clear that the total project cost will exceed $39 million. On way to trim costs is to focus the $39 million on new construction, keep the County Attorney's Office in the current location for the time being, and plan for a future remodeling project outside the scope of the $39 million. The Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 8 alternative is to remove a portion of the justice center which means removing a number of jail beds and courtrooms from the project. But Cain does not think that makes sense. Sullivan asked if there is a difference in operating costs between the jail configurations. Cain said a four or five -story jail would require more staff and so would be more expensive. Other than that, operating costs are the same. The distance between the jail and the courts is probably shorter in the vertical design of concept B than in the horizontal design of concept E. He does not know if transporting inmates in concept E would require additional staff but it is a longer distance. Lyness asked if the jail could be moved farther north. Cain said they need a better understanding of the utilities in that area and what may be involved in abandoning or relocating them. Cain said they are more confident with the designs where the buildings sit on the ground than they are with the designs where the buildings sit on the hill. Larry Wilson asked if the architects could develop a list of criteria against which they could evaluate the designs. For example, cost efficiency and reuse of the current Jail. Cain said Neumann Monson and Venture would like to get direction from the Board at today's meeting so they can begin pricing the project. He asked if that is not why they are meeting today. Wilson said before he can make a choice, an important criterion for him to evaluate is which concept is the most efficient to build. Cain said they will know that information on February 13th. Today, however, they would like to eliminate the design concepts that do not make sense. Cain said Sullivan said they cannot present an option to the voting public that uses the GSA property unless the County acquires that land. Therefore, only design concepts A, B, or C could be considered. Sullivan said concept H is also a possibility, but it includes a five -level jail which is more expensive to operate. Wilson asked about presenting two options to the voting public, one which does not include the GSA property and another option the County would prefer if they acquire GSA property. He asked if that would confuse the voters. Champion said yes. Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston asked if they can afford to build the Sheriff's Office in the proposed jail building if they sell the current Sheriff's Office. Cain said not for $39 million. The question is how much money the County will get from the sale of the Sheriff's Office and whether that money can be added to the $39 million. Neuzil asked if the plans could be designed so that the Sheriff's Office could easily be added to the new building when the County sells the existing Sheriff's Office. Cain said yes, as part of a master plan. Neuzil said in Concept B, future expansion is shown to kind of hopscotch over the proposed courthouse. Cain said to imagine something bigger than the footprint of the proposed jail building being the Sheriff's Office, and then pick that space up and add it somewhere into the diagram. Neuzil asked if the Sheriff's Office would be added to the yellow area in the design where the three -level proposed jail is shown, or would be included in the jail future expansion area. Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 9 Lyness said she does not think it hopscotches; it just goes further south. Neuzil asked if the proposed jail goes under the proposed courthouse. Russell asked if, in design concept A, the jail is underneath the courts. Cain said yes. Neuzil said so the proposed jail extends north -south along S. Capitol Street from E. Court Street to E. Harrison Street. Cain said yes. Neuzil confirmed that the top level is the proposed courthouse. Pulkrabek explained the building will be six stories with the top three levels being the proposed courthouse. Champion asked why they would move the footprint of the Sheriff's Office, that's a four -story building, isn't it. Pulkrabek said it is two stories. Champion said then the County really does need a new jail. Pulkrabek said the Jail is on the upper floor and the Sheriff's Office is on the main floor. Neuzil said if concept B is an option, then the construction should support the future adding the Sheriff's Office. Cain said initially he did not want to increase the height of the proposed jail. Neuzil said he thinks the southern view of the Courthouse will likely be obstructed if the UI is discussing building a 4,000 space parking lot. The focus should be on preserving the front view of the Courthouse as best they can. Whiston asked why people prefer concept B over concept A. She prefers the aesthetics of concept A because of the location of a future parking ramp. Lyness said they did not realize there was going to be a five -story parking ramp to the west of the Courthouse. They were looking at protecting the view of the Courthouse and thought it would be better to have a building more to the south. Downtown Iowa City is located to the north and it would be best to keep the north view of the Courthouse. If a parking ramp is built across the street, then concept A is fine. Neuzil said the UI parking ramp is speculative. Neuzil asked which design is best suited for future expansion, without including the GSA lot at this point. Dobberstein said shifting the jail north to the property line and close Harrison Street, they could probably get one pod without using the GSA property. Cain pointed out the location of two pods and the third pod. Neuzil asked if going east is possible. Cain said it would be a tight fit. Dobberstein said the building would have to extend all the way to the north property line. Neuzil said he was wondering why the justice center would not extend to the north property line anyway. Cain said it could. Lyness asked if the proposed courthouse in concept B could be built further east in Concept B. Cain said given the location of the property, he thinks here is where another floor would be added vertically. (Cain pointed to an area on the diagram.) Cain said in the short term, they intend to shell one of the eight court rooms. To consider a multimillion- dollar expansion to the courts, he thinks the expansion would be vertical. This expansion may include courtrooms where they will want to move inmates which will require extending the elevator another floor. Otherwise, they will have to look into another way to move inmates. Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 10 Cain presented a few challenges to building the justice center on the Courthouse block and said those challenges reinforce the need to expand vertically. Neuzil said he prefers concept A or B, and planning to maximize the use of the block by utilizing the entire western side from Court Street to Harrison Street. That seems to maximize the potential for future expansion. Cain asked the Board to please narrow their choices down to three. He proposes concepts A and B, and the proposed jail from concept H. Without bias toward any of those concepts, they will get formal cost estimates for each concept and present those for discussion at the next meeting. Sullivan asked if concept H will incur higher staffing costs. Cain said yes. Sullivan asked why the Board would want to consider that. Cain said the culprit is this floor plan. On the second page of the handout, the one with design concept B, the red line around the south block is the property line. The property line along the west edge of the block does not include the right -of -way that the County potentially has. He said they can continue to work on paring the plan down to fit on the County's property. Cain said the three -level proposed jail includes a floor for support staff, and then a main and a mezzanine level above. The footprint of this is driven by the housing pod. There is a lot of unassigned space in the footprint below, depending upon what they put into that. Because of the fact they will be digging into the hill, perhaps they only need to build the first floor as much as is needed, so that a stepping occurs in the foundation wall. Sullivan said he thinks concept A makes the most sense; it gives the County the most flexibility in the future and only deals with land the County currently owns. There is also valuable land in the area designated for parking. Neuzil said it especially makes sense if the justice center is moved to the north property line. That way if they had to expand, they could make a U -shape around the existing building. Champion agreed. She asked if it would be possible to sell the current Sheriff's Office to fund relocating the Sheriff's Office in the proposed jail. She thinks that is really important to locate the Sheriff's Office in the same building with the jail and it seems ridiculous to locate the Sheriff's Office across the street. Logsden said she thinks the community would have questions about that too. Champion said she supports concept A and again said the County should sell the Jail building and use those proceeds to locate the Sheriff's Office in the justice center building. Allen asked if just administrative and records offices would be located in the existing Jail. Pulkrabek said everything except the jail. Neuzil asked how many employees Pulkrabek expects. Pulkrabek said there would probably be 20 to 25 employees daily, not counting the jail employees. Sullivan said the current space allocated for the first floor of the Sheriffs Office is not particularly unreasonable. Pulkrabek said in considering remodeling the Sheriff's Office, there are restrictions. Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 11 Harney said concept H makes sense in that eastern expansion is possible. He thinks the County will acquire the GSA lot provided they provide GSA with 200 parking spaces. GSA is awaiting the completion of the appraisal and once that is complete, GSA is willing to start negotiations. Cain asked what the timeline is of those negotiations. Harney said he does not know. Cain asked if any of today's discussion will facilitate the negotiations. Champion left at 5:39 p.m. Sullivan said he does not think the Board can tell the public they want to build a justice center on land they do not yet own. Harney said the diagrams in the handout include the GSA lot within the County property, except for the one house. Sullivan said but then a less efficient jail will be built that will cost more to staff. Neuzil said if the buildings are separated, then it is not a justice center anymore, it is a jail and a courthouse. Sullivan said spending more to staff the proposed jail in concept H does not make sense to him. Cain said he thinks they have to do their due diligence on building a three -level jail. Whiston asked what advantages concept H has over concepts A or B. Cain said from a constructability point of view he thinks they would prefer to build a jail separate from the courts. One advantage to that is the type of framing system; the jail is concrete and the courts could be steel. If the buildings are connected, then they are talking about a concrete frame throughout because of the fire resistant construction requirements. That is something the pricing exercise would flesh out. Sullivan asked if the Board chooses concepts A and H, can those two be priced out. He asked if that seems reasonable to the CJCC. Cain and Stutsman said they would like a cost estimate for concept B too. Cain said if there is a clear understanding that Capitol Street has the potential of being an urban street with the introduction of a tall parking garage, then trying to preserve the back view of the Courthouse becomes rather negligible. Russell asked if a five -story parking ramp were built to the west of Capitol Street, how much of it would be above the grade of the current Courthouse. Cain said that would be twice the height of the hill. Russell said so it would be above grade by at least 50% of the Courthouse. Harney said it does not look like the justice center design utilizes the Harrison Street properties. Cain said they need to look into the utilities. Whiston said concept H makes more sense, if it were actually connected over Harrison Street. Lyness asked if it were connected, would the connection require a concrete frame. Cain said they could create a fire separation and bring the two buildings together. Neuzil asked if there is a reason that the proposed courthouse is in that specific location in concept B. It seems like the proposed jail space can be exchanged with the Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 12 proposed courthouse space. He asked if the proposed courthouse would sit on top of the proposed jail. Whiston said yes. McCarragher asked how they will get a secure passage to the courtrooms and holding area in concept H. Cain said through the hallway. McCarragher said in other concepts, there is an elevator from the holding area to the jail. Cain said the diagrams do not illustrate the height of the connection. It is either an on -grade connection or more of a bridge, but will still be secure from the jail into the courts. It has to come in to either the floor that the Clerk of Courts office is on, or at a higher level and then come down. McCarragher said they could have a hallway plus an elevator. Sullivan referred to the courtroom floor diagram on page one of the handout. When they built the Health and Human Services Building, they eliminated an extra elevator because elevators are tremendously expensive. He does not understand why the clerks and staff could not share the public elevator. For the most part, the public uses the elevators more frequently than the staff. Eliminating one elevator could likely save $200,000. Cain said he does not think this would be the time to remove an elevator. From a planning and operational perspective, a separate staff elevator is preferred. Sullivan said he is sure that is preferred, but he is wondering at what cost. Stutsman said she wonders if two elevators would be ample when all four courtrooms are in use. She asked if it is possible to use all four courtrooms at once. Lyness said yes. Cain said he does not believe there are that many trips made between the Clerk of Courts and the courtroom. Sullivan said this could be a cost - control item. Whiston said her other concern about concept H is it seems it would be more difficult to attach the Sheriff's Office to the justice center than in concepts A or B. Neuzil said a skywalk would probably be added with concept H and the existing Sheriff's Office would remain where it is. Cain asked the group to focus this discussion on the designs they want to eliminate and not the ones they will keep. McCarragher asked, if they will move the buildings if they choose concepts A, B, and H. Cain said they could do those things. McCarragher said they could move the buildings closer together in concept H. He asked if Cain can look into the utilities. Cain said they do need to do that. McCarragher said he is concerned that if they end up with three separate buildings it is no longer a justice center. The original goal with the justice center was to build one public building servicing multiple agencies to create efficiencies. Cain said concept A has the better likelihood of including an elevator somewhere in the public lobby that would access to the jail. This way, everyone enters through the front door of the justice center. But then there are other questions, such as if all work release inmates will enter through the front door. Neuzil said the CJCC has emphasized one secure entrance with a metal detector for everyone. Sullivan said it sounds like CJCC members agree that concepts A, B, and H will be concentrated on for the next meeting. Stutsman asked if that means they will be able to Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 13 see a street view of the project in order to visualize it. Cain said yes, he thinks so. If part of the choice is the appearance of the building and its placement, then they need to see more than just the aerial plans. Harney asked if concept A allows for vertical expansion for the jail. Neuzil said vertical expansion for the jail is easier in concept B. Cain agreed. Harney said he does not want to end up in the same situation with a lack of space in the jail. If they are going to build something, they need to be able to expand in the future. Cain addressed Wilson's earlier request for a list of criteria. He said the criteria for the project are costs, capital costs, operating costs, future expansion, and reverence toward the Courthouse. They can evaluate the designs against these criteria. Logsden asked if the cost estimates will include the cost to remodel the existing Jail versus the cost to incorporate the Sheriff's Office into one of the plans. Cain said he thinks that is possible. They will have a rough idea as to what it will cost and then use a cost -per- square -foot comparison. Cain said in fairness to the Sheriff's Office, they architects concluded that they recommend a design that will meet the needs of the Sheriff's Office now and in the future. Logsden clarified that they either plan for the Sheriffs Office building for the long haul or plan to include it in the justice center for the long haul. Neuzil said the $39 million will only fund what he named Phase I, the proposed jail and courthouse. Cain agreed. He said Phase I is the term that makes sense. Stratton asked if anyone has any idea of what the County could get from the sale of current Sheriffs Office. Sullivan said the County has not received any official offers. Stratton asked if anyone has sought out any offers. Harney said the Board needs to find out what the UI is willing to pay for the Sheriff s Office, and if the UI is not willing to buy, then the option is to remodel it. Stratton said they are talking about contingencies that they do not have answers to. Sullivan asked who they should appoint to that task. Neuzil said it is a job for the Facilities Subcommittee. Sullivan said he, Harney, and Wilson are on that committee. Russell said he is on the committee but would recuse himself from that discussion. Pulkrabek said before that, the UI might want another property appraisal and based on what he has heard, he isn't certain the UI is eager to buy anymore. Russell asked if an appraisal is being done on the GSA lot. Harney said the County is paying for the appraisal, which was requested by GSA. Cook Appraisal LLC has 45 days to complete the appraisal. Harney said the City of Coralville had suggested that the County's portion, $3 million that would be available in 2018, and could be utilized for the justice center. He asked if the Board should depend on that in addition to the $39 million. Lyness asked what Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 14 Harney is referring to. Stutsman said when the tax increment financing (TIF) ends in 2016. Sullivan said they have to give the public a voice through voting. When the TIF comes off, the County can spend that money however they like, and Sullivan would prefer to pay off bonds as timely as possible. Neuzil said this is the first time he has been told that remodeling the existing Courthouse and Jail will be funded by some money that is not a part of the bond, which has not been discussed in the entire budgeting process. The Board has not discussed allocating existing County tax dollars outside of the bond for this project. Stratton asked for clarification. They have discussed phasing this project and clearly the later phases will not be covered by a bond. He asked where that money would come from. Neuzil said they discussed phasing very early on, but they also said $39 million would be enough to remodel the Courthouse and now, apparently, it's not. This is the first time this information has surfaced. Harney said whatever the County bonds for and receives is what Johnson County will have to live with. The County will not get a chance for a second bond for many, many years. Neuzil said he wants the CJCC to realize that at this point, nothing is in the budget for the existing Courthouse or Jail. Stutsman said there was not anything scientific about the $39 million. Now, they are starting to get a more realistic picture of what $39 million can buy. Neuzil said he did not want the assumption to be that the County will fix the existing Courthouse and Jail. Whiston said she knows the CJCC voted on $39 million, but asked if anyone surveyed the public opinion. Neuzil said Champion liked the $39 million figure. Harney said there was never an official poll or survey and some thought that $39 million was the number the voters would tolerate. Sullivan said the Board will not put any money into a survey. The Iowa Bar Association chose not to conduct such a poll and no one else has done any polling. The Board isn't going to spend tax dollars on a survey and no one else has volunteered to fund a survey. Stutsman suggested waiting until the cost estimates are in before deciding on the next step. REPORT FROM ALTERNATIVES AND TREATMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE Lyness distributed the January 2012 Alternatives and Treatment Opportunities Subcommittee Report to the CJCC. She said the Alternatives and Treatments Subcommittee has not reviewed the report and she can provide a shorter report if requested. REPORT FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION /OUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE Jail Deficiencies McCarragher said the only addition to the Jail Deficiencies document circulated at the last CJCC Meeting was the addition of two sentences indicating that space is inadequate and they need classroom and volunteer space for education and rehabilitation treatment Informal Minutes: January 17, 2012/ page 15 programs. Neuzil said because that is the only change made to the presentation, the Public Information and Outreach Subcommittee would like the CJCC to vote on it. Motion by Neuzil, seconded by Stratton, to pass the Jail Deficiencies list. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT FROM FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE Harney said they talked about the appraisal of the justice center parking lot. The Board voted to pay for that appraisal and Cook Appraisal LLC has been contracted to complete that. As soon as they receive the appraisal, they can move forward with GSA. ADDITION OF NEW MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE Sullivan said University of Iowa (UI) Sophomore Drew Lakin was added to the CJCC. Lakin could not be present today but he plans to attend regularly in the future. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Neuzil said it seems the Board wanted to add Lakin to the CJCC because of the potential for building relationships with UI students. He asked if the Board is comfortable with adding Lakin to the Public Information and Outreach Subcommittee. Stutsman and Sullivan said that would be great. SET NEXT MEETING DATE Sullivan said the next CJCC Meeting is scheduled for February 13th at 4:30 p.m. Adjourned at 6:09 p.m. Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor Recorded By Nancy Tomkovicz IP23 MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 13, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Update on the Pre - schematic Design Process Including but not Limited to Review of Justice Center Conceptual Plans, Remodeling Plans for the Courthouse and Sheriff's Office, Budget Estimates, and Selection Criteria ..................................................... ..............................1 CostEstimates ....................................................................................... ..............................4 Feedbackfrom CJCC Members ............................................................ ..............................5 BoardMembers Preference ................................................................... ..............................9 Other.................................................................................................................. .............................10 AppendixA ....................................................................................................... .............................12 Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 4:30 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan. Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present were: Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, MECCA Director Ron Berg, Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion, Citizen Representative Bob Elliott, Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, County Attorney Janet Lyness, Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Judge Doug Russell, Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton, and Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston; absent: Defender's Managing Attorney Peter Persaud. Staff present: Executive Assistant Andy Johnson and Auditor's Office Recording Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz. UPDATE ON THE PRE - SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROCESS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REVIEW OF JUSTICE CENTER CONCEPTUAL PLANS, REMODELING PLANS FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE, BUDGET ESTIMATES, AND SELECTION CRITERIA Neumann Monson Architects Principal Dwight Dobberstein said they will present three design concepts and six options along with an architectural site model for each. Venture Architects Design Director and Principal John Cain said after developing the schematic plans for each option, they contacted Construction Cost Systems, Inc. Principal Paul V. Laudolff who prepared the construction cost estimates of those plans. Cain said criteria to select the preferred design in order of priority are: construction project cost, operating costs, functional requirements, impact on the historical Johnson County Courthouse, future expansion, and parking. Dobberstein presented the details of Options A, A2, B, B2, C, and C2 in a PowerPoint and gave a handout to CJCC members. Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 2 Option A. This is a six -story building on the corner of Harrison and Capital Streets, with three stories for the jail and three for the courts. The Sheriff's Office could be a future expansion to the south of the six -story building. The three -story jail would include the support staff on the first floor and the jail pods and cells on the second and third floors. The three -story court/clerk building would include the entrance, the clerks, and support space for mechanical and storage on the first story, and a total of eight courtrooms would fill the second and third stories. Parking would surround the existing Courthouse to the north and south. Harney asked how this design would tie into the existing Courthouse. Dobberstein said there is a connection into the back of the Courthouse basement and people would use the elevator or stairs to access the upper stories. There is a new entrance into the first floor of the new building. Three stories are below ground. Cain said each option reflects new construction for the jail, courts, and clerk of court. The Sheriff's Office is being remodeled in the existing Jail. The existing Courthouse is being used for public meeting spaces and the second floor and half of the third floor for the County Attorney's offices. The courtroom on the third floor is being reused as a courthouse. Future expansion with Option A: Dobberstein said the jail could expand across the street from the Sheriffs Office to the east and the courts could expand to the north or south. Rettig asked if the sheriff s building would be built with footings strong enough to support future expansion. Dobberstein said yes. Champion asked if the Sheriffs Office could be built during another phase. Dobberstein said yes. Cain instructed Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) members to assume that the blue in the diagram represents where a new Sheriffs building could go, but for consistency, the new construction will be the jail, courts and clerk of courts only. Option A2. Dobberstein said this is an effort to lower the impact on the site. The jail has been stretched out over the entire block and the courts and clerks are now on two floors. More of the site was excavated so the jail would be on two levels, and then the clerks and two courtrooms could be on the first floor at grade level and six courtrooms on the next floor. This option is only two floors above grade at the back of the Courthouse. Cain said this is a five -story building. Whiston asked what would become of the Sheriffs section if it is not going to be constructed now. Cain said if money was available for the Sheriffs remodel, say the existing building was sold for example, then they could make provisions for the Sheriffs Office in the building footprint of Option A2. If the Sheriffs Office is not built now, they can shell it out or dig less of the hill. Dobberstein said parking could surround the existing Courthouse and be on the lot across from the current Jail. Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 3 Cain said in both these options, the Courthouse /Justice Center entrance is off of Clinton Street with some kind of a plaza. This entrance leads into the Clerk of Court, courtrooms, and County Attorney's Office. The Jail entrance is three floors down on Capital Street. Committee members briefly discussed the issue of staffing as it relates to the entrances. Sullivan suggested that in the interest of time, all options be presented and then questions follow. Neuzil said he is interested in how each option addresses future expansion. Option B. Dobberstein said Option B houses the jail on the Courthouse block, but the courtrooms are rotated ninety degrees and sit atop the jail. The Sheriff's Office is shown as a two -story building across the street to the south. The jail pods are on two floors and the Clerk of Court is below grade. The entrance is on the courts level and the public can either enter the Courthouse, or the court floors, or go down to the Clerk of Court. The top level houses more courtrooms. This is a five -story building on the southwest corner of Harrison and Capital Streets. Dobberstein said the top of the jail is at grade level of the back of the Courthouse. Jail expansion could be to the north or over the Sheriffs Office to the south. Neuzil asked why the Sheriffs Office is designed over the road. Dobberstein said in an effort to build one facility, a justice center, they kept the buildings together as one. Rettig clarified that the view to the west is at grade level. County Attorney Janet Lyness said it may also be so another pod could be added on top. Cain said they went as far south as they could to allow expansion to the north. Cain said the utilities on Harrison Street are minimal so they would not be paying a premium to relocate and reroute utilities. Option B2. This option shifts the Sheriffs Office to the first floor on the northwest with the jail support, and moves the courtroom on top of the jail /jail services building. The entrance is between the Courthouse and the new building. Rettig said the Courthouse access is through the break room. Dobberstein said yes. Cain said that break room area may become group meeting rooms. Rettig said this is a four -story building with one story above grade in the back. Harney asked about future expansion options for the Sheriffs Office. Dobberstein said the entire first floor can be rearranged and everything can expand to the south. Option C. This is a five -story building with three separate pods. There are five floors which connect: two floors of courtrooms to the north, the Clerk of Court and Sheriff s Office next to each other with possibly a shared entrance. Jail support is on the first floor and there is some unexcavated area. The pods for the Jail line up with four of the courtrooms. The courts could expand to the north and the Jail to the south. The entrance to the courts and Sheriffs Office can be one in the same off of Clinton Street. The Jail is in close proximity to the existing Sheriffs Office. Neuzil asked if this option incorporates the GSA property. Dobberstein said they are not on the GSA property, the jail pods are smaller which is why they needed a third pod. Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 4 The Jail building does overhang the street right -of -way by ten feet but the City of Iowa City (Iowa City) said they would work with this design but the first floor, the jail support floor, must be back farther. Rettig said smaller jail pods drives up the staffing costs. Option C2. This is a four -story building and the courtrooms are down to the south. The Sheriff's Office is on the north side of Harrison Street and the rest of the Sheriff's Office is on the next level with a walkway to the next level of the Jail. Four court rooms are atop the Sheriffs Office and the Clerk of Court office extends east on that same level. Four more court rooms are on the top floor above the Clerk of Court. Parking is available to the north and west of the Courthouse. Neuzil said Jail expansion with this design likely relies on the acquisition of the GSA property. Dobberstein said that would be best. Cain said the timing of the GSA acquisition is becoming an issue. Option C's design is hampered without the GSA property. Cost Estimates Sullivan said he would like all the information on the table before they discuss which options they prefer. He asked Cain for cost estimates of each option. Cain and Laudolff presented the "Conceptual Estimates" handout, attached below as "Appendix A." Cain said costs for Jail staffing in the A and B options are the same, but increases in Option C and C2. Laudolff said they have not priced the modified options of each design but with all square footage being equal, he believes the costs will be close to the first option. He said they priced the design according to the details they had at the conceptual level. They have not priced the specifics of each design. The subtotal range for new construction and renovation is $41.6 million to $45.3 million. Soft costs include furniture, equipment, professional fees, a construction contingency, courthouse technology, movable equipment, permits and fees, anything which is not part of the construction value. The total value to take to referendum is $51.2 million to $55.7 million. Champion asked if the footings for the Jail and Sheriff's Office are included. Cain said to assume Option A, B, and C represent new construction and remodeling of the existing Jail /Sheriff's Office, and remodeling of the Courthouse. Optional Costs include $250,000 plus associated soft costs for a 68 -spot offsite parking lot and $6.1 million for a new Sheriff's Office priced according to a two -story separate building with the same square footage in the existing office. Champion said if they sell the current Jail, they could deduct that amount from the $6.1 million. Laudolff said correct. Harney asked what the difference in cost would be between renovating the Sheriff's Office at $3,065,000 versus not doing it at all in the first phase. Laudolff said they could deduct about $3.8 million from the "Project total -New Renovation" line. Harney said there is not that much of a difference. Rettig said they could deduct $3 million from Option B. She said it would not be a wash; it is almost a $3 million difference. Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 5 Rettig said if they kept the Sheriff's Office exactly where it is now and did not renovate anything, the cost would be about $48 million for Option A and B. That, she said, is $9 million over the Request for Proposals the Board asked them to do. Dobberstein said some soft costs would come off, but for the most part, that is correct. Sullivan said the number for the existing Courthouse is extremely high and he asked for an explanation. Laudolff said the cost reflects a proposed new layout which entailed new walls, new floor finishes, and new ceiling finishes which all impact the lighting distribution. Rettig said the cost is $9 million over what they requested so something has to give. Sullivan said he did not expect the County Attorney's office and Courthouse piece to be so involved, he thought it was simpler than that. Cain explained what was priced. They put the multipurpose rooms on the first floor of the Courthouse so they are accessible from the lobby. They moved the County Attorney's offices to the second floor and completely remodeled the north and south half of that floor, leaving the rotunda the same. On the third floor, County Attorney's Office are located on the north half. The existing historic courtroom on the third floor remained as is. Sullivan said this still is more elaborate than he envisioned. Rettig said even by removing most of this, they are still $6 million over what they requested. Stutsman said this is a reality check, $39 million is not going to be enough. Rettig disagreed. She said the RFP clearly stated $39 million. Cain said they would have to make significant reductions in the size of the design in order to meet the $39 million. A Budget Options handout was distributed to committee members and Cain discussed each option. He said they are very mindful of the $39 million. He said no one would go out on a limb now to give estimates that could not be met in two years. They have discussed that two years from now, there could be as much as $1 billion worth of construction on the UI campus and that could have an effect on the building climate in Iowa City. They are trying to give accurate, conservative, and reasonably safe numbers. Feedback from CJCC Members Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston said two or three years ago CJCC received an estimate of $62 million. $39 million never seemed to be a realistic estimate to her. The new estimates seem much more realistic. She asked what the Iowa City Animal Shelter will cost. Rettig said $4 million, but the voters do not get a say in it. It will cost the same as Shelter House. Whiston said she does not think the new estimates are unreasonable. As a voter, she does not see where $39 million versus $45 million will make or break the project. Sullivan asked if there is an option that Whiston prefers. Whiston said she would choose the second option on the Budget Options worksheet at $51.2 million, but the third option at $43.6 million is realistic. Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden said she has not heard enough from Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek and County Attorney Janet Lyness about the Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 6 operational costs for each of the plans. She thinks the County needs a plan that could be phased, but in the long run has a plan for the Sheriff's Office and County Attorney's Office. Sullivan said he thought the operational costs for both Options A and B are the same. Cain said yes, roughly. Sullivan asked Cain to explain. Cain said if a major portion of the operating and staffing cost for this project has to do with the Jail, in Options A, A2, and B, and B2 the jail design is essentially the same and the jail will function with the same number of staff. Perhaps the County Attorney's Office's ability to function is based on space and the working environment, which is currently inadequate. That would be corrected in a remodeled plan. It is worth looking at whether that can be accommodated by leaving the County Attorney's Office on the first floor of the plan and in the Clerk of Court. Logsden said the question should be the justice center will be a more functional building in the long run. She realizes it is hard to quantify the functionality of the building, but she thinks it was planned for a specific functionality. Rettig asked Pulkrabek if there is anything in Options A or B that leads him to believe staffing is lower than the last numbers he provided. Pulkrabek said no. The thing is they have not yet seen fine details other than what was provided in one meeting. He agrees that the staffing will essentially be the same in Options A2 and B2. Options A2 and B2 are the options that make the most sense. He said Judge Douglas Russell was quite eloquent in his description of why Option A2 makes sense. He does not care for Option C. Lyness said if they are going to build a new facility, she would like it done right from the start and would prefer not put something together just because it cost less. She suggests presenting a real plan to the voters versus something that has been bandaged together. The more she thinks about it, she wonders why they want to get the cost down to $39 million if they are not going to get the facility the County really needs. Cain said his recommendation is the option where the Courthouse is remodeled and used for the County Attorney, everything else is built new, and the County sells the existing Jail and Sheriffs Office and applies the money from the sale to the justice center project costs. Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion said she likes Options A2 and B2 but she does not know what the voters will support. Russell said before he knew the costs associated, he clearly preferred Option A2. He thinks it is a very good idea to have all functions in one structure. He also thinks the single structure on the west slope of the Courthouse block is the most attractive and best use of the land and is only two floors above grade. It best silhouettes the present historic Courthouse from every perspective. He thinks there are some efficiencies in having the Sheriff's Office and jail in the same structure to serve administrative needs and Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 7 emergencies. It is very useful to have as many courtrooms as Option A2 outlines. That will take the County into the future decades, which is one of the important reasons for going ahead with the justice center project. Russell said the further down they go on the Budget Options list, the more courtrooms are being shelled or not built. Russell said after reviewing the budget options, he still prefers Option A2. The cost of the project is a political decision for the Board. When the public hearings begin someone will ask how the Board came up with the $39 million figure. He does not know the answer to that question. But if asked where the $54 million number came from he would say they got it from the experts with the best data available. Even though it is the most expensive range, it is the one he prefers for the Sheriff's Office, the County Attorney's Offices, the judiciary, and also for the public. Sullivan said if they chose Option A2 at $54 million, they could reduce it by $3 million for the renovation of the current Sheriff's Office. Laudolff said they have priced the Sheriff's Office as a standalone building. He cannot specifically say what the cost savings would be if it is built into another building, but it is obviously less expensive than building it on its own. With those numbers it is $55 million with the new Sheriff s Office in and the renovation out. Sullivan said the cost is $55 million, but if the Sheriff's Office can be sold for $5 million that will reduce the cost to $50 million. Cain said they would like to take today's discussion and make a decision about a direction to move forward. Then, they can refine the design and price and then come back to the CJCC with a clearer idea of total project costs. He has heard enough input to take another look at Option A2 for $55 million and see if it can be made less expensive. Rettig said she has not yet agreed to Option A2, which she does not like all. If she had to pick, she would choose Option B2. Russell said he prefers Option A2 over Option B2 because of the availability of the ground the County owns on the General Services Administration (GSA) lot and leaves open the option to use the GSA lot if they acquire it or part of it. It leaves open the option to vacate Harrison Street if needed, so the new expansion plans may coincide with the County's acquisition achievements concerning the GSA lot. They will have more space to expand. Sullivan said when he looks at Option B2, he sees the north portion as a waste of space. He understands it is green space, but there is not a lot of room for green space. Harney said he prefers Option B2 because he thinks expansion can happen to the south and some to the north, if necessary. From the beginning, he has said this project will cost around $54 million. He does not think they will be able to come back and ask for a second bond issue so they need to do it right the first time or not at all. Champion said she prefers Option A2 and is sorry that the Board is stuck with making the decision. Harney said he like the security entrances on Option B2 and maybe that could be added to Options A or A2. Pulkrabek said he does like the idea of securing the east side of the Courthouse and not using it. He knows it is beautiful to enter the Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 8 historic Courthouse from the east side, but he likes having one secure entrance on the south side. He is happy with either Option A2 or B2. No matter what, it is important to vacate Harrison Street now. Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton said the bond issue is a craps shoot no matter what amount they use. They will have to justify any amount. They knew $39 million was not going to buy much and the longer they wait, the more the costs will increase. Bar Association Representative James McCarragher said he likes Option A2 because everything is in the same location and there is less movement of people. He said the larger the building is, the less efficient it will be. Including everything in one building allows for easier movement and increased efficiency. The University of Iowa (UI) plans to build a parking ramp across the street. Lyness said that is probably not true. Neuzil said the Board has heard a lot about it. Dobberstein said he inquired about this and was told the UI has no immediate plans. Stratton said future expansion with Options A2 or B2 would be easier. It looks like Option B2 could easily expand across Harrison Street. Cain said in Options A2 and B2 if the jail the Sheriff s Office is built in the base as discussed as identical. Option A2 is a five -story building and Option B2 is a four -story building because the court rooms of Option A2 have been built out along Harrison Street. Option A2 is a rectangular building and Option B2 is an L- shaped building. Option A2 has the entrance either coming in the front door of the Courthouse or passing across a plaza on the south side of the existing Courthouse to a new entrance. In Option B2 the entrance is much closer to Clinton Street. It is either located in the connection between the existing Courthouse and the new building, or it is part of the front of the new building facing Clinton Street. Functionally, Options A2 and B2 would operate approximately the same. Harney said he likes the public entrance off of Clinton Street. ? asked if Harney likes the entrance closer to or set back from the street. Harney said set back some. ? said Option A2 affords the ability to create a plaza with some parking in front of the entrance. Option B2 does not provide that space. MECCA Director Ron Berg said he likes the entrance options on Option B2. He said he wouldn't want to spend $39 million on something that would not be adequate, that would be a hard sell. Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen agreed with Berg. She doesn't think $39 million or $45 million will make that much difference to the voters. McCarragher said it is important to pick the design that keeps the Sheriffs Office under the same roof. He does not like the idea of remodeling the current Sheriffs Office and having it a block away. They would not gain efficiency or security. He wants to be able to tell people that if there is something wrong in the justice center, there will be an immediate response because the Sheriff s Office will be located in the building. Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 9 Whiston said aesthetically she prefers Option A2 because she likes leaving the Courthouse as it is and including the Sheriff's Office in the justice center. Former University of Iowa Campus Planner Larry Wilson asked if the estimated costs are in today's dollars or are they the projected costs once construction begins. Laudolff said they estimated in today's dollars and escalated it 6 %. They used 2% per year to reach midpoint construction costs. Wilson asked if any thought has been given to relocation costs during renovation and construction. Cain said they have to look at that 20 %, there may be some money for partial relocation. Wilson asked if the architects would be willing rank the options as to which are most friendly to the existing Courthouse. Cain said Options A2 and B2 are smaller than the original designs. Option B2 is a four -story building and Option A2 is a five -story building. That extra floor will impact the design. He likes the symmetry of Option A2. Sullivan said in the interest of winding up this discussion in the next 15 minutes, he would like to focus on where to go from here. He asked what Cain needs from the CJCC. Cain said the committee needs the time to make the right decision. Venture Architects has a commitment to the Board to bring back a concept and a final price by roughly April 1, 2012. Board Members Preference Sullivan said he would like to poll Board members on their position at this time and find out if anyone would like more information. Harney said he supports Option B2 because he likes the layout. The opportunity for future expansion is adequate and it has a secure entrance from both directions. Stutsman said she likes Option A2 because it is much more compact, will be easier to sell to the voters, and maximizes the use of space. They need to justify this to the voters. Neuzil said he needs more information. He would like to know cost estimates of the impact the $39 million has on a local property taxpayer. It will be hard for him to advocate for a tax increase at the magnitude of $50 million. He will not speak against it, but if they want to get all Supervisors' support, it will be hard to do at $55 million. Neuzil said he would like a better understanding of the phasing process. They should fine tune the page a little further to figure out what would not be included. Shelling a building would mean some prisoners will still need to be transported outside of the County. Neuzil said aesthetically, he prefers Option A2 because it provides a little more balance to the whole block of the Courthouse. Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 10 Rettig said she thinks the project needs to be phased in. She does not think voters will support a $55 million project when they previously did not support the $20 million project. At $39 million, the justice center project was going to at least triple the amount the County is taxing this year. She will vote in favor of putting this on the ballot but she thinks a $55 million project is a waste of time. If forced to choose, she would choose Option B2 because she does not like that Option A2 destroys the western view of the Courthouse. She agrees with Champion that any amount over $40 million is an incredibly difficult sell to 60% of the voters. Sullivan said he prefers Option A2 because it provides opportunities for future expansion of the justice center and it uses property the County already has. He thinks it's important to have all the facilities under one roof to respond to emergencies. That said, he is concerned about the $55 million estimate. He understands the Jail can potentially be sold, bringing the cost down to $50 million. He wants to know, if Option A2 is build, how it could be phased in at the lowest possible cost. He said at least three Supervisors would like more information on the cost before they firmly commit. Harney said Option A2would eliminate the need for the GSA lot because the justice center would be sitting on land the County already owns. Rettig said they need GSA property for the next phase. Sullivan said it would eliminate the need for the GSA property for now. Russell advised acquiring the entire GSA lot regardless of what option they choose. Sullivan said it is important that they separate those issues as the GSA has diverted this project for two years. He would like to keep the focus on the proposed options and when they have a chance to take action on the GSA property, they will see where that leads. The Board agreed to schedule an informal work session to further discuss these options with Neumann Monson and Venture Architects on February 23rd at 2:30 p.m. Sullivan asked Cain to direct the information to Executive Assistant Andy Johnson who can distribute it to the Board. Neuzil clarified that he wants to know what it means if the amount is decreased to between $42 million and $46 million. They need a general understanding of what will not be included in Options A2 and B2 if they choose a $40 million project. Neuzil said the Board has the potential for alternative funding options, such as reverse bond referendums and smaller bond initiatives. Even if the Board chooses to ask voters for a $40 million project, it does not mean they just build a $40 million project. Portions could be phased in over the course of two to four years. OTHER Auditor Tom Slockett said the sales tax expires June 30, 2013 which means there are only three possible dates for a special election prior to that expiration. The dates are October 7, 2012, November 6, 2012, and March 5, 2013. If the bond referendum does not pass in one of the first two, then it will likely be on the March 5th date and there will Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 11 be another issue on that ballot. Rettig asked if the Board chooses what date to schedule the bond referendum. Slockett said the Iowa City certifies it to the Board and then the Board is required to set it at the next available special election date. Essentially, Iowa City makes that determination. Adjourned at 6:37p.m. Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor On the day of , 2012 Recorded By Nancy Tomkovicz Sent to the Board of Supervisors on February 21, 2012 at 9:OOp.m. NO,tiO O.W SOP -A,8 AIV SQFr -C Now Cove 933 SOFT -A Bi W6 B 54,160 60" - C IM 0 NOV Tail &A1Y t PAMw*9 WcL br fit Cato" Bubmw een"alon - Haw R4r6ft f<4 Gtii 4 254226 9 Fi mnmua Bow nsuft 2MO SW dl -Rtt film Informal Minutes: February 13, 2012/ page 12 APPENDIX A Johnson County Justice Center txoufWd Elfin hbnprl►1k x1i Marian Karr From: Nicholas Pottebaum <nicholas- pottebaum @uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:02 AM To: Marian Karr Cc: cody - graham @uiowa.edu; matthew- uttermark @uiowa.edu Subject: UISG City Council Liaison Marian, Cody Graham informed me that I should email you regarding UISG's City Council Liaison for the upcoming year. As you know, Cody Graham, currently the UISG City Council liaison, term is set to expire by resolution on May 1 st. This email is to inform you per the UISG governing by -laws that the current Vice City Council Liaison, Matthew Uttermark, will assume the duties of the City Council Liaison at the April 17th City Council meeting and any proceeding meeting for this semester (through May 12). The new UISG Administration is still finalizing the Executive Board for the upcoming year. I will formally submit Matthew's name along with whomever is named the Vice City Council Liaison after we have completed our executive board selections (after April 21) and they have been confirmed by our Student Senate. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks, Nic Pottebaum Nicholas Pottebaum UISG President -elect nicholas- pottebaumQuiowa.edu 319.981.0795 Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Jose Assouline, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Jeff Davidson Others Present: Matt Wolford, Philip Wolford, David Hughes, RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gardinier called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: G4-12- 12 �� IP24 Horan began by nominating Rick as Chair and Joe as Secretary. Gardinier asked if Mascari was interested in this position. He stated that he has mixed feelings about it. Mascari added that he also has no intention of renewing his position on the Commission when his term expires. Gardinier noted that over the past several years the Members have chosen pilot and non -pilot chairs alternating years. She stated that with this natural progression, she would suggest Joe serving as Chair and Rick as Secretary. The discussion continued, with Assouline giving his thoughts on this nomination. Horan moved to nominate Mascari as Airport Commission Chair and Assouline as Airport Commission Secretary. No second made to this motion; motion died. Mascari moved to nominate Assouline as Chair of the Airport Commission. Gardinier seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. Horan moved to nominate Mascari as Secretary of the Airport Commission. Gardinier seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Chairperson Assouline took over the meeting at this point. Mascari moved to approve the minutes as submitted; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 4 -0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 2 a. South Aviation Development — Jeff Davidson, Director of the Planning Department, was present to help the Commission in planning for possible future development in the area south of the Airport. Mascari began by explaining what the Commission had discussed so far. Davidson shared some diagrams from the Comprehensive Plan for the area and gave Members some history of land use issues in the area. He laid out what the Commission needs to consider, adding that there are three basic things that need to be done in order to develop property — and that is to put in a sewer line, a water line, and a road. This area already has these `basics' and is therefore well suited for development, according to Davidson. Members asked questions of Davidson, specifically what other development plans are in the works for areas surrounding the Airport. He spoke about the Riverfront Crossings area and what is expected to develop there. The discussion turned to traffic counts for the south area and whether counts are high enough to attract high- traffic type uses. Mascari stated that he would like to see this development handled differently than the north area was, more specifically the financial aspect of it. Members began discussing what they would like to see done in this area, with Horan sharing his ideas of what they might see develop here. Davidson noted that if Members are interested in making this development a priority they should identify it as such, in order to get it on the Council's radar. Projects that have an economic development side to them are typically seen as positive, according to Davidson. Mascari stated that he would like to do some research first and look into what other airports around the country are doing to be self- sufficient. Assouline brought up the close proximity of the Riverfront Crossings development area and the South Aviation area. Davidson agreed, adding that the Council has identified the corner of Riverside Drive and Highway 6 as a potential redevelopment site, as well. The discussion continued with Members debating what the next step should be. Davidson suggested the Commission find a developer that could do some layout alternatives for them to consider. This could help Members move forward on this issue. Davidson then responded to Members' questions regarding development in the adjacent areas. b. Airport Commerce Park — Tharp stated that Jeff Edberg is not present this evening, nor has he heard from him recently. The only update that Tharp is aware of is on the Deery Brothers' sale. This sale should be closing by the end of the month, according to Tharp. c. Terminal Building Brick Repair — Tharp noted that the brick repair started earlier in the week, with the initial phase being a grinding out of the old joint mortar work. He added that it has created quite a bit of dust. By using the salvageable bricks from the planter, damaged bricks can be replaced, according to Tharp. Mascari publicly thanked Jet Air staff for their work during this 'dusty' phase, as they have had to do continual cleaning. Tharp then responded to Members' questions regarding this project. d. Hangar L — Tharp stated that he is recommending they defer this item until a special meeting can be held. This is in part because the lot sale has not been completed yet. Discussion went back and forth on a date, with Gardinier wanting to get this item done in a 30 -day timeframe. Others did not find this to be an issue. Dulek responded to questions from Members regarding this. Mascari moved to defer the two resolutions to the meeting on April 5, 2012, at 7:30 A.M. Gardinier seconded the motion. Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 3 Motion carried 4 -0. e. Iowa DOT — FY2013 Aviation Grant Program — Tharp stated that applications are due May 7 this year. The Commission will then be approving this at the April meeting. Tharp reviewed projects for this program, noting that the Hangar L Phase 2 portion will definitely not be done for a while. He noted that without the local funding portion, they would be unable to complete such a project. Some projects that could be considered for the grant program include various pavement projects around the Airport, for example. Tharp noted that this year the DOT is putting caps on the grant awards. For new awards, for example, they are putting the cap at $150,000; for rehab the cap is at $75,000. Tharp stated that at next month's meeting he plans to have a list of recommended projects for the Members to review. The conversation continued, with Members suggesting various smaller projects and upgrades that might be good candidates for the Iowa DOT grant program. f. FAA/IDOT Projects — AECOM /David Hughes i. Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that he really doesn't have any updates on the obstruction mitigation project at this time. ii. 7125 Parallel Taxiway — Hughes noted that on the 7/25 parallel taxiway project that things are moving forward. By the end of May, Hughes stated they hope to go to bid on this. In regards to questions raised at a recent meeting, Hughes stated that he has further information. One question was about LED fixtures and the cost impact of those. They have been testing a unit on the field. Hughes also shared information from vendors and pointed out the LED fixtures with heaters on them. Hughes further explained how these fixtures work and how the weather conditions will play into this. He shared a spreadsheet with the Commission that showed the overall capital costs for the LED heated fixtures versus the regular fixtures. The discussion continued, with Members asking questions of Hughes regarding the use of LED lights and the estimated cost of switching over to such a fixture. Hughes then further clarified where the access road will be, showing Members the specifics on a map of the airfield. Members shared their concerns, with Hughes responding. Gardinier stated that she would like to see something more detailed, to get a better idea of what the proposed access will look like. Hughes then turned the discussion to the remainder of this project. Jet Air staff gave some input on the runway closure, as well. Members noted that they would like to keep closures at a minimum and suggested two work shifts in order to minimize downtime. g. Airport "Operations" — i. Strategic Plan — Implementation — None. ii. Budget — None. iii. Management — 1. Airport Operations Specialist Position — Tharp noted that Gardinier, as previous Chair, was to complete the evaluation for his position. Gardinier stated that she is almost done with this and plans to finish it yet today. She will forward it to Tharp then, who in turn will forward it to the rest of the Commission. h. FBO /Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air / Care Ambulance — Jet Air addressed the Members next. Matt Wolford stated they have been looking for more mechanics for their shop due to the workload. Wolford continued, noting that the meeting room has been painted, as has the office downstairs. Tharp shared the list of projects completed in the past month. He stated that he will be meeting with a painter soon on the stairway Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 4 project. Philip Wolford stated that they will be extending their hours soon, probably within the next 30 days or so. They are working on having one phone system for their three locations, as well. Wolford continued, stating that Jet Air recently purchased a hangar and will be deciding which of their locations will get it. They need this hangar mainly for storage. Members discussed with Jet Air where this hangar could possibly be placed. Wolford further explained what Jet Air would like to do in this situation, with Tharp noting that a subcommittee has looked into this and come up with some preliminary numbers. 