Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-21 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY November 21, 2012 www.icgov.org IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule NOVEMBER 27 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Memo from Asst. to the City Manager: 2013 Legislative Priorities Iowa Recycling association Container Deposit Law [Distributed at 11/27 Council meeting] IP4 Pending Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP5 Memo from Dir. of Transportation Services: Downtown Parking Update IP6 New Release: City Receives Distinguished Budget Presentation Award IP7 Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Operator Wastewater IP8 Civil Service Entrance Examination - Construction Inspector II IP9 Response to Kellie Schneider: November 13 request re Raven Street parking IP10 Copy of e-mail from Edwin Stone to Iowa City School District Board: 12 Years Ago IP11 Copy of Iowa Department of Transportation ([DOT) notification: Barrier Rail on 1 -80 IP12 Copy of Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) notification: Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Patching on 1 -80 IP13 Moody Investment Service: A3 rating for $2.7 million Taxable Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds, Series 2012D. IP14 Economic Development Committee Minutes — October 2 A�q �a ,�I Saw vg '-i CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 21, 2012 IP1 Co47II Tentative Meeting Schedule NOVEMBER 27 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Sessi \nAgenda IP3 Memo from the City Manager: 2013 Legislative P orities IP4 Pending Wsion Topics MISCELLAN IP5 Memo from Dir. of Transpo tion Services: D ntown Parking Update IP6 New Release: City Receives 'stinguish Budget Presentation Award IP7 Civil Service Entrance Examinati n — aintenance Operator Wastewater IP8 Civil Service Entrance Examinatio Construction Inspector II I139 Response to Kellie Schneider: N embe 13 request re Raven Street parking I1310 Copy of e-mail from Edwin Sto to Iowa City chool District Board: 12 Years Ago IP11 Copy of Iowa Department of ransportation (IDO notification: Barrier Rail on 1 -80 IP12 Copy of Iowa Departme of Transportation (IDOT) n tification: Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Patching on 1 -8 IP13 Moody Investment rvice: A3 rating for $2.7 million xable Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds, Series 201 D. IP14 Economic Dev onment Committee Minutes — October 2 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IN November 20, 2012 CITY OF IOWA CITY Subject to change Date Time Meeting Location 8 �,.� P iPihi h�P�i�tCti rr1,T�Ii�i��' rai , =.fj il������ i y�'4u�'p �I�ii�i" ,��,�,, ia�i�➢r� �G�� '��l (ia'I�4 iii F Monday, November 26, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:OOPM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 1 1 1 OR PYq. A, 1 11 ` a 31 7 1 rl i 1!' 11 Tuesday, December 4, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Friday, December 7, 2012 1:OOPM Special Formal /Ex. Session /Evaluation Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall i, riI IIIIiI� ",ei "' Ii s rr` {{I�'i'�h ilao ;Yr ih 'Q °� "II �P ' ,ra,iiq ihii I'41 ni k-,ri IF 'r'`' .i r Ili ham. ' l Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:30 AM Work Session - Area Legislators Emma J. Harvat Hall Saturday, January 5, 2013 8:OOA -5:OOP Work Session Meeting - BUDGET Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, January 7, 2013 1:00- 5:OO13M Work Session Meeting - BUDGET- CIP Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, January 28, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting - BUDGET Emma J. Harvat Hall i.i i Ufa. T' s ,r ,IC iah4'i4�191 �(( �) Q) Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, February 19, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall ''I P2 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 3S6 -S000 (319) 3S6 -S009 FAX www.lcgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda November 27, 2012 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street ■ Questions from Council re Agenda Items ■ Proposed urban chicken ordinances and resolution [Agenda # 5g & 10] ■ Discussion regarding Legislative Priorities [IP # 3] ■ Information Packet Discussion [November 15, 21] ■ Council Time ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP #4 ] ■ Meeting Schedule ■ Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations �r NAM , sSrE I IN CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: 2013 Legislative Priorities Prior to the start of each legislative session, the Iowa City Council formally adopts legislative priorities and communicates the City's positions on those issues to our elected delegation. The Iowa League of Cities and the Metro Coalition have recently adopted their respective priorities. Staff has reviewed those stated priorities and has compiled a list of four local priorities to present to the City Council for consideration. Those priorities include: Support for the Chicago to Omaha passenger rail project 2. Responsible tax reform 3. Increased road and bridge funding 4. Fair and sustainable pension systems Staff will be prepared to discuss each of these priorities with the Council at the November 27th work session. Assuming Council concurrence, staff will prepare a resolution for the December 18th agenda and compile a legislative issue packet for our delegation. The City Clerk is actively working to schedule a work session with our representatives that will take place after the formal resolution is adopted. Included with this memo are the priorities that were adopted by the Iowa League of Cities and the Metro Coalition. IP3 i r � p r �. F MOT , � ��� a -d N rt a r m 9: A C,% �'. Qo i ,� r a U Cp - s n U n r, - � v: r' n v y n �Y,x': ?Kx" 'may : rs +�' n_ f Vi '/' CG 'J• ! i :r f- i7 o (n� a- glass rD MMU s. a" � r n N �t NOR (D r✓ C ,� - ,"Q at -i: ROOM SNOITS, "viOlilk" opt c: •r` m srr lot N♦ 9 v Gi FF !�si9y -k � sill 4 3 t S 4 F. 40- a� e ¢' tC in two 0 ON* CA ``� r O O LC i7' O t y u► w n O �3 �S " ;� CD n f!1 cn w p f p VJ ,. CD (p p9 5 d CD O Oq n fp t" can fC O Q, 1D (D O ,'� cn G, to ch 0 cn' p cn rD 0 0 Q J (D Oil 0. ro y a o O Q *44 En go • Z , 03. v, �' n C cn CA no- '••t n {P Ln d 1. n f'' % ��s, ,gym P' p , '*' co d tyGR fD .i-1 r r n p OR? r0+ �, .. O w p O a e-+ y dm r �jl lot Op O �? + n Orq O O CD cn N) O �� ro O O n w o °� r N CD CA 0 t3 8 �+ 09 (D 5. o w �* d rn �+ p " p� sa p -d a R bq Q O ch u METROPOLITAN COALITION AMES • CEDAR RAPIDS • COUNCIL BLUFFS • DAVENPORT • DES MOINES • DUBUQUE • IOWA CITY • SIOUX CITY • WATERLOO • WEST DES MOINES 2013 Legislative Priorities MANDATE RELIEF 1) Pension Reform i. Other approaches ii. Tier Benefits /Shift Contribution Rates iii. State contribution Proposed Legislation where state picks up all municipal police and fire costs above 17% excluding the employee contribution ($25 million annually). 2) Elimination of mandate \Alternative Revenue (In addition to Pension Reform) a. Home Rule Policy b. Local Option Tax Flexibility c. Elimination of requirements to post Notices (move practice online) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3) Job Creation a. Reduction in Corporate /Personal Income Tax b. Responsible Commercial property tax Reform 4) Increase Gas Tax (not interchangeable with Property Tax Reform) PULIC SAFETY 5) Adult entertainment zoning enforcement 6) Support Automated Traffic Enforcement ♦�w'4 2013 Legislative Positions The voice of recycling... Iowa Recycling Association is a network of diverse members 7' o dedicated to advancing effective recycling and recycling related activities. In Iowa alone, the C' ���`_ recycling industry supports over 11,400 jobs and generates $2.4 billion annually. Legislative 'ng Ass° positions below were approved by the IRA Board of Directors in November 2012. PRIORITY: The Iowa Recycling Association supports efforts to update and expand Iowa's Container Deposit Law while maintaining the intent and integrity of the legislation to ensure it continues to serve Iowans. Iowa's Container Deposit law is a product stewardship initiative that has played a key role in fostering recycling for over three decades. It reduces litter on Iowa's roadways, trails, and waterways while complementing curbside recycling programs across the state. IRA supports efforts to improve and expand the Container Deposit law, including: Expand the containers covered by the law to reflect today's assortment of bottled beverages, including bottled water. Numerous beverages, packaged in the same containers as their carbonated counterparts, did not exist when the bill was initially passed. Expansion to include more containers would strengthen the law. Update the State's can and bottle redemption system to provide an increased handling fee for redemption centers in order to maintain convenient locations and business hours for consumers and create - new economic opportunities. The Iowa Recycling Association supports legislation on product stewardship initiatives that reduce waste or encourage take back programs for de- manufacturing and recycling. IRA supports legislation that provides incentives or the means for encouraging more environmentally - conscious design and greater resource conservation, such as paint and electronic take -back programs. The Iowa Recycling Association supports sustainable, long -term funding of local and statewide waste reduction and recycling programs. Many of Iowa's waste reduction and recycling programs are supported by funds collected through landfill tonnage fees, a funding stream that continues to decrease. To ensure equal access to waste reduction and recycling programs by all sectors, sustainable long -term funding is essential. IRA supports existing and alternative sustainable funding mechanisms that: • maintain the existing level of available funds, • grow to meet future waste reduction and recycling program needs, including the challenges brought by new technologies and new waste streams, • apply to the waste industry equally, i.e.; residential, commercial, industrial, public and private • are available on a competitive basis to ensure funding supports the most viable programs and ideas and provides accountability. The Iowa Recycling Association supports legislation and efforts to encourage responsible disposal or recycling of materials. Illegal dumping and littering are financial drains on local governments and taxpayers. To battle illegal dumping and support responsible, sustainable disposal or reuse of materials, IRA supports: • point -of -sale fee on tires or reinstatement of the waste tire fund to assist with the clean-up of illegally dumped tires and • increased fines or penalties for littering and illegal dumping that are enforced Iowa Recycling Association I'O Box 10954 - Cedar Mipids. 1A 52410 • (51.5) 265 -1596 • www.iowarec eles.or President rice President Treasurer Secretary Executive Director Yvette Clapp Bob George Darven Kendell Jennifer Jordan Teresa Kurtz 319- 790-4765 641- 780 -5290 319 -753 -8126 319- 887 -6160 515- 265 -1596 Protect and Expand Iowa's Bottle Bill Iowa's Bottle Bill is a product stewardship initiative that has played a key role in fostering recycling for over three decades. It complements curbside recycling programs across the state, reduces litter on Iowa's roadways, trails and waterways and provides jobs for Iowans. Effective recycling: Iowa's Bottle Bill is the most successful recycling program in the state and has resulted in an 86% recycling rate for covered beverage containers'. Even with Iowa's high number of curbside and drop -off recycling programs, many containers get wasted each year because they are not included in the Bottle Bill. A refundable deposit provides a financial incentive for consumers to return beverage containers for recycling —these recycling programs not only prove to be the highest performers in collection, but also material quality necessary for end -use manufacturing. Litter and waste reduction: Single -use beverage containers make up an estimated 40 -60 percent of litter." Annually, nearly 10 million tons of cans and bottles made of aluminum, plastic, and glass are wasted in the U.S. "' The production of new containers requires the use of limited virgin materials and requires far more energy than recycling existing containers, resulting in the release of millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Expanding the Bottle Bill to include water bottles and other non - carbonated beverages will further reduce litter and waste in Iowa. Economic growth: The current Bottle Bill supports about 870 jobs in Iowa, including those at nearly 250 independent redemption center businesses. Expanding the program to include water bottles and other non - carbonated beverages will create an estimated additional 330 jobs." For these reasons, we strongly support Iowa's Bottle Bill and we encourage our elected officials to strengthen and update the law. This includes: • Updating the Bottle Bill to provide an increased handling fee for redemption centers in order to maintain convenient locations and business hours for consumers. Iowa's Bottle Bill was enacted in 1978; the handling fee for redemptions centers has not increased during that time, in spite of increases in the cost of labor, equipment and fuel. Updating the Bottle Bill to include water bottles and other non - carbonated beverages: At the time the Bottle Bill was enacted, bottled water, tea, sports drinks and other "new age" beverages were uncommon and did not represent a significant share of the beverage market. However, from 2000 to 2006, non - carbonated beverage sales accounted for 95% of the growth in total sales, making up 32% of the market in 2006. Updating our Bottle Bill to include non - carbonated beverages would lead to increased rates of recycling and reducing litter on Iowa's roadways, ditches, and waterways. We, the undersigned, support Iowa's successful Bottle Bill law and urge that it be updated to provide an increased handling fee for redemption centers and include other single -use beverage containers. Name Title Organization Address Email Phone 'Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, http: / /www iowadnr gov/ Environment/ LandStewardship/ WasteManagement /BottleDepositLaw.aspx Accessed August 1, 2012. " United States General Accounting Office. Solid Waste: Trade -offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation. GAO/RCED- 91 -25. 1990. Container Recycling Institute. Wasting and Recycling Trends: Conclusions from CRI's 2008 Beverage Market Data Analysis. httt)://www.container- recvcl ine.orp/assets /pdfs /reports /2008 - BMDA- conclusions.pdf. 2008. "Dermot Hayes, Iowa State University, Economics of the Iowa Bottle Bill, January 2012. =41.