1. Consider a resolution on amending FBO Agreement — Tharp noted that the resolution is to amend the agreement concerning the swapping of offices as previously discussed with the Commission. Gardinier stated that she will not vote for this as she believes it limits the Airport's flexibility, and that the Operations Specialist should have a more prominent office. Tharp then made a request for new office furniture, stating that he has been looking into this and should be able to find funds to cover this. Mascari moved to consider Resolution #12 -09 amending the FBO Agreement as discussed. Horan seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -1; Gardinier voting in the negative. ii. Iowa Flight Training — None. I. Subcommittee Report — i. For February — Budget (Chair, Secretary, Tharp) — None. ii. For March — Community Liaison (Assouline, open, Tharp) — Tharp stated that the subcommittee did not meet in March. Gardinier suggested they retook at the sub - committee assignments and review this at next month's meeting. Assouline stated that he would be willing to sit in on any planning sessions the City has for development in the Riverfront Crossings area, to see how this might fit into the South Aviation development area. Assouline and Gardinier both volunteered to meet with Jeff Davidson to further explore their options for development. j. Commission Members' Reports — Horan shared where he is with his flight training. Gardinier thanked Tharp for working with her during her time as Chair. Assouline thanked Gardinier for her time and efforts as Chair. Gardinier then added that she believes they should continue to make an appearance at City Council meetings. Mascari noted that he will have a report for next month's meeting. k. Staff Reports — Tharp reminded Members that the Iowa Aviation Conference is next month in Des Moines. I. Consider a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss the purchase of particular real estate only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property. Horan moved to adjourn to closed session at 8:20 P.M. Mascari seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 5 The Commission returned to open session at 8:45 pm. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: The next regular meeting will be Thursday, April 19, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 8:46 P.M. Horan made the motion to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 4 -0. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o ° Co C) NAME EXP. C) N N N N 03/01/13 X X X Rick Mascari 03/01114 X X X Howard Horan Minnetta 03/01115 X X X Gardinier Jose 03/02/12 O/E X X Assouline Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time Airport Commission April 5, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2012 — 7:30 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Jose Assouline, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Others Present: Matt Wolford, Eric Scott RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Assouline called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: IP25 a. Hangar L i. Consider a resolution accepting bids and awarding contract — Tharp stated that this item was deferred from the regular meeting. He stated that this was primarily due to the land sale that had not occurred. Tharp said that they opened bids and the bids came in $50,000 higher than anticipated. Following that opening, he and Gardinier met with the City Manager and Finance Director to seek the additional $50,000 to make the project complete. Tharp stated that it was the City Manager's desire not to release the $50,000 until the Deery Brothers sale was completed. Mascari asked how much funding the state was contributing. Tharp stated that the final budget was approximately $750,000 which was broken down into $500,000 from the airport, $200,000 from the state and $50,000 from the city. Mascari asked if the Airport would have to pay back the $50,000. Tharp noted that following the discussions with the City Manager and Finance Director it was determined this would be part of the city's local match that is budgeted for each year. Eric Scott mentioned that as part of the approval the Airport Commission would also be waiving an irregularity. Scott described the irregularity, stating that the low bidder had supplied a total price on a bid item on the bid form, but failed to provide the unit price. Scott said he had made the corrective calculation and the unit price was comparable to the same item in other bids. He recommended that the Commission waive the irregularity and award the contract to Septagon Construction Company. Horan moved resolution #Al2 -10 to waive the irregularity and award the contract, seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 4 -0 ii. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing on lease agreements for hangar #70 and #71. Tharp stated that they need to set the public hearing on the lease agreements for the hangars to be leased once completed. Airport Commission April 5, 2012 Page 2 Tharp stated that this hearing is being proposed to be held at the regular meeting on April 19. Horan moved resolution #Al2 -11 to set the public hearing for 6:OOpm April 19, 2012, seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 4 -0. b. Jet Air L Consider a resolution setting a public hearing on a ground lease agreement with Jet Air, Inc. Tharp stated they had been working on a ground lease with Jet Air, but it wasn't quite finished. He said that he and Jet Air had hoped to set up another meeting with the subcommittee in the near future and that this item should be deferred until the meeting on the 19th. Mascari moved to defer item until April 19, seconded by Gardinier. Motion Carried 4 -0 ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 7:45 A.M. Mascari made the motion to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Assouline. Motion carried 4 -0. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 3 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o to o CIO o o) NAME EXP. C) N N N N 03/01/13 X X X X Rick Mascari 03/01/14 X X X X Howard Horan Minnetta 03/01/15 X X X X Gardinier Jose 03102/12 O/E X X X Assouline Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time 044 24 2 IP26 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2012 — 6:30 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo, Charles Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Jim Jacobson, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheryll Clamon STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, David Purdy, Jeff Vanatter OTHERS PRESENT: Zari Wilken, Mike McKay, Sherri Zastrow, Mark Patton, Ron Berg, Mary Palmberg, Becci Reedus, Heather Harney, Jane Drapeaux, Charlie Eastham, Maryann Dennis, Roger Goedken, Roger Lusala RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Andrew Chappell at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 16, 2012 MINUTES: Zimmerman Smith moved to approve the minutes. Hart seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Chappell introduced and welcomed the newest Commission member Jim Jacobson, who was appointed two days ago. Hightshoe said that she had emailed members of the Commission about a training for boards and commissions that's done by the Iowa Institute of Public Affairs. For those interested she HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 2 of 11 wanted to know if there was a certain time or day that worked best for the training. She said that the City Clerk's office will schedule training according to the preferences of the majority of interested members of all the boards and commissions. After discussion, there was no consensus among the four interested members of the Commission. PUBLIC MEETING: DISCUSSION REGARDING FY13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM REQUESTS Chappell said that the Commission needed to review the project rankings and discuss the average allocation worksheet. For the two members unfamiliar with the process, he explained that the Commission used this meeting as the first real exposure to everyone's scoring and rankings. He said this is the opportunity to ask each other questions and to tell everyone why you were so high or low on a particular project. He explained that the projects in bold are high priorities and if it's not bold it's a medium or low priority. He explained that the CHDO operating funds has to come from HOME funds Hightshoe stated Successful Living, Rental Rehab has to come from CDBG funds. Habitat for Humanity — Owner Rehab Chappell stated the highest ranked project was Habitat for Humanity - Owner Rehab. Several were in full to majority funding. Chappell told the commission that there were agency representatives present and questions could be addressed to them if necessary. Commission member stated this one scored pretty high for him, which is why he recommended full funding. He stated he liked the rehab. of the existing housing stock and the need to maintain the stock of affordable housing we have. Member stated some didn't fully fund as had higher priorities and the money they had remaining was allocated to this project. Bacon Curry stated she agreed with the rational to maintain our current stock of affordable housing. Drum asked if a consensus for funding should we make that determination. Chappell stated the purpose of the meeting was to review our allocations and rankings, ask questions, determine why others funded some projects and not others and come back next meeting and make the final funding recommendations. Charm Homes LLC Chappell stated that there appears to be a lot of consensus for several projects. The second on the list is Charm Homes. Four of the seven recommended full funding. Jacobson stated he was just shy of half funding. Hart said she provided funds to this project in different funding scenarios. While the sheet submitted stated $0, she would be willing to consider funding this project. Chappell stated that after this meeting if anyone wanted to revise their rank or allocation they could do so by notifying Hightshoe before the March 22 packet is sent out. Hightshoe stated they would be due by Monday, March 19. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 3 of 11 Drum stated for Charms he didn't provide funding because this is a for - profit entity and funding is tight for all affordable housing providers. He was not inclined to give public funds to a private entity, even though he understood that they do good work. Bacon Curry stated that was one of her justifications for funding. She valued the property tax payment, estimated at $7,000 per year. She also liked all the private funds that were contributed to the project and not totally funded by public dollars. She thought the project was innovative. Chappell agreed about the percentage of public funds for the overall project. Zimmermann Smith stated she thought it was creative too and serves a population that really needs those services. City of Iowa City Owner Rehab. Four members funded at the $200,000+ range. Chappell stated he partially funded as he gave the project a lower score. He tried to fully fund those applications that were the highest in each category and then not recommend funding for those that were the lowest and then somewhere in the middle unless they were some exception. Chappell clarified that this allocation is in addition to the set -aside amount for rehab. Hightshoe stated that was correct. This application is in addition to the regular entitlement. The purpose of these funds is to target older neighborhoods in Iowa City with better financial terms to stabilize, improve the housing stock for low- moderate income homeowners. Hightshoe stated Jeff Vanatter was here from Housing Rehab and can explain the financial terms. She stated in the regular rehab. program the amount is fully repaid in loan payments or when the home is sold. Under this program, a portion is forgiven. Vanatter stated for targeted neighborhoods, 50% of project costs forgiven if the homeowner stays there. If HOME funds, if they remain in the home for 10 years, 50% would be forgiven. For CDBG funds, 50% forgiven after five years. Hightshoe stated the rehab. program use to receive $500,000+ to operate the program. Due to funding cutbacks over the past 7 -8 years and the significant cut again this year to HOME, their set -aside amount is $200,000. Chappell asked if this additional application gets the program back to where they normally would have been? Vanatter said yes. Bacon Curry asked if the targeted neighborhoods have been selected. Vanatter stated Towncrest neighborhood, Miller Orchard neighborhood, southeast part of Iowa City around the Grant Wood area and an area around downtown where there's a little bit higher owner occupied than some of the other areas downtown. There was a map on the application. Chappell stated it seemed somewhat odd or interesting that the City is applying to this commission for the funds that it controls — it's just the way it's always been done. It's a competitive process. City departments have applied for trails /sidewalks previously and not been funded, but they come to the table just like everyone else. Any questions about that particular project? The PowerPoint screen showed a photo of a recent rehab. Member questioned what work was performed. Vanatter stated new windows, new wiring /electrical and new siding — everything was falling apart. Habitat for Humanity Homeownership Chappell stated there was a consensus not to fund. Dragoo allocated funds; Chappell asked if he wanted to weigh in about his recommendation. Dragoo stated he rated it highly, so he funded it. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 4of11 Chappell stated that with limited funds, he often only allocates to one project if an applicant submits multiple applications. He funds what he views as higher priority. Housing Fellowship Rental Chappell stated there are four who are recommending no funding and two who are recommending a pretty broad range —just under $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 THE was requesting $258,000. Chappell recommended $0 as the project was middle of the road based on his scoring. He would have recommended some partial funding, but when asked the question was this an all or nothing project, the applicant stated that was a correct statement so he didn't fund it. He asked the applicant if that has changed. Dennis, THF, stated she would have to review the finances again. It may be possible to borrow more than originally planned. Chappell asked what minimal allocation would allow the project to proceed. Dennis stated without going through it, but preliminarily it might work at $150,000. Bacon Curry stated that if you look at the recommended funding from the Commissioners she didn't think it would fly because the average recommendation is quite a bit lower than that amount. Chappell asked if those that didn't fund previously would consider it now at $150,000. Hart stated she had a version in mind. She would consider funding this project at that level. Dennis stated the amounts in the proforma are based on the underwriting criteria from the Iowa Finance Authority and they have very strict criteria. There is a mandatory operating expense per unit, reserves, limitations on developer fee and a required debt coverage ratio during the compliance period. As THE is submitting a HOME application to the Iowa Finance Authority, she wanted to submit the same proforma to the City and State that met the requirements for both programs. Costs appear higher in their proforma compared to other agencies. Zimmerman Smith stated she allocated zero because there are less funds and she wanted to focus on rehab. of existing affordable housing this year, basically take care of what we already have rather than build more. She stated that was sort of her theme throughout with the exception of Charm Homes, which is providing an actual service, so it's a business and it's the reason she didn't fund the Homeownership project for Habitat. Gatlin stated as the person who allocated the most for the Housing Fellowship Rental project he believes that rental housing is the largest need in the community and that we have an opportunity to acquire /build more units this year. Drum agreed that it is a high priority. Chappell stated if you didn't fund because you thought it an all or nothing project, if you can fund at $150,000, revise your allocations and submit to staff or advocate at our next meeting. The Housing Fellowship CHDO There was a clear consensus on this. It's $20,000. Chappell stated he thought HUD encouraged support of CHDOs for operating expenses. Bacon Curry stated she thought it was required. Hightshoe stated it's eligible, but it's not required. CJ's Construction Rental Hightshoe stated that they lost their site as a different entity purchased it. The commission will have to consider the application with an unknown site, which is common for most housing projects. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 5of11 Chappell asked if at this time do we have any idea where that future site may be? Hightshoe stated the applicant was not present, but she could email the applicant. Chappell asked if applicants are told they must be here or they're encouraged to be here. Hightshoe stated that applicants are encouraged to attend but it's not mandatory. If they are unable to attend, they are told staff will follow up with them if there are any questions. Chappell asked about the March 22 meeting. Hightshoe stated that for that one, there's no follow -up because you make your recommendation that evening. They are encouraged to come to both, but it is not required. HACAP Rental There is a consensus to fund it at least the $200,000 and several are at $300,000. Bacon Curry stated that the site visit made a big difference. When she first read the application she was not convinced. The condition of the units and with the previous City investment of $900,000 at the property directly south, she felt funding was the way to go on this. She stated you have a frontage property on the highway in a neighborhood that we're trying to boost up. This could assist the neighborhood and greatly improve the units that are in disrepair. Zimmerman Smith asked if provided the funds, how can we ensure the applicant maintains the property as one of the problems she had with the application initially was that it said such things as the neighborhood had deteriorated and the property has deteriorated without taking any actual responsibility or formulating a plan for not having that happen again. She stated that she felt there should be a condition about maintenance. Hightshoe stated that when she analyzed the proforma, she made significant changes. She adopted the State's requirement for the operating costs per unit and reserve amounts. She would recommend a conditional occupancy loan based on annual review of the rent revenue and documentation that shows funds placed in a reserve and an annual review of expenses from such account. Bacon Curry stated there were approximately 40 -60 kids living at the property. The changes would be quite beneficial and the neighborhood could be drastically improved Gatlin stated that he was on the opposite end, realizing that we did put so much money into Broadway (Southgate's project) just a year ago and he had it as a lower priority. He understands that the area does need additional help, but was concerned about putting all of our resources in one specific area. Dragoo thought very similar, but looking at the big picture he thought this could be the tipping point for the neighborhood. Bacon Curry stated it seemed that there are quite a few affordable housing projects in this area and we need to support what is in this neighborhood. Hightshoe noted that when we consider priorities, transitional housing is a high priority despite its low ranking. CITY STEPS states non - student renter under 50% of median income, but if you read the narrative, transitional housing is specifically identified. Whether it is the acquisition of new transitional housing or to maintain the transitional housing that we have. This would also apply to Successful Living. HACAP provides transitional housing for families with children and Successful Living is primarily for people with chronic mental illness; but they both are transitional housing. Successful Living Chappell asked if anyone wanted to speak for the majority who recommended zero funding. He stated they were kind of middle of the road scoring for him. Zimmerman Smith stated this is one HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 6 of 11 where I think it makes a difference also in the opposite direction because I felt like there's almost no amount of money that was going to be able to fix it all as it is a very old building. It's going to have continuing problems and it affects a relatively small number of people that live there although they are people with mental illness. Drum stated that was the whole reason he didn't fund it. He thought there's going to be a lot of money poured into that building. For the number of people that it's going to serve, he couldn't support it. Bacon Curry stated that the building may not meet our goal of safe, affordable, decent housing. She would hate to see SROs not supported because we don't have a good supply of them, particularly for those for people in recovery from various conditions, it's just that facility is really degraded. Hart suggested some funding as would at least assist in providing some needed repair. Gatlin suggested the same. Hart asked what the $100,000 was for. Chappell stated HVAC and the roof. Bacon Curry stated there were holes in the walls and the ceilings. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Consensus to fully fund by five members. Chappell stated you may recall that we gave them money last year to acquire an additional facility, but the project didn't proceed and the money returned for reallocation. Drum stated this request is much lower, but serves many children and families. Chappell stated for the new member's benefit that it is usually not a good thing when an applicant has to give back money that they can't spend. In this particular case the money was for purchasing an additional site and through no fault of their own they've been unable to. Zimmerman Smith stated it's a good project and she liked that they didn't get to do what they were planning to do and they sort of turned right around and rebounded and came up with a different plan. She felt like she was saying yes again to the same project but cheaper this time. Chappell stated it scored very highly. Member stated they allocated partial funding for replacing the roof and repairing the parking at both facilities. Crisis Center Chappell stated he fully funded as they were the top score for him. He talked to the City Attorney about this particular application as he represents Johnson County in a myriad of different things. He has not had anything to do with this particular project. In fact the first he heard about it is when he read the application in the HCDC packet. He stated the Johnson County Board isn't his employer, but the County Attorney is his employer. The purchase agreement is not contingent about funding by HCDC /City. At least at this point he and the City Attorney's office don't believe he has any conflict. His worry was more about the appearance of a conflict because there are so few real conflicts and all he can do is say he thinks it's pretty obvious he ranked this one on the score. He scored it high because he liked the collaboration between entities. His big concern was if they would receive site control. He knows governments move slowly, but it didn't dissuade him from recommending because if they don't get it, the funding comes back for reallocation. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 7 of 11 Reedus, from the Crisis Center, stated they made a proposal February 16'h and the Board of Supervisors liked the proposal. The Supervisors like the collaborative nature of the project; however if to sell below the appraised value they must issue a RFP for the site. An RFP was issued and is due April 2 "d. They have met with some of the supervisors and gone through a time line. They are not quite sure when it will be on the formal agenda but they think within two weeks of April 2 "d. There would be a public hearing process and looking at some time around mid -May. The Supervisors told us they're considering a number of factors in their RFP process including the kinds of services, the collaborative nature of organizations working together for the project and also an important factor for them is the recipient's ability to leverage other funds that could include block grant funds for the project. Bacon Curry asked if they know if anyone else is planning on submitting a proposal? Reedus said she didn't know. Bacon Curry asked are they only considering non - profit organizations. Reedus said yes. Bacon Curry stated she allocated zero for that reason. She loves this project in the collaborative sense, but felt like we didn't really have a project yet because they don't have site control. She stated her zero is not firm, but needs more information and still kind of do. Another concern is if renting to other non - profits; do they have money to pay rent? Reedus stated it's been an incredible process and the community support behind this has been amazing. We have the support of United Way of Johnson County. We've met with the Community Foundation. We've already sought some money from some corporations in terms of capital campaign. We are pretty confident that with the money we are looking at getting - and part of that is block grant money — that we are going to be able to pass on zero cost and low rent — rent which is really going to be occupancy costs. Those kinds of things you have to pay anyway — heat, utilities, maintenance kinds of things — at a cost that is now less than what we originally thought when we were looking at actually purchasing the building for less than its value — we've never looked at our ability to purchase a building for $550,000, that was just out of the question. So I think that makes it exciting for us because one of the things we discussed with United Way today was if we can do that, not only do we collaborate but we don't add any operating costs to existing agencies and they can continue to put money back into programs and that should be the point. That if this were going to raise any of the four agencies operating costs, we'd be out looking for money in order to support that and we really do believe that we can do this without raising that, so that all of the four agencies will be able to continue to provide programs, maybe even have more money to provide programming. We're really excited about it. Bacon Curry asked if they allocated funds, and Crisis Center doesn't get the building what would happen. Hightshoe stated it would depend on the amount of money that you allocate. If it was a significant amount then we would have a mid -year allocation and open it up for people to apply. If it was a smaller amount we'd just roll it into the next year. To have a separate allocation round we would be looking at $150,000 +. HACAP Five at full funding. Chappell stated that some of the reasons that were discussed for supporting the HACAP housing project certainly rang true for this one as well. Bacon Curry stated that you can't tell from the photo, but there are actually wood studs sticking out. She also stated there is a smaller, second play area but the equipment is broken. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 8 of 11 DVIP There is a consensus of four to fully fund. Zimmermann Smith stated that she thought the floor really needs repair and would be willing to allocate money for that. She thought it's a pretty deluxe project when there are other needs and probably cheaper ways of providing food than a giant commercial kitchen. She realizes there is a social aspect with the kitchen where the people that live there get together, but not sure if worth $200,000. Drum stated he really liked this project. He likes that the agency is thinking about the community and thinking about supporting the people they serve and their future and not just housing them — not just sticking them there and not trying to help them out. Bacon Curry stated she would second Drum's comments. She had the same questions that Rachel did, but she wasn't sure how much they would save if a different way to provide meals at the site. Doser, DVIP, stated there are three stoves, but they have 40 people living there all the time. Zimmermann Smith stated that the floor was an emergency need so could fund that and would be willing to negotiate a little bit. Community Mental Health. Chappell stated at this point a consensus — actually — it's sort of three for all and four for nothing. He's one of the four that was nothing and that was strictly because it wasn't high enough to warrant full funding and it was an all or nothing project. Staff stated Zastrow, CMHC, provided written notice that they could contribute $20,000 due to a recent contribution. Chappell stated that could be put as the proverbial skin in the game for this project, whereas before — he thinks every time we've seen it — it's been strictly 100% public funding so that's about — it's over 10% of the project. The project request is now for $163,564. Hart stated she funded it fully because it is very needed and felt like we had all talked about how much it was needed but never given them the money. She stated it is a vital facility that serves medical needs that is not medically accessible to people who require accessibility. Chappell stated he thought the same, but the difficulty for him was that accommodations are made so that no one is denied services. Bacon Curry stated that she thought about what Shaw had stated about maintaining downtown structures that are historic. She believes in historic preservation and this project does both — preservation and needed accessibility. She wanted to maintain this site for its current function. Zimmermann Smith stated that the accessibility was more her reason for funding, but maintaining the property was as well. Drum stated that seeing exactly the same project we saw a year ago was a reason he didn't fund it. He believed they weren't doing anything other than applying to us for the money to get the project done. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 9of11 Hart stated it's not a very sexy project. Fundraising for an elevator at the community mental health center is not an easy sell. It's not like raising money to support playground facilities or other services such as DVIP. Chappell stated he appreciated the additional information that they've found something to contribute to the project especially if you're like him and didn't even bother with any partial funding because it was viewed as an all or nothing. MECCA Facility Rehab There is a consensus for funding, but just barely. Gatlin stated he funded the security cameras as thought very important. Bacon Curry stated she tried to fully fund other projects and didn't have any money left over. It's a pretty well maintained facility, so that's why she ended up with zero, but she could understand the security cameras. Mayor's Youth Empowerment Consensus for no funding. Member stated that they had received some help recently and when reviewing the other applications, other needs were more important. Chappell stated electrical work and HVAC were their first priorities and those would total right around 38,000. Extend the Dream There were five for no funding. Hart funded as both entities do important work and wanted to fund the accessibility. PATV she liked because they offer trainings and you can actually join them for free and especially people needing or wanting access to the communications or marketing skills. They offer that. Even though we can't overtly support them I think it was a nice joint venture for those two entities. Member stated he could understand the necessity for access to the building but ranked as low as it was and then tracking low income benefit (PATV) made it difficult for him to fund partially. Hart stated the low income benefit could be tracked at Extend the Dream. Hightshoe agreed. Jacobson had a question as to why funds were returned last year. Hightshoe stated that Extend the Dream Foundation can track the LMI benefit with their customers. The funding got pulled last time because you have to complete an environmental review before you can start projects and this organization started the project before the environmental review was completed. A building permit was pulled and work commenced before we received clearance from HUD. This negates the entire project and no federal funds can be used. Staff has ongoing concerns with the agency's capacity to administer federally funded projects. Chappell stated if any revisions in rankings /allocations to submit to Hightshoe by 5:00 PM Monday, the 1 gcn The Commission agreed to receive their packets late, after March 1 9`n HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 8, 2012 PAGE 10 of 11 ADJOURNMENT: Hart moved to adjourn. Dragoo seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8 -0. Z O N N O U Z O Z W CL O O U J W z w > W 2 CL O J o W w O O Uw O W z Z a �N O Z D C- C6- al Z �- Z) 2(D CD Tea - 0 O 2 Q N to W `) c : c ai 0 Q z W YXOz co w X X O X X X X X X tD N X X W O X X X X i X .'- X X w O X X X X i X a K Lu "t N NT M M N M N O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N w J w Z W J J w x i' p m Z Q J a U W x V ZO V O U O t9 o J OG Q U o o Q z J (9 a ' J x H 2 Z m O L) W x Q � N Q � W N to W `) c : c ai 0 Q z W YXOz IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DRAFT MONDAY, MARCH 26,2012--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Alexa Homewood, Matt Butler MEMBERS ABSENT: Hans Hoerschelman, Nicholas Kilburg STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Ty Coleman OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Beth Fisher, Bond Drager RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL aEIP27 Mmj The Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that the PATV contract be extended two months until July 1, 2012 to allow more time for a new contract to be finished. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Bergus noted an article in the meeting packet about Mediacom increasing Internet speeds beyond what is provisioned at no additional charge. Brau noted that Mediacom announced they will be offering service call windows of 30 minutes for the first appointment window of the morning and the last in the afternoon. Evening and weekend service calls will be offered as well. Brau said the PATV contract expires May 1. Butler moved and Bergus seconded a motion to hold a public hearing on the PATV contract at 5:30 on April 23 and to hold the regular April Commission meeting at 6:30. The motion passed unanimously. Goding said he received the City's proposed contract this past weekend and has not had sufficient time to adequately review it. The timeframe for completing all the steps, even with a month extension, would be a challenge if there are issues that need more discussion. Homewood moved and Butler seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council that the PATV contract be extended 2 months until July 1, 2012 to allow more time for a new contract to be finished. The motion passed unanimously. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Bergus nominated Hoerschelman for chair contingent on Hoerschelman's acceptance. Homewood seconded the nomination. Hoerschelman was unanimously elected chair. Homewood nominated Bergus for vice - chair. Butler seconded the nomination. Bergus was unanimously elected vice - chair. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Homewood moved and Butler seconded a motion to approve the February 27, 2012 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS None SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Bergus noted that there was a complaint report in the meeting packet. Only two complaints were received. MEDIACOM REPORT No representative was present. Bergus noted an article in the meeting packet about Mediacom increasing Internet speeds beyond what is provisioned at no additional charge. Brau noted that Mediacom announced they will be offering service call windows of 30 minutes for the first appointment window of the morning and the last in the afternoon. Evening and weekend service calls will be offered as well. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNELS REPORTS Bergus noted that the access channel reports were included in the meeting packet and said that she appreciates those reports. Fisher introduced Bond Drager, the new library staff member responsible for the library channel. Goding reported that PATV recently purchased wireless microphones with funds made available through the community programming fund grant. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Bergus noted there was a written report in the meeting packet. Coleman distributed a new version of the proposed changes to the PATV contract. PATV CONTRACT Brau said the PATV contract expires May 1. If the Commission desires to make a recommendation to the City Council, it will need to be done at the current meeting or hold a special meeting will need to be held before the April 17 City Council meeting. The Commission could also recommend that the current contract be extended for a month. The Commission could make a recommendation at the current meeting but it would lack consideration of any public input. Coleman said Hardy's Cable TV Administrator's report indicated that he did not anticipate the Commission making a recommendation at the March meeting. Bergus said that given the timeframe it would be best to recommend that the contract be extended. Butler asked how the public forum would be advertised. Brau said that a press release would likely be drafted to get a notice in the newspaper. In the past display ads in the newspaper have been purchased. PATV might also notify their constituency. Homewood asked about the probability that the City Council would not extend the contract. Brau said he believed that would be unlikely. Butler moved and Bergus seconded a motion to hold a public hearing on the PATV contract at 5:30 on April 23 and to hold the regular April Commission meeting at 6:30. The motion passed unanimously. Bergus asked if the new contract compliance reporting was an addition to the monthly reports provided the Commission. Coleman said they were two separate reports. Brau said he believed that the compliance reports need not to be forwarded to the Commission. Bergus asked if the compliance report would require a great deal of additional effort by PATV. Goding said that about 2/3 of what is requested is already provided and that the new data collection will involve more work. Bergus noted the section of the contract covering copyright clearances and said that PATV is likely not protected by the safe harbors included in the Digital Millennia Copyright Act and may not be in compliance with those requirements. Goding said he received the City's proposed contract this past weekend and has not had sufficient time to adequately review it. The timeframe for completing all the steps, even with a month extension, would be a challenge if there are issues that need more discussion. Homewood moved and Butler seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council that the PATV contract be extended 2 months until July 1, 2012 to allow more time for a new contract to be finished. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOUNMENT Kilburg moved and Homewood seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:09. Respectfully submitted, rvyzo Michael Brau Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD July 2008 to CURRENT Meeting Date Hoerschelman Saul Meikes Bob Kemp Gordon Gary Hagen 7/28/08 X X X X X 8/25/08 X X X o/c X 9/23/08 x x x x X 10.27/08 X X X o/c X 11/24/08 Did not meet 12/15/08 X X X X X 1/26/09 X X X X o/c 2/243/09 X' x o/c o/c X Laura Ber us 4/27/09 X X X X X 6/1/09 x x x vacant X 6/22/09 X X X X Mekies 7/27/09 X X X o/c x 8/24/09 X X X X X 9/28/09 X X X X X 10/24/09 x x xx o/c 11/23/09 x x o/c x X 1/25/10 X X X o/c o/c 2/22/10 X X o/c X o/c 4/26/10 X X o/c X o/c 5/24/10 X X 0 X X 6/28/10 X x 0 X o/c 7/26/10 X x 0 o/c X 8/23/10 X X Vacant X X 9/27/10 o/c x x X 10/24/10 X o/c X X Klouda 11/22/10 X X X X X 12/27/10 X X X X o/c 1/24/11 X X X O X 2/28/11 X X X X X 5/28/11 X X X X Homewood x 6/27/11 x o/c x x X 8/27/11 x x x o/c X 9/24/11 X X X X X 10/24/11 X X X X X 11/26/11 X X vacant X X Kilbur 2/25/12 X X x x X Butler 3/26/12 o/c x o x x (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused) IP28 Minutes PRELIMINARY Human Rights Commission March 20, 2012 Helling Conference Room Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Connie Goeb, Diane Finnerty, Orville Townsend, Kim Hanrahan, Shams Ghoneim Members Excused: David Brown, Howard Cowen, Henri Harper Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers Others Present: Chad Simmons This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of March 20, 2012. Recommendations to Council: Yes. The Human Rights Commission recommends to the Iowa City City Council that a committee be established to review the Police Citizen Review Board. That committee can be compromised of city staff, councilors or community members, but must contain at least one human rights commissioner. The review board would investigate the strengths and challenges of the current Police Citizen Review Board model and consider whether it is the right model for the city. In reviewing the strengths and the challenges of the current Police Citizen Review Board, the review committee would determine whether the current structure best serves the city Call to Order Chair Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:00, followed by roll call. Consideration of the Minutes of the February 21, 2012 Meeting: Finnerty moved to approve minutes, second by Townsend. Motion passed 6 -0. New Business- Amendment to the Ordinance. SB: This is something that has been discussed since I started in 2006. It's in the packet and it would be item 4a, and it has to do with who makes the probable cause determinations. What it would be is currently the city attorney makes the probable cause determination. We investigate a complaint and the investigator gives the investigative summary to me, and then I either go along with that, or I can change the recommendation that they've given, and then I send the file downstairs to the city attorney. This change would allow me to make the final decisions and it would remove the city attorney from the decision making process. It's something that has been discussed since 2006. I think prior there was case law that made the city attorney feel that they needed to be a part of the decision, but over time it's become kind of an inefficient way of processing complaints. So this would make it more efficient and also allow if there is a disagreement, excuse me, since 2006 I think there's been two times where I sent down a probable cause and they disagreed. We don't differ too often, but it would make those types of complaints where there is disagreement. It would make my decision the final decision. OT: If making such a change, is there any way that that might put you at a disadvantage? SB: Not that I'm aware of. It would be no different as far as liability than if the city attorney made the decision. SG: What would be the recourse for the individual who is doing the complaining if say you don't think there is probable cause? Does he or she have another avenue? SB: Yes that wouldn't change. If it's ruled a no probable cause a person has ten days to appeal that decision. If it's an administrative closure a person has twenty days to appeal that decision. So their appeal rights would not change. It would just be who is making the decision. SG: And the appeal will be, who is going to look at the appeal, you again or someone else? SB: It would be me, but that's currently basically how it is now. DF: The language we have here, that's the proposed language or? SB: It would be how it currently is. What is going to happen is the city attorney simply wants to see how the Commission feels about the change. Then they are going to make a recommendation to the city council, whether the Commission is in favor of it or not in favor of it. DF: the proposed SB: Correct. They haven't created that yet, but they are just trying to get a feel or a determination from the Commission. DF: Essentially, currently the city attorney and I didn't actually even realize this. I thought they came to you; you made the determination and investigation _. SB: No I mean I do initially, but they have the ability to change my decision. This would take that out. DF: This would put you in the coordinator position as the funnel and the investigator and the issuer of SB: Well if I'm the one investigating it then it probably still would go downstairs to the city attorney to make a decision so I'm glad you mentioned that. If I had a conflict on a complaint, then it would still go to the city attorney. DF: Only in conflicts. SB: Correct, and every now and then there is a complaint that maybe I have a conflict so that I don't make a decision on it. DF: Is it in your job description is a JD required of the coordinator position in the city? SB: It is, and currently the investigator is a licensed attorney. HO: Does this mean more money for you? SB: No. HO: Do we have a motion? OT: I move that the change be accepted as submitted. HO: Second? SG: Second. HO: Roll call- all present replied in the affirmative, motion passed. University Focus: HO: We have Executive Director Chad Simmons here to present. CS: Thank you for allowing me to come and talk with you. I am the Executive Director for Diversity Focus. Some of you won't need our history, but I'd like to just give you a small summary. The reason why Diversity Focus was created is that there were corporations that realized that they were bringing in very 4 qualified individuals. But for a variety of different reasons the people were coming here for their careers, but they couldn't build their life. Because of that then there was a lot of money being spent bringing talented individuals here, and then those people leaving. Then corporations and organizations like Rockwell Collins, The University of Iowa, ACT, Alliant Energy, thought as we work internally and what's happening within our organizations, we need someone to work externally as far as what's happening within the community. During the survey that we did in 2008 and introduced in 2009, there were four areas that created challenges around them, across the corridor. One was as it relates to law enforcement, two as it relates to employment, three as it relates to education, and four as it relates to retail. Three of the four areas were things that happened outside of _, where people were feeling that again that they were not welcome. So Diversity Focus again our goal was to do that. For the past six years we're been focusing a lot on awareness and hopefully for some of our programs, whether crash dialogues or conversation, Spanish conversation circles or our speaker series called shift. The board asked me took a look over the past six years and I served on the board for around 18 months. There was a feeling of eating a whole pizza and still being hungry. Now I'm big enough of a guy that that's not uncommon for me, but for most again, you know it's a concept of we're happy with the work that we did from the activity, but we were still not satisfied with the results of what we were looking for. So last October the board took a look and had this mission and vision. authorized for us to start moving in a direction of more just awareness to action. Action was a concept of really engaging, not only our sponsors, but more importantly the community and our partners to try to figure out how we can create the type of environment that we would want to, that people could live healthy, happy and prosperous lives. become the place that people would want to come to. And so we have been working on a variety of different things and there are five areas that we want to focus on. These are the five _ that we believe that we can make changes to that in essence it's going to have an impact to our community. One is going to be around employment. Two is going to be around education and what we can do there, specifically around high school and the college level. Three is going to be economic development, making sure that we have some businesses and supporting the businesses that are supporting communities. Four is arts and culture. Five is health and well- being. So I was saddened in this unfortunate that Iowa City area was not selected as one of the finalists, and so my hope is that the appropriate minds will get their act together and then it will be selected next year. I am happy that again Cedar Rapids was selected, but the overall concept of well -being and what people again feeling like they can bring their whole selves and live healthy lives is important, not just in health as it relates to physical but also mental. So those are the that in essence we've been looking at and putting in place. Now the programming that we've done there's one specific area that I want to talk to you about. It's what we call an inclusive community. Our ability to move to action, we're going to be putting some things in place and we would love to be able to partner with you on some of them. We want to; we're developing a television show where we can show the day in the life of an Iowan and their unique experiences. We will show one — day in the life of a Muslim who is in school. We will show another experience of a day in the life of a family from the GLBT community, who is also you know dealing with family issues around bullying. We will show another family from the perspective of someone who has emigrated from the country of Chad and the experience they've had. Then we'll show another experience of a new hire, of what they go through when they're new and trying in essence find their . So the goal is that the more we can reach to people to say that these are people that have the experiences that are not uncommon to all of us. We all take our journey. The more that we can be part of helping them find their place here then the better it is. So that's one thing. A couple of other things that we're doing is we're going to come out back with our inclusive community's magazine. Our goal is that we will probably have the first edition that's right now ready for the January release, but we're really looking to move into a quarterly document versus having some periodical versus having something that's done every two years. about marketing people who are new, who are here. What we really want to do is talk about people's lives and the journeys that they take, and the experiences that they in essence that they go through and talk about the five different areas we're looking at. We also want to engage the community when it comes to doing town hall meetings, and we think that there's a great opportunity for the both of us to partner together as well as with other local organizations to target town hall meetings around the African American community and around the Latino Hispanic community, around the GLBT community, also around the disabled community in a way that talks about solutions to challenges, and get people's feedback on the solutions versus many times getting feedback on the challenges. We want to do this for every community twice a year. We respect that we're branded from a regional perspective, but that people still live locally in the cities. So we want to do something that's going to be again uniquely in the Iowa City area, as well as 3 something in the Cedar Rapids area so we can just engage with people. Our goal is to be serving leaders so we're not going to come with ready -made solutions. We're hoping with working with our partners and again with organizations like you, that we can help bring those great solutions to light. But we also want to be able to use this information to help educate many of our corporations on what they can do in order to help be a part of working with the community to get things done. So many times you know they give to the community as it relates to talent or a treasure. We want to make sure that they're leveraging the talent, treasure as well as their time in such a way that it's beneficial to . So that's my short spiel. I just really wanted to introduce myself, and let you know that we are working with the Human Rights Commission in Cedar Rapids and we'd love the ability to partner with the work that you're doing. SG: In your experience have you been able to identify any barriers to your hope for outcome? Do you see a role in your efforts for faith communities? CS: The role for faith communities are actually extremely important, and that's even one of the television shows around Muslims. The community was critical to us because when people come again to build their life, one of the critical things that they look for is their spiritual well- being, and where they can't find that spiritual well -being then it's an empty hole they end up that is drawing them to go back to where they were or go somewhere else. So that's the first thing that is important. The biggest thing that I found is the, and it's get to around the concept of infrastructure. How do people find each other? How do we communicate? So if I'm looking to find the African American community do I go to a radio station where they're listing to the radio station? Is there a magazine or newspaper that they are reading? How do I specifically target them to let them know that things are going on? So my favorite example that I use is that there is a group called The Roots that were here around a year ago. One of my favorite groups and I found out about it two days before they came. If I'd have known in advance that was fine, but the only way that they could get to someone like me is through the internet and bouncing around through different list serves. So when it hits me it's something that I can see, but other than that I don't actively go and try to seek those types of things. So infrastructure is really important. We want to work with things like the Iowa Cultural Corridor Alliance to see what things would be interesting then in groups, and how can we make sure those groups are aware of that. We've been looking at internet radio. I have XM and Sirius radio so I get the music, but nothing of the local flair of what I'm looking for. If I'm not using the Press Citizen or going to The Gazette, then I'm not getting the information that I'm looking for. If there is something specifically that should be targeted towards me, then it's hard for them to find me because there aren't some of the communication vehicles available. We know that we need to start being part and how to we build some of the infrastructure to get information to people in the way that they would best receive it locally. HO: Can you tell what sort of collaboration you're doing with the Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission? CS: We're working with them where we hadn't actually, an event that we partnered with this past Saturday with the African American Preservation. They have been doing work around families and the judicial system, and trying to address some of the challenges that the system has put in place and in essence to make families not successful or productive. They're dealing with the 34% of the families that are still together from ah you know two members or two heads of the household kind of within the family versus just one. We've been working on that and we've agreed to do town hall meetings twice a year so that we have the ability to have some of those types of discussions. The new Jim Crow book discussions are a part of that. So we haven't specifically partnered on _, but we have partnered on other events. SG: Have you worked with anyone from the University, like the diversity offices? CS: Georgina Dodge, she is the member of our board. The president of our board is Marcella David, and has been on our board for a while. So we try to have interaction and we're working through to make sure that we're not duplicating. Our goal is not to duplicate, but that we're collaborating internally. SG: The Johnson County Consultation for Religious Communities would be a wonderful group to contact because it has some 35 different congregations from the , different Christian denominations. That's another group that you might want to connect with and even give a presentation because it's really in important to know what's available in the community. They're very interested in issues of race and all the different diversity issues. CS: We've been working with them, but not with the larger group. We've been working with the subcommittee in order to pull some things together. One of the things that we wanted to do was to link the group here with the Linn County Interfaith Group. We were thinking and I'm meeting with someone from that group to talk about a prayer breakfast. We're looking to kind of tie in groups together to figure out how do we create that type of environment. DF: I know your name has come up with one of the CRC subgroups about racial and ethnic justice. Is that CS: Yes. I think we'll be meeting on Thursday, and then I'll assign someone permanently to be at all of the meetings. HO: Do you have specific ideas of what you'd like from us? CS: I really would love for us to collaborate when it comes to doing something around town hall meetings and pulling communities together. I think there are other organizations that we could partner with in different groups, but that to me was one area where when we talk about pulling communities together based on the work that you're doing. It just seemed to be a natural fit, and again however that kind of materialized we'd be more than willing to work with . The other thing I would say is that we've always in Diversity Focus very open to hearing kind of the issues or the concerns or your thoughts. You know where we should invest our time, talent and treasure. An example we've done training for all the Johnson Country law enforcement in January. We've been working with Cedar Rapids on some issues with their law enforcement, but we get a little twist which is the corporations, the employees from the corporations were having challenges. So we brought in from the perspective of our sponsors. Employees are having challenges with the police, and this is impacting their ability to retain. So can we get together and have some dialogue. The different discussion because it comes from a different place for us, when it comes to Cedar Rapids and addressing some of the issues. So again I think there are opportunities to look at things, similar challenges or challenges. DF: In the 2008 survey, is all that data online? CS: It is no longer online, but we'll make sure to put it online and I'll make sure that you get a copy of it. DF: It's interesting that the five levels law enforcement dropped CS: It's imbedded in different places. The concept that, what we're saying to law enforcement is that you could impact whether people choose to stay or not. You're an ambassador and you can impact that. We want you to think about it more than just to serve and protect. We really want you to explore the possibility that you're an ambassador that can help us retain talent and grow our community. DF: You mentioned the education of high school and college. Are you working with the school districts? CS: We have been working with a department with the Iowa Community School district, and we're also working with the Cedar Rapids Community School district. One of these speakers for example that we have coming is Jeffery Canada, who is one of the principal individuals in Waiting for Superman. So he's going to be coming and have some conversations, and so our goal for example is to get 500 people there. We want 200 educators there. We scheduled so it happens August 7`s so it's not during school time so the educators can attend. We are doing things there. We created a program called LIZ, which is a student leadership series. We used to come up with our own programming. We found out that it's more impactful if we collaborate with partners for programming. For example we worked with Henri in order to assist him when it came to the college tour. We wanted to make sure that we could get as many kids as possible. Our goal is to continue to grow that for here and the Cedar Rapids area. We're working with Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and incorporated that as a program around Coretta Scott King, and so we wanted to 5 leverage that and some training with some young ladies in college and in high school. They have a luncheon in which everyone is welcome to attend. We're going to be partnering with Dr. Ruth White in Cedar Rapids where she does the Academy, their summer school program, or Institute that's around six weeks. We're doing a variety of different things to incorporate what's happening overall. DF: So if we have upcoming educational programs that we're in the process of planning or groups that we're involved, I'd love to be able to send you at least notice of that. CS: That'd be wonderful. Our web address is www.diversityfocus.org. SG: Have you utilized public access TV? CS: We are working with a PATV in order to create a TV show. Our goal is just to put them on major channels, but then also to put them on PATV. SG: I would encourage you to consider, I know you're working with the CRC subcommittee, but to really ask the current president to speak to the entire CRC. It's more exposure, and maybe we'll get more opportunity to exchange ideas. DF: When you do your presentation of the and saying that Iowa City community and mentioned Cedar Rapids. Who are the other finalist communities? CS: They were eleven communities that were selected for the Blue Zones specifically, and I can send you a link to the ones who were the finalists. It would include groups like Waterloo and Cedar Falls, Dubuque. They're set into two large cities and then the small cities. DF: The only other thing I'd say with my university hat on, is I think you're going to be doing some great