-41 ,W-xwi ON o0M1 MT44 CITY OF IOWA CITY PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS November 20, 2012 Pending Topics to be Scheduled 1. Continue the discussion on the sale or dispersion of public housing units 2. Discussion pertaining to noise concerns voiced by residents of Ecumenical Towers 3. Discuss potential procedures and/or policies related to requests for habitable private spaces constructed over public right -of -way 4. Single use plastic bag ban 5. Presentation on local homeless services ��6 W Tok CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 20, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Chris O'Brien, Director of Transportation Services Re: Downtown Parking Update L ZIP5 J Introduction: This memo is to provide an update on recent discussions between the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) and representatives from the City of Iowa City related to parking in downtown Iowa City. History /background: Over the past several months, Geoff Fruin and I have been engaged in discussions about parking in downtown Iowa City with representatives of the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD). During the initial session we presented an overview of the City of Iowa City parking operations, covering topics such as policies, finances, enforcement, ramp and on- street operations and upcoming projects. This was followed by multiple sessions to discuss ways to improve access, enhance convenience for customers, encourage turnover in on- street spaces and entice customers into utilizing parking structures. These concepts aligned with the priorities of both the City and the ICDD throughout our discussions of parking in downtown Iowa City. Conclusion: We will be conducting sessions at the Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A, on December 10th from 10:30am — 12:OOpm and on December 12th from 1:30pm — 3:00pm to present downtown parking concepts to business representatives and the general public. Our goal is to solicit feedback on these parking concepts that we will take into consideration as we develop an operation plan for implementing system improvements. We will be posting a variety of downtown parking concepts on our website accompanied by a mechanism to submit feedback for those individuals that were unable to attend the sessions on December 10th and 12th. After consideration of all of the feedback received, a full staff report will be submitted to City Council for discussion and consideration. IP6 Marian Karr From: City of Iowa City <webmaster @iowa - city.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: City receives national Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Contact: Kevin O'Mallev Contact Phone: (319) 356 -5053 [ view hi -res image I City receives national Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Issued by: Communications Office Mailing List(s): General City News Originally Posted 11/21/2012 9:13:28 AM The City of Iowa City has been notified that it has been awarded the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for its 2012 -13 budget. This national award represents significant achievement in governmental budgeting, according to the GFOA, by meeting 14 mandatory criteria in areas that include policy document, financial plan, operations guide, and communications with the public regarding fiscal and policy matters. The award was presented late last week to Finance Director Kevin O'Malley, who recently announced that he will retire in January. O'Malley has been with the City since 1985, first as Assistant Director of Finance, and then as Director, beginning in 1999. This is not the first time the City has been recognized with the honor, although it has been almost 20 years since the award was last received. The application process involves submitting a comprehensive packet of documents, including financial information, budgetary goals and objectives reflective of the City Council's strategic plan, and performance measures. The City's most recent strategic plan was adopted by the City Council in January 2012. "This award reflects highly on the level of professionalism and expertise that exist in the City's financial management and recordkeeping practices," stated City Manager Tom Markus. "The fact that the City's Finance Department received this award the first time they applied during Kevin O'Malley's tenure as Finance Director is indicative of the quality work he has directed and overseen during his many years with the City." O'Malley was quick to credit others for the role they played in garnering the award for the City through their hard work and commitment to excellence, including the City Council for their adoption of the City's strategic plan, City Manager Tom Markus for his development of operational and financial performance measures, and members of the Finance staff, who worked long hours to compile and present the budget document to the GFOA and the Iowa City public. The Government Finance Officers Association is a nonprofit professional association serving over 17,500 government 1 From:Ul HR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES November 7, 2012 13193350202 11/08/2012 08:47 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council #025 P.002/002 IP7 191 item t- - •�.a�_ CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa S2240-1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www.lcgov.org RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — MAINTENANCE OPERATOR — WASTEWATER Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Operator — Wastewater. James Bopp IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra Dickerson, Chair From:Ul HR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES November 1, 2012 13193350202 11/01/2012 14:02 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council #021 P.002/002 IP8 ���4 Ift -mama i CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgoy.org RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR II Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Construction Inspector II. Darren Fry IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra A Dickerson, Chair ®� % �ITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL Matthew J. Hayek Mayor Susan Mims Mayor Pro Tern Connie Champion Terry Dickens Rick Dobyns Michelle Payne Jim Throgmorton council@iowa-city.org 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356 -5401 Fax: (319) 356 -5497 November 16, 2012 Kelli Schneider 3201 Raven Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Ms. Schneider, COPY Your presentation at the November 13 City Council. meeting regarding parking concerns on Raven Street was well informed and articulate. I have asked that City staff review your research and respond with their analysis. Your teachers and parents should be proud of the work you have done. Matt Hayek Mayor City of Iowa City �j IP10 Marian Karr From: Edwin Stone <stone.edwin @g mail. com> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:37 PM To: Board Cc: Stephen Murley; Council Subject: 12 years ago Attachments: ICCSD_ Long_ Range_ Planning _Process_and_Parameters_1. pdf Dear Board Members, Attached below is an interesting document that is worthy of your thoughtful consideration. It is entitled "ICCSD Long Range Planning Process and Parameters ". It was written by the district in 2000, but could have been written yesterday. Then as now, the ICCSD buildings were unevenly utilized. Then as now, the FRL was unevenly distributed. A desire is expressed in the document to correct these things and to "maintain an equivalency of educational opportunity between buildings ". All of these were lovely sentiments then, as they are now. But none of this was done in the past 12 years. The disparities in the ICCSD are much worse today than they were then. What binding legal assurances can the board offer the community that the revenue purpose statement currently under consideration won't suffer the same fate as this poor forgotten document? Regards, Ed ICCSD Long Range Planning Process and Parameters 2/8/09 11:01 AM Long Range Planning Process and Parameters An ICCSD Board Document Approved April 11, 2000 Long range planning. We want to take advantage of this somewhat unique opportunity to begin an ongoing effort to envision many aspects of the ICCSD five to ten years out, not merely come up with "boundaries" and lines on a map. Many of these options or proposals will have implications for buildings, boundaries and programs; others will not. Research. We want our decisions, and those of the Superintendent, to be research- based. By this we mean not only the best demographic projections and other District data available, but also the alternatives, experience and best practices reflected in the literature and Internet - published material. Optimum school size. The Board expressly requests from the Superintendent a research -based report regarding the optimum range of elementary and secondary schools' enrollment from the standpoint both of cost (schools that are too small) and educational and social values (schools that are too large). Community communication and concerns. We want to make every effort to minimize unnecessary community concerns during the course of our deliberations and those of the Superintendent. We need the freedom to be able to consider the widest possible range of options while reassuring stakeholders that it is not our intent to implement any option without thorough discussion with the community. As always, the Board and Superintendent welcome public input and will develop a communications plan to ensure that end. Timing. The Board is looking five to ten years into the future. It recognizes the difficulty of doing so with any precision. But it believes it is in the District's interest to have such a plan, even if it needs to be revisited and revised every year. It will seek to minimize disruption on District families by notifying the community as far in advance as possible of impending changes. Such advance notice makes planning and transitions easier for everyone. Board decision - making responsibility. The members of the Board have the ultimate, personal and political responsibility for developing the policy and parameters that will be used to guide the long range and boundary planning process. The Board seeks input from the community and administration, and envisions an ongoing, back - and -forth dialogue and regular revision. It expressly requests the Superintendent to inform the Board, as promptly as possible, if and when he believes a Board - established parameter is seriously flawed, impossible of attainment, or http:// www .uiowa.edu /— cyberlaw /SchBoard /Other /boundry3.html Page 1 of 3 ICCSD Long Range Planning Process and Parameters 2/8/09 11:01 AM simply unwise. But the policies will be worked out by the Board. It will not merely approve a Superintendent's recommendation. The decision regarding the determination of boundaries will be that of the Board. Superintendent's responsibility. The Superintendent is responsible for completing the long range and boundary planning process. While doing so he will provide the Board with such data and research as it may need for its deliberations. He will keep the Board informed of the progress of the long range and boundary planning process. He is expected to guide the process in accordance with all relevant Board policies and parameters. Prior to implementation he is expected to bring the final plan, including the implementation schedule, to the Board for its approval. First option: Present Schools. An option that must be considered is the use of existing schools. Any and all other options may also be considered. The first boundaries option as to which the Board requests input from the Superintendent involves full utilization of the District's present buildings with no new buildings or major additions. The 2004 projections indicate that some of the east side elementary schools will then be at 40 -60% of capacity. Many of the west side elementary schools will be nearer 100% of capacity. One (Wickham) will be at 153% of capacity. (Kirkwood will be at 111 %, Coralville at 109 %.) What would be the cost — in increased busing expenditures and increased student time on buses — of shifting students from west to east? The Board cannot declare in advance how much such cost is "too much." But it believes its responsibility to property tax payers is such that, if the additional cost is not too much, such a solution is preferable to a multi- million- dollar construction program for new school buildings while existing buildings remain underutilized. The Board encourages the Superintendent to examine the feasibility of options such as (but not limited to) magnet schools, middle schools, age - grouped schools (i.e., all- kindergarten or K -3 schools), year -round schools, increased job shadowing or independent research (to reduce high school crowding), to use existing facilities in the most cost effective manner. Second option: New buildings, building remodeling and expansion. Another option is to remodel and expand the District's present schools. (Of course, some remodeling may be a part of long range planning even if not necessary to reduce overcrowding.) The Board requests from the Superintendent in this connection (in addition to the "optimum school size," above) information regarding the capacity, present and projected enrollment of each school, along with information regarding the amount of available land for expansion. It will then consider a parameter that will produce the maximum benefit (in terms of reduced crowding, and optimum school size) at the least cost (in terms of quantity of construction, adverse impact on families, http:// www .uiowa.edu /— cyberlaw /SchBoard /Other /boundry3.htmI Page 2 of 3 ICCSD Long Range Planning Process and Parameters and lengthened bus rides). 2/8/09 11:01 AM New buildings. Only if the present buildings are inadequate — with or without remodeling and expansion — will the Board consider the option of building a new schooll. "Inadequate" includes the conclusion that the use of present buildings will "cost too much" as defined above. Closing schools. The Board's preference is that all present schools continue in use — subject to being persuaded that such a preference makes no educational or economic sense. Low income students' distribution. The Board's present intuition is that there are educational and social benefits from elementary school students' exposure to a diversity of classmates. (As with any other intuitive beliefs of Board members the Board invites the presentation of research findings that either support or challenge its assumption.) At the present time, with a District average of 17% low income students, the proportion in each elementary school varies from 2% to nearly 50 %. The Board expressly requests the Superintendent prepare for its consideration a number of alternative models reflecting the implications (economic costs, number of students bussed, time spent on buses) of a more equal distribution of students. Prior to knowing those costs the Board expresses no view as to its preferred range of the percent of low income students at each elementary school. Occupancy as percent of capacity. The Board wants to maintain an equivalency of educational opportunity between