work, excellent practical experience for students or if some faculty members might be interested in doing service _, research also. The academic side of the house university, HO: Harry thanked Chad for his presentation. Board and Commission Training Opportunity: SB: I'm going to back up to item 4b just to see if there is any interest to put this on the agenda for April to come up with, I think one of his suggestions was a town hall meeting or some program that you could collaborate with Diversity Focus on. Is that something? OT: We've got our program coming up May 2 "d, and I was talking to Chad, and what we plan on doing is the information we get from that program and take it and see what we can do to use it to help improve the situation. On the second phase I think it would be ideal to bring Chad in and collaborate with that. DF: Yes I'd be interested — discussion, some of the immigration issues. One of our existing programs that we're thinking about would add value to have kind of Diversity Focus. HO: Why don't we put in on the agenda for next month and discuss it further. Board and Commission Training Opportunities. SB: That is in the packet item 4c, and it's an email from Marian Karr. This is an opportunity for Commission members to have training. It's a two hour program and summarizing the email, it says that it presents the basic law and concepts that apply to local government boards and commissions. So we'll probably talk about I'm guessing open meetings, and some other type issues that may arise in your service as a Commissioner. Looks like it talks about public records, conflicts of interest. Some of the things may be useful, so it's just trying to get a feel of if any Commission members would be interested in participating, and if so just kind of a number that may be interested. Also it's asking me to get information on the timing of the training, whether you would like it during the day, in the evening, during the weekday or on a R weekend. I think it said Saturday specifically. So that's what I just need to know is kind of get a feel. You're not obligated at this point. I think at this stage the city is just trying to get a rough number. In response at least five members expressed interested. SB: So I have Connie, Kim, Harry, Shams, and Diane. Comments on preference of availability to attend program. Protocol for Subcommittee Reports: SB: This was mentioned in passing at the last meeting, so it was placed on the agenda. Trying to determine whether the Commission thinks, when subcommittees report if there is a better way for that to be done, or if you think that the Commission is making a good use of meeting time by the way the reports are given on subcommittees currently. So it's not necessarily that something needs to change, but trying to get a feel for if you like how it's currently going or if you would like to implement changes to how the subcommittee reports to the whole Commission. I know just from past experience sometimes there's a report that's prepared and can be placed in the packet. If there are questions then they can ask at the meeting. So that would be one way that subcommittees could report. It's just an inquiry. There's not a right or wrong here, but just trying to get how you feel about how the meetings are handled. SG: Can you clarify for me how many subcommittees we have? Are we now at two, but there's for potential for more or? SB: Correct. SG: What was the history of reporting? Is it oral during the meetings? SB: Correct, with questions and answers based upon the report. DF: I think if there was a structured outline. I don't know what it would be. The last meeting, decisions made, questions. Maybe just like four bullet points or something. SB: It's not meant to be something that takes a long time. DF: If we have these long meetings for example — subcommittees, it's hard to know what to exactly concisely report back because there'd be a lot of conversation. So I think it would help us in our thinking as well of here's what we need from the rest of the Commission to move forward. Here's what we need to tell the Commission to move forward. I just think, I don't know what the template would look like, but for me it would be useful. SG: Sort of like a progress report or a summary where we are and where we think we should go. What do you all think? SB: Another way it would be helpful is if people miss meetings, which happens. They would generally speaking receive the same information as if they'd attended. Granted the minutes would provide the same information, but the minutes are long. So this would be something that would be a page or so that would allow someone who was unable to attend to be up to date and current on the status or the progress of a subcommittee. I try to mail packets no later than Thursday. I prefer to do it sooner, but sometimes it doesn't present that way. So subcommittees would need to provide to me what they wanted in the packet by the second Tuesday of each month because we meet the third. That would allow me time to copy it and make it a part of the packet. If something should come up and that date isn't workable, the second Tuesday, just let me know. We'll still try to get it in there and maybe just delay the packet by a day or two. OT: In regards to the committee reports to date, and I think the subcommittees have done a good job of giving feedback. I think the board has done an excellent job with asking questions and trying to get more insight. 7 SB: Do you think we should keep things the way they are? OT: I don't have a problem with it. HO: How do the rest of you feel? CG: I would agree with Orville, but I also think it wouldn't hurt to have a bit of an outline to go by so there is consistency. Nothing that would be overwhelming for people to prepare, but the one question I would have is you know by the second Tuesday of each month whether there is progress made in that three week period between the last meeting and the next meeting. I guess a report could say there is no particular progress and we're meeting on this date to discuss this or something. An update rather than particular progress. OT: I remember on the Immigration Committee when we were doing that, and what I liked about that when giving our reports we seemed to lead into it by you know what were the problems we discussed the last time. This is what we did to improve that and then get feedback, and sharing what we perceive to be future problems and what our next steps would be. SG: This is a consideration for all, some organizations for example we have many committees. So each committee will just have a paragraph written and left for us when we come to the meetings. We'll just read it, and if there's anything to add or ask questions we do, and sometimes either the chair or president will say if there's no reason to discuss a specific issue or no progress, then we just skip it for that meeting. This is just one thought. HO: Is everyone willing to try it? SB: If there's nothing to report, there'd be nothing then. HO: Let's try it for the next meeting and see how it works. SB: I will send a reminder email out that Friday before the Tuesday, or do you want it sooner? HO: That'd be okay. Police Citizen Review Board: DF: I asked at the last meeting in our correspondence packet, we had a letter from Ms. Porter dated January 10'h and it was to the Police Citizen Review Board, but then also city managers, city council members, the mayor, the Human Rights Commission and also an attorney, which may be hers. It was in our correspondence packet last time and so because it was correspondence that was directed to us I wanted to put it on the agenda to discuss the issues that were raised by the letter about Ms. Porter's concern about the Police Citizen Review Board. But then I'm also not sure how many of you have been following it in the news, whether the local press coverage or some of it _. I asked it to be placed on the agenda so that we could discuss this since it came to us and if there's any action as a Commission or we'd be interested in adding to the discussion that's going on. I appreciate the CC and the Human Rights Commission is seen as having a vested interest in how the Citizen Review Board works. I think we do in terms of wanting it to be a transparent process that people feel able to go to. I know that came up around the immigration issues as well, but somebody who is undocumented or somebody that is an immigrant has concerns about police, they need a place to go where they can feel safe telling it. I think the more transparent and the appearance of fairness and impartiality, the Police Citizens Review Board can be the more apt, it will be a safe experience for people to come and report. I was glad that we were included in the CC. I know that the city council, I can't remember what meeting, but back in the minutes discussed it as a work session, March 6`h. As I understand it there was some discussion of content, but really they'd like to defer action until there's a Police Citizen Review Board forum around May 9`h I believe. The council is looking at this issue and waiting for a community response on May 9`". As a Commissioner I just wanted to have a conversation and I was concerned about particularly public comments that were made by some of the people that were both city staff, and also my understanding is the — council to the PCRP about this process. I don't know whose purview it is to address those to. A question about I can't remember when it was actually put into place, but since it's been put into place the action could undergo a review of its effectiveness of some of the dynamics. There are recommendations to maybe change the name so it's the Police Citizen Review Board because the complaints were actually investigated. The complaints against the police are investigated by the police. So I would as an individual Commissioner I think I would support what I'm understanding is a recommendation to set up a committee to review what's currently called the Police Citizen Review Board. Its name, its function, whether the model is working, and hear how the community feels about it. Because it was in our packet and it's of importance in our community right now, I wanted the Commission to have a conversation about that. OT: My concern of the way it is now it seems that the police department has too much involvement. I personally feel that if a person has an issue or concern about the police department and they present it, that a group of neutral individuals should be the ones that look at that. I don't think the police department should have any involvement in that. I think the only involvement they should have is once things are presented then they have a chance to present their side of the issue. But the way it is now it's sort of like, like you said the police department is kind of investigating itself, and I think that's definitely a conflict of interest. I think also it creates suspicious atmosphere where a lot of people won't even share their concerns because they feel they're wasting their time or I wouldn't, if I had an issue with the police department I would be very comfortable coming to a neutral group and giving that information, but I don't think I want the police department knowing what I said because of. I was looking at the deal that was in the paper with Ms. Porter, and here you have the police chief saying that he feels that this committee member shouldn't be allowed to continue. I respect you know, like I told city council. I respect that individual's rights and his freedom of speech, but my concern is that you know he completely compromised Ms. Porter's right to due process. She should have a right to continue her stay on the board and then if she's not doing a good job, let the board president and the board take care of that and not the police chief being involved. I agree that this is something that the way it is now, I don't think it's a very healthy situation SG: The hierarchy is a bit confusing because who appoints and selects the board members? SB: I believe that would be like the Commission so that would be the council. SG: The city council? SB: That's my understanding yes. SG: I don't understand why would the police chief have even the thought that he has the jurisdiction to say who should or should not stay on the board? OT: He said that she_, well he felt she couldn't be objective because she's on the board, but she's filed a personal claim against the police department. Which is a very awkward situation, but still I think the healthy way to handle that would be to allow her to just continue to perform her duties, and then if the board was voting one way and she was always negative, then her board members could approach her. Then the worst scenario is the president of the board could approach the city council and request that she be removed. But the police chief I thought it was very inappropriate for him to make such a statement. DF: As another citizen kind of volunteer commissioner, how I'd feel if Stefanie was making quotes to the paper about my impartiality on this Commission as a volunteer. Or if I took it further that if I had filed a complaint against the city for some type of discrimination, that Stefanie would then go give an interview saying well that disqualifies Diane from serving as a member of this ­ I could never imagine you doing that. I would not want the city staff member, the staff to this Commission to be making public statements. SG: Also there is a very easy way to do it with many groups is that an individual whose case is being discussed or voted on to recuse himself. That's happening in many groups because sometimes this is so, it can happen. Sometimes a case or an issue comes to the organization or to the board; an individual member of that board would have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest can go both ways, just recuse herself. 0 OT: But the way it was handled, Ms. Porter was never given the right to even recuse herself. She was found guilty before she even got a chance. DF: Assumed guilty by the review board, but certainly not in the court of law. I want to be really clear on the record that a court of law said there was not even enough to make a case. OT: Another thing we might want to take a look at is maybe our city officials need training because if you've got the police chief making a statement like this to the newspapers. It's frightening to think what individuals beneath him might be doing that have less authority. DF: One of the possibilities and I think what I'd like to propose would be that there be a committee that can be comprised of one or two councilors or city staff or whoever, but also community members to review the review board. SG: We just had the issue, a new board of directors meeting this last Sunday, and the Hawkeye liaison of the ACLU, she did talk about this case as a serious issue of potential. DF: I see it within the purview of the Human Rights commission to either recommend and or support that because I think it does have a strong influence on race relations in town. I think it has a strong influence on people's belief open and access city services. I think it makes the truth like the police departments harder if there is no recourse and people feel like it's just the. People investigating their own, that's there's a closed system. I think it makes it more difficult for the community and just a variety of things. I believe it is time given the issues that were brought to us and also the way that it's played out in the press. The chiefs statements and Ms. Pugh's statement, who is the consultant, the paid council of the review board in this case. The job of the review board is to listen and review the complaints and the chief's findings in a good light. Whether that's factual or not, that's what is out in the public, and that's problematic. It just seems like it's a closed system that the city can and should do better. CG: Can you repeat that again? DF: Catherine Pugh is the counsel, and maybe you might have more information Stefanie, but it's an attorney who is hired as the council to the Police Citizen Review Board made a statement that was quoted in the newspaper, that the commission is charged with a duty which was to view the chiefs finding in a very favorable light. That was in the Press Citizen February 22, 2012. She's the council and she's not a member, but she is the legal counsel for the review board. Again whether that's factual, I looked on the website. It doesn't say that on the website, but I think it's a concern. It's out in the community that the city council should be concerned about it. OT: I think we need to be careful in terms of what we're recommending. Are we recommending that something be done concerning the review board or are we recommending that something be done in terms of the process? There are two different things here and they are going in totally different directions. The review board could be doing an okay job, but I guess with the way it's set up it could be some big issues. DF: I think the recommendations are minimally the names but more likely is the structure that we believe works best for this system. I'd like to make a motion then that the Human Rights Commission recommends to the Iowa City City Council that a committee is established to review the Police Citizen Review Board. That committee can be compromised of city staff and or Commissioners and or councilors, and community members, and that it investigates strengths and challenges of the current model, but also takes into consideration whether it is the right model for the city. HO: Asks for a second to this motion? SG: Second. HO: Connie? 10 CG: I would like if I could to abstain just I was gone during the month of February, and I'm not familiar with a lot of what's been going on with this. I'd like to look at it because one concern I have is I don't know if it's our, I realize that she copied us on this and I think it's something that needs to be reviewed. I would hope that the city council would do it without much prompting. I'm just a little concerned about another fellow board or an equal board type situation calling for another board to revise what they're doing or to review what they're doing. I would like to get more familiar with the topic before I would vote to support that. OT: I need to have more clarification on what are we recommending. Are we recommending that we take a look at the structure or are we saying that we want to look at the whole thing? That means how they've been functioning. My concern is with the structure and the way it's set up. What are we recommending? DF: I think my proposal would be that both the strengths and the challenges of the current, but also whether it is the structure that best serves this city. SG: To be honest everything that I've heard about the Police Board, how old is it? CG: It was after the Shaw murder. SG: I've never heard a very positive input to be honest. That's not just because of the Ms. Porter issue. I've heard it so many times from so many different groups that it hasn't been very effective or as they hoped it to be, but I don't know. So maybe we need to look at their history, the type of complaints they've had, what was the outcome. I don't know if that's public information or not. I have no idea. CG: The PCRB is pretty similar to our board in terms of how it's set up, but they would have open meetings like we would have. SB: I think that would be true, but I'm sure they would go into closed session at times too. DF: I think the function of their board is very different than ours because they are actually an investigative body. Whereas the Human Rights Coordinator is an investigative body and we have very little to do with that function. OT: But getting back to my vote I'm going to base upon what the legal person said that they take a look at the chiefs findings. I think that needs to be restructured so I would say yes, we definitely need to recommend that they take a look at it. DF: I would vote yes. I actually would hope that another commission or board had concerns about how we're functioning and that we hear from them. So I'm okay with the peer commission board kind of being... If there was a whole lot that we were in the press for that was not promoting Human Rights and the community I would hope my fellow citizens would ask for a review of our functioning. So I vote yes. KH: Could I ask for clarification? Is this a memo to the council or is this a public statement? DF: It would be to the city council. KH: So it's not a public statement? SG: To make sure I understand. We are recommending to the city council for them to consider or to actually put together a review committee that has both community members, city staff as well as someone from the Human Rights Commission to oversee or to review the current police? DF: I would say we recommend, that's all we can do right now. SG: To do what? 11 DF: That a committee reviews, and I had to put my proposal in actual member of the Human Rights Commission would serve on that. I'd certainly be open to that, if that would a useful part of the record. I had initially stated that, but it would be to conduct a review. SG: On the structure and process or just leave it open ended? DF: I think the structure sounds like it's very important, but is this the right model for this city. SG: Do we know of any other cities that have a similar model? DF: Yes, and my understanding is that there are cities that have different models as well. SG: Do you think it'd be good for us a group to look at these different models before we send a recommendation? DF: That would be best, what I would say structured that you look at pros and cons of different structures. OT: That would be one of the first things that the committee would do. DF: Do people want to accept a friendly amendment that we'd like somebody from the Human Rights Commission on the committee as part of our recommendations? SG: Agreed. DF: Then I would accept that as a friendly amendment. SB: Who? Diane and Kim. HO: Roll call vote on the motion would be amended. All present voted yes, with the exception of Connie Goeb, abstained. SB: It will be noted in the draft minutes from March where it says recommendations to council. In the last minutes it said no, so it would say yes and then have the recommendation there. DF: That's what they get in their packets? SB: That's correct, but the first set of minutes would be preliminary. It would be placed in their packet so they would see the preliminary minutes, but then the approval minutes would be at the April meeting. World Human Rights Day Proclamation (December 1, 2012) HO: Stefanie I'd like to recommend that the item number be placed to the left... SB: On the left? HO: Yes. This is a proclamation that came to me from Birmingham, Alabama. We talked about having a proclamation welcoming city. I thought this would be a compromise to the welcoming city of using the UN Human Rights constitution that they've come up with. I'm recommending that we take it and give the city council a proclamation of this F: So you're asking that this proclamation be given to the city council? HO: Yes, it'd be written up in terms of the beginning would be written up in terms of City of Iowa. 12 DF: Do you know Sanctuary City is working on getting a proclamation in front of the city council? Do you know how that's going? HO: No I don't. SG: I don't think they've done anything. DF: I have an email in my inbox about it being drafted. SG: The subcommittee is _, I had a car accident so I didn't, I missed that meeting. I can forward to you all if you think what some of the minutes of that. I'll ask Carla is it's okay. Do you want me to? HO: Yes. OT: I think that's a good question and in the spirit of collaboration I think anytime we have something like this we need to check with the other groups that are working because we're dealing with a very touchy subject. There are not many people talking about it, but I think if one group comes in with something and then another group comes in with something. It's gonna take away from it, so we need to come in with something that's big that everyone is in agreement with. DF: I love the idea and I think you found a great statement. I love going back and saying okay let's try this one. It gets at a more broader kind of way. I like the intent of what you're proposing. I would just not want to, I know there's some proclamation that HO: Let's table this until the next meeting. The Human Rights Day isn't until December 1S` so we have time. DF: I see March 21S` is when the CRC will review a draft proclamation. Youth Awards (May 9b 7 -8 p.m.) HO: Everyone will be there at the Englert Theater. Stefanie discussed parking and asked that Commissioners be there by 5:15. SB: I sent out nomination forms for the youth as well as the Ally. The youth awards will run an ad in the Press Citizen. The Youth Ally Award I'm not sure really how useful the Press Citizen advertisement would be. DF: Did that committee come up with their distribution plan? SB: Not that I've heard of yet. I do have the guidelines for social media in the city. If that's something that that committee wanted to look at I can make it available. I sent them out on the Commission listserv, and today I received a few calls from the Iowa City Community School district concerning the general Youth Awards. I still need to send them the flyer for the Youth Ally, so that one should be advertised soon on the city channel. DF: I was wondering if you wanted to get it to the high school papers? SB: That's a great idea. DF: Something cool like "what's an ally." SG: I forwarded it to the Muslim community and actually the CRC, but I will make sure tomorrow. KH: I don't know if Tate has a newspaper, but they do do morning announcements. HO: Do you want to talk about the ceremony? 13 SB: That's already come up with the 5:15 arrival. It is a busy time downtown because of the Farmer's Market is going on. At the next meeting we'll finalize or delegate the duties, but if everybody is able to kind of greet and show the recipients where their seat is. There is assigned seating, it's very particular. If it gets out of order things would become quickly chaotic. We would also need someone to do an intro, and Orville did it last year. It's pretty brief. I don't even know if it was ten minutes, but very brief. In that introduction you would also introduce the mayor who has agreed to speak this year again. We need somebody to help with the seating, which I generally say if any Commissions are able to help with that or at least to greet. We'd need one Commissioner to do the intro, another Commissioner to read the nominations and another to do the closing. The closing is very brief, probably two minutes at most. I would also need, I think there were three Commissioners last year who's only duty once the ceremony starts is to make sure those kids are in the proper seats and that when they get up they stay in that order. We'll firm things up at the next meeting. If anybody is interested in a particular role they can send me an email and let me know. As far as the opening and the closing, you're certainly allowed to write your own opening and closing. If you would prefer some assistance I'm here to help. That's it except spread the word. If you think of any places, organizations please let me know as far as sending either award or notification out. HO: Everyone is to be in attendance. Cultural Diversity Day (March 3V 12 -5 p.m.) SB: To set up the shifts so that everyone knows what time to show up. There's an email that I received from the University that's in the packet. If you keep your receipt I can get reimbursement for you for parking. The table must be set up by 11:45 and set up can begin can begin as early as 9:00. Whoever is first up I guess it would be most convenient to just send the box home with you today, but it probably wouldn't take you more than 15 minutes to set up the table. I think Orville did it last year. Diane did you do it too? It's not an extravagant setup. There are erasers, candy, pencils and postcards for both the youth nominations as well as the Youth Ally nominations. There's a tablecloth and an easel that comes with a place card that says Human Rights Commission. The time shifts probably 11:15 to and then somebody do 1:00, or is that too short of time, 1:30 or 2:00? KH: Isn't there just a few of us that signed up for us originally? SB: Yes there were four. OT: I'll take the first shift and be there at 11:00. SG: I'll take the 3:00. KH: I can do 1:00 -3:00. SB: That's fine and Shams can do 3 -5. SG: Are we going to be alone on each shift? SB: In the past there has been two people. I think there's plenty of supplies in there. Discussion was held concerning supplies, etc. Update reports - Subcommittees- Immigration: KH: We have our first meeting of the Immigration Review Committee scheduled for next Monday at 6:30 at the First Mennonite Church. At this point we have six folks of either Mexican or Latino descent. If you're interested in coming to the first meeting, again with the understanding that we're going to morph into whatever it is that the committee itself feels that needs to happen. We also have advisors that are invited, 14 but at this point they haven't completely committed, and that would be Theresa Stucker, Father Rudy. I did not call Susan Birdy or Robin Clark Bennett. At this point it seems like we have enough. Some of the folks who have agreed would include Gloria Villatero, Max Villatero, Juan Manual , Elisa Rodriguez, Anna C and Anna C_. I did have a clarification about what the committee should be voting on today. Originally we had decided that the committee would be meeting at least once a quarter, but now it's changed to once a month. I think that if the Commission agrees or the committee agrees, I think once a quarter seems to be sufficient. We could add on there as needed or if needed more often. One thought I had is that most of these folks are involved in either The Voices or The Roundtable or in their churches or they're really involved in other activities. So one thought is that they'll be going out into the community and then just bringing back current trends or issues, but then I can bring to the Commission if need be and to the city council. So I was hoping to change the language. SB: So where it says meetings, the IHR shall meet quarterly and report on a quarterly basis or as needed? KH: Yes. I think it will go well. Everyone responded very positively and they're all interested to get going. OT: Are you meeting monthly now? KH: No, our first meeting is this coming Monday, and at that point I think, and that's the other thing. If the community itself thinks that they need to meet more often they can. I feel like I'm just kind of a sounding board and that they will make most of the decisions. One of the things I will say that came up is the name is a red flag. I suspect that will be changing soon. HO: Did you already make a motion for the mission statement? KH: To change the wording? HO: And change the wording in the missions. SB: You didn't vote at the last meeting. You didn't vote, correct. I was just clarifying that for those not, if there was somebody who wasn't here last month. This was not voted on. KH: So I'd like to make a motion for the Commission to accept ... DF: Oh and that would be the statements that are in the emails. SB: Correct. KH: Items 6a 1 in your packet. OT: So we'll be voting to accept changes? KH: Actually we haven't voted yet on this being accepted. OT: I move that we accept the report as presented. SG: Second. HO: Discussion? DF: In here the name of it is the subcommittee on Immigrant Human Rights. The IHR, so it's already a different name. The compensation of the work up numbers that IRC would be voluntary HR. You recommended the IHR shall meet quarterly, or as needed, and report on a quarterly basis. SB: There's an extra and in there. 15 DF: And I think basis CG: If I'm reading from the right one, its 6a(1), is that correct? SB: There are two 6a (1) sorry. There's one dated February 21" and there's one dated February 22 "d. I believe the one that we're talking about ... The content is the same, the opening text is different it looks like to the emails. CG: Where under compensation it says IRC, but then it says IHR? SB: Yes Diane just caught that. KH: It seems like in the past the Commission has focused primarily on the Latino/Hispanic and in talking to folks there is some other populations who are immigrating, who have some very similar concerns, and wondering if it would alright to open it up. The exciting thing about the Immigrant Voices project is it's a multinational effort, which is really exciting. OT: That came up on our committee, and the way we handled it was that we kept the focus on the _ that we started with. We're not saying that anybody is going to be excluded. The reason we had to do that was because when it came time to print materials, we were going to print in Spanish, and then we had to make the decision as to whether we're going to print in all the other languages. So we said we'd go with what we're focusing on and then we'll deal with other things as needed. HO: There's a motion on the floor and has been seconded. DF: I have one other and I think this is beautiful, and the purpose I wanted, in my mind I want to be clear that they get to the city council via us, is that right? Or is that so they convey their concerns to the Iowa City City Council and staff via the Iowa City Human Rights? I don't know if it needs to be clarified in language, but I want to be clear on our understanding. I'm fine with them going straight to the council, but I think that's not the design of this body. OT: The council basically turned it over to us and I think anything that the group comes up with should come through us first. KH: I think one way to clarify that is to add whose voices may not be heard, and the IRH could convey their concerns to the Iowa City City Council. DF: Can you mention the committee giving feedback that would go straight to the staff then and not through the council? If there's something going on at the rec center, here's what you heard. Then the conversation could come up and go right to the staff, but we'd have to go into council right? OT: One question I would ask about that it is are any issues that come up on that committee, would it go to the chair and then the chair communicate or delegate or communicate with the appropriate source? Are we going to have just anybody on the committee can do it? HO: We have Kim on the committee. She would be the liaison. KH: Maybe that can be determined if we had to take it to the city council. DF: I don't know the language right now, but under the purpose somehow that it implied that I just think transparency to the committee is really important. SB: I'll have this typed up and add it to the packet for April. It can be modified at the next meeting. Juvenile Justice (May 2 "d 7 -9 pm) 16 OT: To submit their names of the parent and the student to Stefanie and I so that Stefanie can send them an official invite. What I was hoping we could do is I was wondering do we include the questions with the invite or do we do the invite, and then when it's closer to the program, then send a second letter, a reminder, that have the questions on it? SB: I would do it that way to make sure everybody commits to serving on the panel. OT: Everything is lined up, it's just a matter of trying to get the committee members to submit the names of the parent and the student. HO: Do you need Commissioners to do anything specific that night? OT: Not as of now. We're working on transportation right now. At this point no, but I would say let's not close the door to that invitation. Stefanie in terms of your experience with situations like this in the past. What are some things that are probably going to jump up that we're going to need assistance with? SB: Just somebody to do the introduction, which one of the subcommittees can do introducing the program and then wrapping it up. You're taking care of who will serve as moderator, facilitators. Generally just to be there to make yourself known to the community, visible. I wanted to talk to the Juvenile Justice Committee about that. It doesn't have to be videotaped, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that. That's the preference of the subcommittee. If you want it videotaped then I need to give them a courtesy notice. DF: Can it be videotaped and then the decision about whether it airs public access be made? SB: No if it's taped it is what it is. DF: In one of the email things I volunteered just to do transcription. CG: Could you remind me what it is? DF: So Orville, Henry, _ and myself started out as the committee, and last year there was a three part series around Juvenile Justice. Maybe not three part, but multiple — and so we starting thinking about how we might have the community and some ideas. Where we ended was let's first community kind of the effects or the experiences, or have the issues rise from the community _ parent and youth will be invited to tell stories and their experiences. I think they'll have questions that they'll be asked to respond to. Some of the questions since there will be youth involved. It's a difficult topic and discussion is how or whether to capture it on film. Should it be on public access? For me that puts youth at a lot of exposure that is scary for me. It's at the public library. This will be the first of a series. It will start with the voices of the community and then there will be some programing that comes out of it. I know one of the possibilities being discussed is something specifically kind of gendered towards maybe African American girls. SB: For refreshments what did you specifically talk about? DR I think light refreshments. Commission Members: DR I have a couple of events I'd like to announce. One is there's gonna be a play at Hancher SB: It's in the packet. DF: If it's true the tickets are sold out through Hancher, but there's going to be a public showing, particularly for community members that are part of the workshop, at Southeast Junior High on May V. That is dedicated more towards community members who are part . I've been in communication with 17 folks discussion, that I'd be glad that's May is`, and then May 2nd is the Juvenile Justice and then May 9"' is Police Citizen Review Board. SB: There is an overlap between that and the Youth Awards, but they should be over by 7:45. Somebody could plan on attending both. DF: Also I'm working right now with Latasha Massey through Johnson County Social Services, and we're putting together a proposal for a community forum on racial and ethnic justice, and that would be June 14- 16d'. We'll have more details for the next meeting and would like to see if the Commission wants to be a co- sponsor. We'll be bringing in some outside speakers. The only other thing I wanted to mention is that group that we were talking to Chad about. The CRC _ ethnic justice, and one of the projects we're doing right now is putting together, I don't know what the name is going to be, but a racial equities for the local area. We're looking at multiple factors of equities. We're getting a lot of data in about composition _ percentage _ suspension rates, graduation rates, child welfare . We're just doing a whole score card with a lot of data and some narrative. We're going to be bringing that to the public around at the end of April. We have a meeting Thursday to review a first draft. HO: Any other announcements? I want to point out the Police Citizen Review Board _ May 9d', and it sounds like they're going to be reviewing themselves. SB: Usually in the past that program has been videotaped because I've seen it replayed on the city channel. It's annual to my knowledge. Status of Complaints: SB: There are nineteen complaints currently on file. I also wanted to point out that during the meeting things were passed out. I spoke about the PCRB flyer and then there's a job fair flyer. The Commission roster is not the same one that was sent to you. There is a telephone change on there, so don't discard that thinking you have it in a PDF because this is an updated one. I also sent out postcards for the Youth Awards and the Youth Ally award. The job fair is next Tuesday, and this is something the Commission has participated in since 2006. The employer list is down, which is somewhat disappointing. It's a job fair that's designed to assist entry -level workers find gainful employment. There are a lot of job fairs in Iowa City is how I usually present this, but most of them are affiliated with the University and they're looking for people with advance degrees. This is a job fair where the employer is aware that some of the people attending may have a GED or may have a criminal record, may have some impairments that need to be accommodated. It's a group of people who are coming who want to work just like anybody else. It's a unique opportunity I think for them to be matched with employers that have jobs available that would meet their level and skill. OT: When our committee started out —juvenile justice, and somehow the committee got away from that and were more Is juvenile justice a topic that we have to cover as a committee SB: That's just how it started. Do you want me to change it to community? OT: What we're doing in juvenile justice is basically public discussion. DF: My understanding is the issues SB: Like community discussions and then I could just put subtopic juvenile justice for now, and then it would still have the main heading to be amended to something more specific? OT: Well the committee basically they weren't wild about the juvenile justice and that's why we got away from it. I don't think we're gonna get, the second phase of it is to take what we get from this discussion and see what can we put together to help improve the situation. SG: But the juvenile justice is still a very critical issue right that you are still looking into? 18 OT: Yes. I'm not saying we're getting away from juvenile justice. We started off with juvenile justice, but the committee didn't want to go with that. We ended up someplace totally different, but we're still saying juvenile justice SB: I wrote down the community discussions and then I'll just put juvenile justice as a subtopic or? I can put justice for juveniles. HO: Do you need help with the job fair? SB: If anybody is available, I think we have pretty much everything covered. If anybody just wanted to stop by to see what it looks like or feel free to stop by, Eastdale Plaza 4 -6. HO: The next regular meeting is April 17, 2012 at 6 p.m. Can I have a motion for adjournment? ILI