buildings. Impact on junior and senior high schools. The Board presumes that any boundaries or long range planning decisions will result in a roughly equal allocation of students among the two junior highs and two high schools. If this is not the result of its decisions it will want to revisit them. Neighborhood schools. To the extent consistent with the Board's preferences and options, above, it would like to maintain the concept of neighborhood schools, keep attendance areas contiguous, keep families together, and limit students to one forced transfer during their elementary years. http:// www .uiowa.edu /— cyberiaw /SchBoard /Other /boundry3.htmI Page 3 of 3 fc& Iowa Department of Transportation '11140 District 6 Office PHONE: 319 - 364-0235 5455 Kirkwood Blvd SW FAX: 319 - 364 -9614 Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 November 14, 2012 The Honorable Matt Hayek Mayor of Iowa City 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 Dear Mayor Hayek: County Project No. Notification Letter No. Johnson IM-080-6(281)244--13-52 2013 -M -108 RE: Barrier Rail on 1 -80 IP11 M This is official notification to your City Council that the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to let a barrier rail project on 1 -80 from just east of 1 -380 east to 1.5 miles east of Iowa 1 through the city of Iowa City on February 19, 2013. A part of said project lies within the city. The work will be done in accord with the current Form 810034 "Agreement for Primary Road Extension Maintenance and Operation ". Project costs will be paid from the Primary Road Fund and no charges will be made against the City. The project is proposed for construction during 2013. Resident Construction Engineer, Hugh Holak, P.E., of Manchester, Iowa, telephone number 563 - 927 -2397, will advise you of the contractor's proposed schedule when the information is available. We would appreciate this project notification being included on your next City Council meeting agenda as a matter of information for the Council members. If you have any questions concerning the work involved, please contact this office as soon as possible in order to expedite any possible changes. Sincerely, James R. Schnoebelen, P. E. District 6 Engineer - - cc: Hugh Holak, P.E., Resident Construction Engineer, Iowa DOT/Manchester l- := ^, r Deanne Popp -Iowa Dot/Local Systems/Ames --- Kenneth Yanna, P. E., Assistant District Engineer -Iowa DOT /Cedar Rapids ` Heather Gugler, Engineering Tech. Sr., Iowa Dot/Cedar Rapids C*m Iowa Department of Transportation District 6 Office PHONE: 319 -364-0235 5455 Kirkwood Blvd SW FAX: 319 - 364 -9614 Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 November 14, 2012 The Honorable Matt Hayek Mayor of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 Dear Mayor Hayek: County Johnson Project No. IMN- 080 - 6(290)240- -0E -52 CN, 2 Notification Letter No. 2013 -M -057 RE: Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Patching on 1 -80 This is official notification to your City Council that the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to let a PCC patching project on 1 -80 from 1 -380 east to the Cedar County line through the city of Iowa City on January 16, 2013. A part of said project lies within the city. The work will be done in accord with the current Form 810034 "Agreement for Primary Road Extension Maintenance and Operation ". Project costs will be paid from the Primary Road Fund and no charges will be made against the City. The project is proposed for construction during 2013. Resident Construction Engineer, John Vu, P. E., of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, telephone number 319 -365- 6986, will advise you of the contractor's proposed schedule when the information is available. We would appreciate this project notification being included on your next City Council meeting agenda as a matter of information for the Council members. If you have any questions concerning the work involved, please contact this office as soon as possible in order to expedite any possible changes. Sincerely, t�- James R. Schnoebelen, P. E. District 6 Engineer ' cc: John Vu, P.E., Resident Construction Engineer, Iowa DOT /Cedar Rapids Deanne Popp -Iowa DotlL,ocal Systems/Ames Kenneth Yanna, P. E., Assistant District Engineer -Iowa DOT /Cedar Rapids Heather Gugler, Engineering Tech. Sr., Iowa Dot/Cedar Rapids 0 Ad a sY IP13 MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE New Issue: Moody's assigns initial A3 rating to the City of Iowa City's (IA) $2.7 million Taxable Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds, Series 2012D Global Credit Research - 08 Nov 2012 Aaa rating maintained on the city's outstanding GO debt IOWACITY (CITY OF) IA Cities (including Towns, Villages and Townships) IA Moodys Rating ISSUE RATING Taxable Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds, Series 2012D A3 Sale /knouts $2,700,000 Expected Sale Date 11/13/12 Rating Description Tax Allocation/ Tax Increment Moodys Outlook Opinion NEW YORK, November 08, 2012 — Moody's Investors Service has assigned an initial A3 rating to the City of Iowa Citys (IA) $2.7 million Taxable Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds, Series 2012D. Moodys maintains a Aaa rating on the city's outstanding general obligation debt. SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE Debt service on the bonds is secured by a first lien on tax increment revenues generated by taxes levied against the incremental values of properties located within the city's designated urban renewal area. Proceeds of the bonds will be used to provide a grant to a local developer to aid in the planning and construction of a mixed use facility in the downtown urban renewal area. Assignment of the initial A3 rating reflects the very limited physical size and value of the city's urban renewal district, above average concentration among the largest taxpayers within the district, solid legal provisions that include a 2.0 times additional bonds test and a debt service reserve fund requirement, and strong coverage of annual debt service provided by the taxable base. STRENGTHS - Steady growth in incremental valuation - Strong coverage of annual and maximum annual debt service with no plans to further leverage the incremental tax base - Solid legal provisions that include a strong 2.0 times additional bonds test CHALLENGES - Urban renewal area has very limited acreage and modest valuation - Above average concentration among top taxpayers DETAILED CREDIT DISCUSSION SMALL INCREMENTAL BASE THAT BORDERS UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IN DOWNTOWN IOWACITY The citys project area, the University Project I Urban Renewal Area, is currently very limited in size, consisting of 94 acres and an assessed valuation of $200 million. The area is located in downtown Iowa City and includes a mix of commercial and residential properties that border the campus of the University of Iowa (revenue debt rated Aa1 /stable outlook). The urban renewal area was initially established in 1969, at which time it consisted of approximately 60 acres of land. In 2001, the city expanded the urban renewal area by an additional 34 acres. Currently, the city is in the final stages of approving an amendment to expand the district by an additional 300 acres. Over the past four years, the assessed and incremental valuations of the urban renewal area have increased at average annual rates of 2.6% and 7.7 %, respectively. Valuation for tax increment purposes will be minimally affected in the near term by the upcoming expansion of the urban renewal area. However, as the city continues to realize new development within an expanded downtown urban renewal district, total incremental valuation will likely continue to increase going forward. The urban renewal area is characterized by above average concentration, with the top ten taxpayers within the district comprising 34.3% of the area's total assessed valuation and 62.6% of incremental valuation. Favorably, incremental valuation is not particularly concentrated in any single commercial or industrial property. The top ten taxpayers consist of seven multi -unit residential properties, a Sheraton Hotel, a retail outlet, and a bank. Continuous appreciation within the area has been tied to ongoing redevelopment efforts within downtown Iowa City and the presence and stability of the University of Iowa has helped to maintain demand for both residential and commercial expansion. While a large area of the city was impacted by the 2008 flooding of the Iowa River, properties within the established urban renewal area were unaffected. AVAILABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUES PROVIDE STRONG COVERAGE OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE Based on January 1, 2011 property assessments, fiscal 2012 available tax increment revenues provide an ample 15.1 times maximum annual debt service coverage on the current bonds. Coverage is expected to remain solid going forward and could increase with the pending expansion of the urban renewal area and future growth in incremental valuation. In fiscal 2025, the incremental valuation of the current urban renewal area is projected to decline by 39% as the 2001 amended boundary will expire. This projected decline is based on current valuation and will likely be lower on a percentage basis at the time of expiration due to expected growth within the 2012 amended urban renewal area. Notably, assuming zero additional growth in incremental valuation of the entire area, loss of the 2001 amended district results in maintenance of strong maximum annual debt service coverage of 9.4 times on the current bonds. Strong debt service coverage is based upon the total available tax increment revenues that the city could collect in any given year. However, the city expects to continue its current practice of certifying the annual tax increment valuation in an amount such that tax revenues will provide sum sufficient coverage of annual debt service. This would enable the city, as well as overlapping jurisdictions, to access the remainder of the assessed valuation of the urban renewal area for general levy purposes. Should the city's ultimate collection of tax increment revenues fall short of annual debt service, as a result of delinquencies for example, the city would have the ability to draw on the debt service reserve fund to ensure timely debt service payments. The city would then be expected to certify a larger share of the assessed valuation for tax increment purposes in the following year in order to meet that year's debt service requirements as well as to replenish the debt service reserve fund. SOLID LEGAL PROVISIONS The legal provisions of the bonds are solid, including a strong additional bonds test and debt service reserve requirement. The city may issue additional parity bonds such that annual tax increment revenues provide at least 2.0 times coverage of maximum annual debt service. This additional bonds test is relatively strong compared to other tax increment revenue securities rated by Moody's. The bond resolution also includes maintenance of a debt service reserve fund at the lesser of (1) maximum annual debt service, (2) 125% of average annual debt service, or (3) 10% of the stated principal of the bonds. The city is expected to fund the debt service reserve fund upon sale of the bonds with a combination of bond proceeds and a $170,000 payment from the private developer. WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING - UP - Significant and sustained incremental valuation growth within the city's urban renewal district WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING - DOWN - Declines in incremental valuation or significant leveraging of the incremental base that results in narrowing of debt service coverage - Loss of major taxpayers that impacts the collection of annual tax increment revenues KEY STATISTICS Project size: 94 acres; expected to grow to 394 acres following new amendment Project area assessed valuation: $200 million (2.6% five -year average annual growth) Project area incremental valuation: $110 million (7.7% five -year average annual growth) Ten largest taxpayers: 62.6% of incremental valuation Maximum annual debt service coverage (available fiscal 2011 incremental revenues): 15.1 times Principal amortization of urban renewal revenue bonds (ten years): 33.9% Additional bonds test: 2.0 times maximum annual debt service 2010 estimated median family income of city ( %): 116% of IA and 114% of U.S. City unemployment (September 2012): 2.9% PRINCIPAL RATING METHODOLOGY The rating was reviewed by evaluating factors believed to be relevant to the credit profile of the issuer such as i) the business risk and competitive position of the issuer versus others within its industry or sector, ii) the capital structure and financial risk of the issuer, iii) the projected performance of the issuer over the near to intermediate term, iv) the issuer's history of achieving consistent operating performance and meeting budget or financial plan goals, v) the nature of the dedicated revenue stream pledged to the bonds, vi) the debt service coverage provided by such revenue stream, vii) the legal structure that documents the revenue stream and the source of payment, and viii) the issuer's management and governance structure related to payment. These attributes were compared against other issuers both within and outside of the utility's core peer group and the utility's rating is believed to be comparable to ratings assigned to other issuers of similar credit risk. REGULATORY DISCLOSURES The Global Scale Credit Ratings on this press release that are issued by one of Moody's affiliates outside the EU are endorsed by Moody's Investors Service Ltd., One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E 14 5FA, UK, in accordance with Art.4 paragraph 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on Credit Rating Agencies. Further information on the EU endorsement status and on the Moody's office that has issued a particular Credit Rating is available on www.moodys.com. For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer /entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com. Information sources used to prepare the rating are the following: parties involved in the ratings, parties not involved in the ratings, public information, confidential and proprietary Moody's Investors Service's information, confidential and proprietary Moody's Analytics' information. Moody's considers the quality of information available on the rated entity, obligation or credit satisfactory for the purposes of issuing a rating. Moody's adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a rating is of sufficient quality and from sources Moodys considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third -party sources. However, Moody's is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process. Please see the ratings disclosure page on www.moodys.com for general disclosure on potential conflicts of interests. Please see the ratings disclosure page on www.moodys.com for information on (A) MCO's major shareholders (above 5 %) and for (B) further information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities as well as (C) the names of entities that hold ratings from MIS that have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5 %. A member of the board of directors of this rated entity may also be a member of the board of directors of a shareholder of Moody's Corporation; however, Moody's has not independently verified this matter. Please see Moody's Rating Symbols and Definitions on the Rating Process page on www.moodys.com for further information on the meaning of each rating category and the definition of default and recovery. Please see ratings tab on the issuer /entity page on www.moodys.com for the last rating action and the rating history. The date on which some ratings were first released goes back to a time before Moody's ratings were fully digitized and accurate data may not be available. Consequently, Moody's provides a date that it believes is the most reliable and accurate based on the information that is available to it. Please see the ratings disclosure page on our website www.moodys.com for further information. Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody's legal entity that has issued the rating. Analysts Matthew Butler Lead Analyst Public Finance Group Moody's Investors Service Andrea Stenhoff Backup Analyst Public Finance Group Moody's Investors Service Contacts Journalists: (212) 553 -0376 Research Clients: (212) 553 -1653 Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 USA MOOD VS INVESTORS SERVICE © 2012 Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and /or its licensors and affiliates (collectively, WOODY'S "). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. ( "MIS ") AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTRIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT -LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ( "MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ") MAY INCLUDE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT -LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY'S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BYANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BYANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources Moody's considers to be reliable, including, when appropriate, independent third -parry sources. However, MOODY'S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process. Under no circumstances shall MOODY'S have any liability to any person or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by, resulting from, or relating to, any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost profits), even if MOODY'S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use, any such information. The ratings, financial reporting analysis, projections, and other observations, if any, constituting part of the information contained herein are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. Each user of the information contained herein must make its own study and evaluation of each security it may consider purchasing, holding or selling. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. MIS, a wholly -owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moodys Corporation ( "MCO "), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS's ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5 %, is posted annually at www.moodya.com under the heading "Shareholder Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy." Any publication into Australia of this document is by MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657, which holds Australian Financial Services License no. 336969. This document is intended to be provided only to "wholesale clients" within the meaning of section 761 G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a "wholesale client" and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to "retail clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. Notwithstanding the foregoing, credit ratings assigned on and after October 1, 2010 by Moody's Japan K.K. ( "WKK ") are WKK's current opinions of the relative future credit risk of entities, credit commitments, or debt or debt -like securities. In such a case, "MIS" in the foregoing statements shall be deemed to be replaced with "WKK ". WKK is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Nbody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly owned by Moody's Overseas Holdings Inc. a wholly -owned subsidiary of MCO. This credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors. It would be dangerous for retail investors to make any investment decision based on this credit rating. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser. Z MINUTES APPROVED CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OCTOBER 2, 2012 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Matt Hayek, Susan Mims, Michelle Payne Staff Present: Adam Bentley, Tracy Hightshoe, Geoff Fruin, Jeff Davidson, Wendy Ford, Tom Markus Others Present: Charlie Cowell, Nancy Quellhorst, Pat Shaver, Tracy Hightshoe, John Kenyon, Kevin Monson, Kent Jehle, Chuck Peters, Amanda Styron, Vanessa Miller. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Payne made the motion to recommend continued financial support to the City of Literature. Hayek seconded the motion. The motion carried 3 -0. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mims at 8:00 A.M. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS: Chairperson Mims welcomed everyone and asked that those present introduce themselves. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Payne stated that there is a typo in the June 5, 2012, minutes. The typo will be corrected for the approved version. Hayek moved to approve minutes from the June 5, 2012, and June 12, 2012, meetings as amended. Payne seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. UPDATE ON CREATIVE CORRIDOR EFFORTS — CHUCK PETERS: Chuck Peters spoke to the Members regarding the Creative Corridor efforts. He stated that he believes Iowa City is the `unknown jewel' in the region. He talked of the goals of developing a regional brand and an economic development structure for the region. Peters stated that he has been amazed at how difficult it has been to get all of the necessary stakeholders to agree on things as simple as the fact that we are we a region, that there are boundaries of that region, but what are they, and what should the name that could further the goals of the region be. The Creative Corridor, which includes the seven - county area surrounding Johnson and Linn Counties, came out in February, 2012, along with a 230 -plus page report on how to implement a marketing plan around the brand. Peters continued, stating that a small group helped to put together an EDC October 2, 2012 implementation plan, but that it has become apparent that they need more participants in this effort. He shared a handout with Members, showing how they hope to accomplish this. Amanda Styron spoke to Members next, giving some background on the Creative Corridor ideas. She noted that the idea behind the effort is to create a sense of regionalism and an innovation imperative. Two specific audiences being tapped in this endeavor are the leadership community and the creative community. By bringing these two groups together, she believes they can help to move this effort forward. Peters then asked the group if they had any comments or questions. He added that an important part of this will be creating an atmosphere of entrepreneurship, inclusiveness, and diversity, among others. A question was asked of Peters regarding the make -up of this group, and he clarified who is involved thus far. Kirkwood Community College owns the intellectual property and the rights to "Creative Corridor." Kirkwood is also acting as the contracting agent. Sally Mason, University of Iowa President, is also fully on -board with the concept, according to Peters. Discussion continued, with those present stating that they believe this endeavor is a good one, that the more people they can reach with their message, the better. Mims asked what role the City can play in terms of time and financial backing. She asked if there is a web site set up and Amanda responded that they have several in the works. She noted that Cedar Rapids Economic Development is assisting with this, as is ICCReative.us. The project web site is at creativecorridor.com. Peters added that the web site corridor202O.com is the site being used to keep people up to date and to provide access to the many related documents there, as well. Peters further clarified the collaboration and the various other entities attempting to get these efforts off the ground. Amanda continued, speaking about two opportunities — the Dream Big contest, which is a statewide contest that makes awards to people working on the best new big ideas; and also Think Iowa, which is an innovation and entrepreneurship conference being held in Des Moines, October 9 —11. She stated that this conference has been great in the past and she encouraged people to participate. UPDATE ON COLLEGE / GILBERT STREET RFP REVIEW PROCESS: Davidson stated that the RFP for this project closed this past Friday at 5:00 PM. The City has received ten proposals, according to Davidson. John Yapp is coordinating the effort and will be setting up an internal review of the proposals this week to help narrow the field the best options. The best options will then be presented to City Council at a future work session in advance of their decision on which proposal to select. Davidson added that they have had numerous requests from the public to see these proposals and staff is preparing a synopsis of all proposals for the public to see. REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR SABIN SCHOOL PROPERTY: Kent Jehle spoke first, giving Members some background on Midwest One Bank. He stated that the Bank would like to stay in downtown Iowa City, and in working with the University, they believe the purchase of the Sabin School property will allow them to do just that. They are currently under contract with the University and have a three -year purchase option. He detailed the Bank's plans and how they would like to renovate their EDC October 2, 2012 corporate headquarters at the corner of Clinton and Washington Street, as well. Next Kevin Monson spoke to the Members, noting that the corner property at Harrison and Clinton Streets and the Sabin site have both been rezoned to accommodate the banking use. He stated that the Bank's home mortgage center is temporarily located on the first floor of the Sabin building, which has allowed the School of Music project to move forward in the bank's former location at the drive through bank on Clinton St. Once this project is complete, the goal is to move the home mortgage to the first floor of the new building. A four -story building will then be needed for the Bank's other departments. He then shared some of the issues that need to be addressed, such as parking for the employees that will be moved to the new location. The possibility of a parking structure was briefly discussed, by Kevin Monson who shared some initial diagrams on how this might be accomplished. The discussion continued, with Monson stating that they would like to have some assurance from the City about helping to approve their parking needs, which may include a parking structure to park the bank employees and those of a possible private partner. The idea of allowing the possible private partner business to use the old St. Pat's parish hall on a temporary basis, was also broached. This would be necessary to assist the business in a near term move before construction of the new bank building commences and for the duration of the construction. The discussion then turned to how these requests might be met and what type of timeframe the Bank is looking at. Mims asked what type of process the City needs to go through in order to allow an arrangement such as this, and if staff can facilitate this administratively. Markus stated that it should probably go through the Economic Development Committee after some initial staff review. Markus added that one of the benefits of this proposal is that the private sector would be building in users for the end product. Members briefly discussed the proposal, agreeing that this could really help to jumpstart the development in this area. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTINUED FUNDING (FY 2014.15 AND 16) OF THE CITY OF LITERATURE: John Kenyon, Executive Director of the City of Literature, spoke with Members next, thanking the City for their financial support to date. He added that in addition to the financial help, having City involvement on the Board has also been crucial. He shared the annual report from the City of Literature, detailing some of the accomplishments thus far — educational, programming and community building, and tourism. COL has also collaborated with the University in the Hawkeye Reader Program, where football players go to area schools to read to students and to help motivate students to study hard. Another program, the Community Book Talk, showcases leaders in the area who share books that they enjoy. He continued, sharing some of the upcoming events that COL will be hosting. Payne asked about a clarification on the budget years, as she did not see 2013 in the listing. Ford replied to this, stating that 2013 has already been funded. Members agreed that the City of Literature is a very important piece of the Iowa City fabric. Payne made the motion to recommend continued financial support to the City of Literature. Hayek seconded the motion. The motion carried 3 -0. EDC October 2, 2012 STAFF TIME: Davidson briefly spoke about some projects in the area — a 180 -room hotel in the works by Kinseth Hospitality; a possible senior housing project in Towncrest; and a possible replacement of the Dodge Street Hy -Vee store in the former Robert's Dairy location. Davidson also spoke about the Moss Development, stating that they have officially changed the name to Moss Ridge Campus. Markus spoke next, stating that the energy level has increased within the development community and that there are several things coming together now. Mims voiced her appreciation for staffs' hard work in all of these projects. COMMITTEE TIME: Hayek briefly spoke about how the rebounding economy is helping to spur development locally, as is the hard work of staff. OTHER BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Hayek moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 A.M. Payne seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. EDC October 2, 2012 Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 NAME TERM EXP• w w W o �P o g) _ g) _ N � N Michelle 01/02/14 X X X X X X X X Payne Matt 01/02/13 X X X O/ X X X X Hayek E Susan 01/02/13 X X X X X X X X Mims Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused