HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-16 Bd Comm minutesAd Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014 3b(1)
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
AUGUST 18, 2014 — 3:30 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Joe Younker (Chair), Jay Honohan, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann,
Mercedes Bern -Klug, Ellen Cannon, Hiram Rick Webber
Staff Present: Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr, Steve Rackis
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:30 P.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 07/30/14 — Younker noted that Karr has some
revisions to the Consent Calendar. She stated that there is additional correspondence
from Eve Casserly, which Members received as a late handout, and that on page 3 of
the minutes, the first full paragraph where it talks about MECCA's buildings, it should be
"Community Mental Health Centers" buildings.
b. Correspondence — (1) Charlotte Walker; (2) Eve Casserly (late handout)
Honohan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended, seconded by Dohrmann.
Motion carried 7 -0.
DISCUSSION OF SENIOR CENTER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT:
Younker thanked Bern -Klug, Webber, and Honohan for their work on this report. He asked if
any of the subcommittee Members had anything further they would like to add at this point.
Dohrmann stated that she appreciates the report that the subcommittee has developed, and
thought it was very thorough. Cannon agreed with Dohrmann's statement. Younker asked if
there are areas that Members would like to see included in this report or if any further
information is needed. Cannon noted that previously it had been suggested that they draft an
assessment tool or tracking tool that could be used at the Center - between now and the time
the Committee finalizes its report - that could possibly obtain information from non - members
who are participating at the Center. This might give them a better idea of how many non-
members take advantage of the Center's programming. Younker asked if the Center currently
has the ability to track usage of non - members. Honohan replied that he believes it would be
very difficult to do this. He added that when they have their special events, for example, a lot of
people attend from the community and there would be no way to know specifically who is a
member and who is not a member. Dohrmann stated that perhaps they should accept this
report, as submitted, and then make some recommendations regarding this issue and how
tracking might be carried out in the future. Bern -Klug added that the instructors who teach
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014
Page 2
classes at the Center do count how many are attending. Younker asked if, on the registration
form for classes, participants are asked if they are a member or not. Bern -Klug responded that
for some classes this information is requested, typically when there is a different cost for non-
members versus members. Younker suggested that this information be obtained by the
subcommittee prior to the next meeting — what information is currently being tracked and how
difficult would it be to pull that together. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification on this, with
Younker stating that the information desired is how many non - members are participating in
Center programs. He added that perhaps the first step would be to ask the Senior Center what
information they are capturing now, and how difficult it would be to get this information to the
Committee. Once they have this, Younker added that they can then decide what further
information is needed. Bern -Klug stated that the survey included current members and also
anyone who receives the Center's list of classes, which would include non - members. Honohan
moved to accept the draft evaluation with appendices as noted, seconded by Cannon.
Motion carried 7 -0.
REPORTS FROM CONTACT MEMBERS RE: LOCAL AGENCIES / CONSORTIA:
Elder Services — None
HAAA — Cannon stated that she does not have any further reporting at this point, but that she
did do some research in response to Larry Roger's inquiry at the last meeting. This shows up
on page 9 of the agenda, third paragraph. Roger's had inquired about how many of the service
providers in Coralville and Iowa City provide direct in -home care versus those who provide
adjunct services through their offices and facilities. Cannon added that she excluded
independent living, assisted living, and long -term care, as well as hospitals and clinics, from her
search. JCLC, 25 of 92 of their remaining providers, or 27.17 %, provide in -home services. For
HAAA, 32 of 100 service providers, or 32 %, provide in -home services.
JC Livable Communities — (See above comments.)
Shelter House — None.
Pathways — None.
Consultation of Religious Communities — None.
Free Medical Clinic — Younker stated that he has received information from the FMC and will
have a written report for the next meeting packet. Approximately 38% of the patients seen at
the Free Medical Clinic are over the age of 45, according to Younker. People with Medicare
and Medicaid are typically not seen at the Clinic. About half of the budget for the FMC comes
from United Way and Johnson County. They have received help from the City in the past,
according to Younker, approximately $7,000 or $8,000 over the past few years. Dobyns asked
if this won't be a shrinking demographic now that the Affordable Care Act has been
implemented. Younker stated that there are a lot of under - insured patients that are and will be
seeking treatment at the Free Medical Clinic, even with the ACA in place.
JC Mental Health — None.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014
Page 3
VNA — Honohan noted his late handout to Members on the VNA, adding that he wonders if the
VNA is really in their purview. He summarized the information he obtained, stating that home
health care is provided by health professionals, skilled services to homebound elderly and
disabled. These services are primarily paid for by Medicare, Medicaid, and medical insurance
supplements, including the new federal insurance program, the Affordable Care Act. The VNA
also has home healthcare aides, for help with shopping, laundry, etc., for elderly and disabled,
which is not financed by insurance programs. The VNA hosts community health clinics
throughout Johnson County for citizens 60 years of age and older, including blood tests, blood
pressure, and foot care. The Senior Center is one of the sites for these programs. Honohan
continued, giving some of the specifics of the health clinics, as far as days, times, and costs.
He expects to receive additional budget information from the VNA, as well. Honohan added that
Mercy Hospital has a similar program for home healthcare, but they do not provide the shopping
and laundry type of services. Honohan questioned though if this is a program that this
Committee should be reviewing, since the bulk of its services are covered under insurance. He
added that these programs do provide a lot of help to the elderly and he believes them to be
very important. It was noted that the Iowa City Hospice is similar in nature, in that much of the
services are covered by insurance.
Compeer — Dobyns noted that he did receive some information earlier today but that he sent it
back to Compeer with a series of questions. He added that he did this with MECCA and
Johnson County Mental Health Services, as well. Basically he is asking them the question:
what would you do if you had more resources or more collaborative efforts? Dobyns stated that
he believes this will be more helpful to the Committee as they finalize their recommendations.
Bern -Klug stated that by doing this, Dobyns will have different information regarding the
organizations he contacted versus what everyone else will have on their agency. She believes
they should then give everyone the same opportunity to speak to what they would do if they had
extra funds. Dobyns stated that this is why he is mentioning this now, to see what others think
about this.
Dohrmann noted that speaking from the standpoint of Elder Services, they have indicated that
funding is extremely tight. They are barely keeping up with the demand. If they had increased
resources, they would be able to provide that much more care. Bern -Klug added that basically
all of the agencies that requested funds from Aid to Agencies would probably say receiving the
amount they requested would be a start. Younker stated that they have asked agencies to
provide them with gaps in services, so this is another way to get to the same issue. Dohrmann
then asked Fruin if there is an evaluation tool that is submitted in relation to funds received in
the Aid to Agency process. He stated that by combining the City's efforts with United Way,
agencies have to go through a pretty prescriptive process with their application. This one
application then allows agencies to be considered for funding by several different entities. He
added that he could get Members a copy of a typical application so they can see for themselves
what is asked of agencies. Dohrmann asked if there is some type of follow up, after funding is
granted, to see if the agencies used the funds as they stated they would. Fruin stated that with
federal dollars especially there are fairly strict guidelines regarding use of funds. You have to
be able to document numbers and dollars. Honohan asked Fruin if Members could receive a
copy of the United Way's application guidelines. Fruin stated that he would forward that for the
Committee's review. Honohan moved to accept the reports given, with the understanding
that next meeting will be the final discussion of the list of agencies; seconded by
Webber. Motion carried 7 -0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014
Page 4
FINAL DISCUSSION OF LIST OF AGENCIES:
Younker asked if anyone had other agencies to add to their list of agencies to research.
Dohrmann stated that if they are going to be asking for information from the Free Medical Clinic
and the VNA that they should also add the Iowa City Hospice. Webber asked about the
Hispanic community and if they are accessing these same services. Dobyns agreed with
Webber's comment, adding that it would be helpful to know what resources are needed there.
Dohrmann asked Fruin about some of the groups, perhaps the Immigration Center through the
Church of Nazarene, that they could check with. Fruin responded that the Human Rights
Commission may have some group suggestions for them. The Center for Worker Justice is one
such group. Weber volunteered to contact whichever groups they deem necessary. Staff will
follow up.
DISCUSSION OF HOW CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY SERVES COMMUNITY NEEDS:
Fruin introduced Housing Adm. Steve Rackis with the Iowa City Housing Authority, noting that
he is present to give Members an overview of the Housing Authority and how they serve seniors
in the community. Rackis first noted that St. Patrick's Church is a good contact point for the
Hispanic community. Continuing, Rackis noted that the Housing Authority was established in
1969, serving Johnson County, Iowa County, and Washington County, north of Highway 92.
The majority of housing vouchers are utilized in Johnson County, with the public housing units
being exclusively in Iowa City. In the housing choice voucher program, there are 1,215
vouchers; 50 veteran - supported service vouchers; 81 public housing units; and the Peninsula
Apartments, a 10 -unit building, where the elderly and disabled are targeted. Rackis explained
how HUD allows housing authorities to establish local preference categories, which are the
'pecking order' of how they use their resources. He spoke to how the Housing Authority made
the determination years ago that they were not going to serve 'poor' college students, and he
shared how some investigative reporting uncovered some non - eligible students were getting
housing in the project -based facilities. HUD actually adopted a 'student rule,' which further
outlines what type of students can participate in various Housing and Urban Development
programs.
Continuing, Rackis further explained some of the terms used in HUD -based programs. An
`elderly household,' for example, is one where the head of household is 62 years of age. Citing
percentages from the Housing Authority's annual report, Rackis noted that 'elderly' households
account for 17% of the participation in the housing choice voucher program, public housing
program, and the veteran - supported services program. Rackis noted that he does have a
current number on their waiting list, as of today's date, and it shows 417 in the primary
preference category. Of those, 34 are elderly. Outside of this preference category, there are an
additional 3,000 applicants. Rackis stated that one reason they don't see a larger number of
elderly disabled on this list is due to the housing choices within the city. There are about 700
units in the area dedicated to the elderly disabled. Rackis continued to explain the programs
that the elderly can apply for, noting that there are not many barriers here but rather options for
the elderly to choose from.
Dobyns asked if Rackis would speak to the federal program funds and what might happen in the
future. Rackis noted that when the City did the affordable housing study in December of 2007,
many of these units were at the end of their 20 -year period of affordability. None of the project -
based facilities opted out of their contract with HUD. In fact, they renegotiated with HUD and
Systems Unlimited, for example, got funding to help modernize and upgrade a lot of their units.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014
Page 5
Rackis noted that he is not sure how long these new contracts are for. He added that they
would have to give one - year's notice to HUD and to all of their tenants before they could opt out
of their contract. Dobyns asked if Rackis knows what the next five years may bring with
affordable housing for the older population. Rackis stated that he believes it is going to
increase. With the University looking to increase its undergrad population, this will continue to
put pressure on affordable housing unit needs in the area.
Ruth Hanson, audience member, asked what a Section 8 voucher is. Rackis explained that
eligible families, who have gone through the eligibility determination process, can find an
approved housing unit to live in. The Housing Authority enters into a contract with the landlord
where they pay the landlord directly a portion of the rent, based on the family size and income.
The housing choice voucher program serves families that are at 50% or below the median
income. For public housing, this is 80% or below the median income. Home and CDBG funds
are also at 80% or below, with a certain amount of Home funds that have to be at 60 %.
Mary Gravitt then spoke to Regency, stating that they never answer their phone and have an
answering service. She has left messages and has requested information, but states she has
never received the information from them. She also asked about Capitol House, stating that
she went there recently and that she was scared trying to get in, that the place appeared to be
more of a project. Rackis stated that the Housing Authority does not provide any oversight to
either of these facilities. The Iowa Finance Authority does the monitoring and oversight of them.
He stated that he can provide the contact information for Gravitt.
Honohan asked Rackis about the Housing Authority's waiting list and prioritizing, and how this
works. Rackis explained how they opened the waiting list in October of 2013. He noted that
just this week, the Housing Authority sent notification to everybody that applied through January
of 2014. As of today, the person at the top of the waiting list would be someone who applied in
February of 2014. He noted that if someone would apply today and are in the top preference
category, they would go ahead of everybody else on the waiting list. Bern -Klug stated that from
the information provided, it appears the biggest unmet housing need for low- income people
would be families with children. Rackis agreed with this, stating that the elderly and disabled
tend to stay where they are once they find suitable housing. Dohrmann noted that Rackis
stated he sees this housing need as staying stable. She questioned if the needs will be
changing with the growing number of seniors in the community. Rackis spoke to this, saying
that with the housing choices that have come about in communities like North Liberty and Solon,
in addition to those in Iowa City, he does not see the need growing for the Housing Authority.
Mary Gravitt spoke to the home ownership programs, asking if there are limitations here with
age or income. Rackis stated that there is no limit, that the only limiting factor is the family's
ability to secure a mortgage. He briefly explained what this program is about.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA):
Chuck Felling of the Senior Center Commission appeared and stated he appreciates the work
the Committee is doing. Felling stated that many of the questions and concerns he has heard
out of this Committee's meetings are the same ones the Senior Center Commission and its
subcommittees have been hearing for some time now. He believes they need to have a bigger
picture of all of the available resources in the community.
Mary Gravitt stated she is confused, and believes the Committee is straying away from the
Senior Center building topic. She asked Fruin about the $50,000 that the Finance Director
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014
Page 6
stated they would be losing in the future. She questioned what would be coming in, to offset
this loss. She stated that they need to read the City's Charter to see what the rules really are.
Another problem with the Committee, according to Gravitt, is they do not have a mission
statement. She questioned why the Committee is talking to all of these other agencies. She
stated that to her the argument is about the repurposing of the Senior Center building.
Larry Rogers, a Senior Center Member, stated that back when he was a cook in Johnson
County, the restaurant manager would price the menu based on seven times the cost of the
materials and labor, except for toast. Toast was 20 times. He questioned what the different
groups are using for their criteria — toast or seven times. Secondly, he stated that he just
received a bill from Medicare and it stated that his doctor billed them for $125 for an office visit.
Medicare only allowed $74, and of this $15 is his co -pay. He asked if they are looking at the
$125 when looking at these programs, or the $74 that is the allowed amount. He stated that he,
like Mary, questions what the Committee is doing. He suggested that if the City is unable to
fund the Senior Center that they put out a `feeler' on the internet where they ask people to
donate money to keep the Center going.
Marsha Anderson, a life -long Iowa City resident, stated she appreciates the comments people
are making, and she too questions what the Committee is doing. When talking about 'older
Iowa Citians,' she questions what they are calling an older person. The Senior Center looks at
50 years of age for membership. She noted that other agencies, however, use different
numbers — 62, 65, 67, 72. She questioned if the comparisons the Committee is making are
really apples -to- apples. Speaking to the non - member use of the Senior Center, Anderson noted
that many of these people are indeed senior citizens. She questioned why an incredibly value
resource such as the Senior Center is even being questioned.
Younker asked that Karr include a copy of the resolution establishing the Committee in the next
meeting packet.
PENDING ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS:
Younker stated that they need to talk about bringing their information together and starting to
structure their recommendations to Council. Previously they talked about a tentative deadline of
having a draft by early October. He suggested they stay with this schedule, allowing time for
public input and refining of their recommendations, and still hit their deadline of December 1
established by Council. Honohan stated that he would like to have other Members' input on the
Senior Center report by September 3, as he sees this as the biggest part of their charge.
Dohrmann added that in addition to further input from other Members, further recommendations
should also be brought forth. She sees this as the beginning of how they start to structure their
final report. Younker added that a related agenda item will be the structure of the report itself.
He stated that there will be correspondence from himself and Vice Chair Dohrmann that can be
discussed at the next meeting. Members agreed that they would like to have other's comments,
additions, etc., prior to the next meeting so they can review them beforehand. Noon on the 27th
will be the deadline for comments to Karr, with the goal of having information out to the
Committee on the 28th
TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (first and third Monday of each
month): Younker asked if there were any conflicts with the September schedule. Dohrmann
stated that she does have a conflict on the 24th. Younker asked Members if they feel they need
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014
Page 7
an additional meeting in September. Members agreed to keep the September schedule as is.
For October, October 1 and 22 were looked at as meeting dates. Dohrmann stated that she
would be late to the October 1 meeting due to a work conflict. Honohan moved that they
schedule the meetings as discussed, seconded by Cannon. Bern -Klug noted that she
believes they should add another September meeting now, rather than wait until they get into
September. That way they can cancel a meeting if they don't need it. Dohrmann suggested
they set the November meetings today as well. A discussion ensued with Members noting
which dates do not work for them. Karr added that the last meeting in late November could
possibly be their last meeting. Members agreed to November meetings being the 12th and 24th
with the 24th being their last meeting. Honohan and Cannon agreed to amend the motion on the
floor by adding the November dates. Motion carried 7 -0. Younker then asked if they wanted
to look at other October dates. Dohrmann suggested they wait until the September 3 meeting to
discuss further meeting dates. Bern -Klug asked which meeting would be the public hearing
time. Younker stated that most likely the September 24 meeting would be for public comment.
Discussion continued on this issue. Webber moved to set a third meeting date for October,
seconded by Honohan. Motion carried 7 -0. After some discussion, Members agreed to set
October 15th as a meeting date, in addition to the October 1St and 22 "d. Dobyns moved that
the Committee meet on October 1, 15, and 22 at 3:30 P.M.; seconded by Bern -Klug.
Motion carried 7 -0. Karr stated that she will check room availability right away as scheduling
can get tight around the holidays.
September 3
September 24
October 1
October 15
October 22
November 12
November 24
ADJOURNMENT:
Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:00 P.M., seconded by Dohrmann. Motion
carried 7 -0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
August 18, 2014
Page 8
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.
O
O
w
N
w
O
-4
N
W
o
ono
O
w
�
•P
•A
.p
A
�
is
�
�
�
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe
Younker
Jay
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bern -Klug
Hiram
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cannon
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dohrmann
Rick
12/1114
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dobyns
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 26, 2014 — 7:30 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz,
Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes (arrived 7:45)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 08/12/14 — Kubby noted that she had one comment
regarding the minutes. On page 2 it says `this evening' and it was actually
`morning.' Regarding Mr. Carsner's correspondence, Chappell stated that some
of this has already been discussed — the election of the mayor. He added that
they can discuss this if the Commission would like. Schantz noted that doing it
the way Carsner suggests would do away with the city manager position. Kubby
stated that she has no interest in switching this form of government. She
believes that if they directly elect the mayor they will have a stronger 'weak'
mayor, which she believes would be a good thing. Sullivan stated that he
believes they should wait and see what they hear about this issue during the
public forums. Sullivan added that if they were to change the form of
government, he believes that other parts of the City would have to undergo
changes, as well. The issue of 'eligible' versus 'qualified' voter was briefly
touched on, with Members asking Karr for some background on when this
change occurred.
b. Correspondence — (1) Tom Carsner
Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended, seconded by Vanderhoef.
Motion carried 9 -0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Vanderhoef noted that a member of the public told her he had some comments to make and
she invited him to this morning's meeting, but that 7:30 was a bit early for him. Chappell noted
that he had an email exchange with Linda Schreiber regarding a potential date for a meeting
with the League of Women Voters.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Specific Sections to be Addressed:
* Additional Commission discussion of Preamble through Article VI —
Chappell asked if Schantz had anything to add to the packet of information he
has already prepared for the Commission. Schantz noted that Carsner's letter
3
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 2
did raise some issues for further discussion, such as 'full -time' versus `two- thirds'
time, salary expectations, etc. Kubby asked if there are examples of a `strong'
mayor with a city manager. Atkins stated that Coralville's arrangement is close to
this. He added that he is unsure if the mayor has veto power or not, but that you
could shape this position however you chose. Kubby asked how Cedar Rapids'
government works, as far as the mayor's position. Sullivan noted that part of the
strength of the mayor is in the culture of the city, and that a mayor with a certain
personality could make him or herself a strong or a weak mayor. Atkins noted
that Cedar Rapids recently changes to a City Manager form of government from
a Commission form. Schantz noted that around the country most larger cities
elect the mayor, which is typically seen as a position of power in those
communities. Shaw asked what constitutes 'strong' when referring to the
mayoral position. Chappell responded that to him when you say a `strong' mayor
it means one that is doing what the city manager would otherwise do. The
position would be seen as having 'power' beyond what Iowa City's current
mayoral position holds. Sullivan added that in his opinion, there are two ways to
strengthen the mayor, by either adding responsibilities or take away from the
things that council members and the mayor shouldn't do. He believes there is
some room between going to a full and strong mayor, to beefing up the role of
the mayor a bit, within the current infrastructure.
Schantz responded that you can think of the private sector where there is a
board of directors and a chair, and in some organizations the chair has a lot of
power and in others not so much. He added that to him the election is a
somewhat separate issue, from how strong the mayor is that's being elected.
Atkins stated that he believes it's important that they're able to identify the
political issues, which need to be a part of the ongoing debate, as well.
* Article VII — Initiative and Referendum -
The discussion began with Section 7.01(C). Chappell asked Schantz to read this
aloud for Members. Chappell then asked Dilkes if she could briefly summarize
what the importance is of these particular provisions. She responded that first of
all it is to be construed broadly, and added that 2 and 3 are confusing to her, as
well. She explained that a referendum is something that repeals an existing
measure, and there are time periods in which this has to be done. An initiative,
in its broadest sense, is proposing something new. She explained some current
issues and whether they are referendums or initiatives due to deadlines being
missed. Dilkes then responded to Member questions. Kubby asked if a group
can come to the City Attorney with a possible initiative, along with their potential
wording ready, would she give them an opinion on whether it would fly. Dilkes
responded that she will have a general conversation with such a group, but as far
as a formal opinion, she would ask the group to first file their intent to commence
affidavit with the city clerk. Once the group is given an opinion, they can refile
something different if so desired. Shaw asked for an example of what subject
matter would be excluded, and Dilkes noted that this is under 'Limitation,' under
7.01(6)(1).
Atkins stated that he found the statement "Scope Of Power" (Cl) to be one of the
more profound things about the Charter. He believes it states intention to confer
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 3
broadly — here's who we are; here's how we want to do business. Chappell
asked if there was any further discussion about these three subsections. Atkins
noted that one of the things he noticed in his contacts is that people don't
understand the difference between initiative and referendum. He believes there
needs to be some way of clarifying that. Sullivan stated that 7.01(A) lays it out
fairly clearly. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Vanderhoef
suggesting this be added to the "Definitions" section, as well as Article VII. Karr
stated that it was helpful to have the definition in the section when people inquire
as to the procedure. Dilkes agreed, stating that putting this in the general
"Definition" section would not make sense, as those are terms used throughout
the Charter. Kubby suggested making a reference to Article VII in the
"Definitions" section. Shaw asked if 'qualified electorate' needs to be defined
again in this section, even though it is in the "Definitions" section of the Charter.
Chappell stated that typically this would be done only if it were somehow different
in this section than in the other sections. Dilkes agreed, stating that this would
only cause confusion. Discussion continued about the difference between a
referendum and an initiative, with Chappell stating that they can revisit this in
further detail later. Kubby suggested they look at the Citizens Guide, as well, to
review the timelines shown there — the idea being to make things as easy to
understand as possible without outside interpretation. Dilkes noted that some
petitioners are just not disciplined enough to follow the timelines, where others do
so with no problem. Karr stated that once it is known whether they have an
initiative or a referendum, staff sits down and recreates the timeline for that
individual request. This basically gives the petitioner a custom timeline to follow.
Kubby noted that in subsection (D), `qualified electors' is very appropriate.
Continuing their discussion of Subsection 7.01(C), Members asked for
clarification from Dilkes about how existing contracts would be affected by the
language in "E ". Dilkes reported that most City contracts contain language on
cancellation and termination notification. Chappell then asked if 7.01(C) is ready
for tentative approval at this point, and Members agreed it was.
Moving on to 7.02, Craig read this aloud. Dilkes clarified that she has not seen a
challenge to this being unconstitutional in the same way that the other section is.
It is very focused on the circulation process and would not automatically apply to
this. Stone asked if Karr and Dilkes could briefly explain the process when
someone wants to start a petition. Karr outlined the process of how an individual
could initiate the process, and noted that typically they are given Section 7.01 to
read first, and then there is a one -page Affidavit that is completed and filed in the
in the Clerk's office to initiate the process. At this time there is typically a third
appointment set up, where the Clerk's office and the City Attorney's office will
review the documents and then prepare the individualized timeline for the
petitioner. Dilkes added that once the Affidavit is filed, this starts the time period
for when signatures must be obtained. Karr noted that it appears to be a
cumbersome and time - consuming process but once laid out it is pretty
straightforward. Karr added that if it would be helpful to the Commission, she
can bring in the forms that are used in the process. The conversation continued,
with Chappell then asking if there was a consensus to tentatively approve
Section 7.02. Members agreed. Chappell then asked what other cities use
initiative and referendum. Dilkes stated that they could look into this and see
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 4
what data is available on this. Chappell asked if anyone thinks the initiative and
referendum options are a bad idea and that the City should not use them.
Vanderhoef stated that citizens need to recognize that this is a special privilege,
that it's not a given everywhere. This is why she believes it needs to be a
`qualified electorate.' Atkins stated that he is uncomfortable with the word
`privilege,' that perhaps 'opportunity' is better. Sullivan stated that the fact it's a
privilege and comes from the Council is backwards to him. He believes that the
ability to govern ourselves and decide what kind of ordinance to live under is a
right and it should not come from the Council. It comes from the Charter. He
added that having a Charter may be unique to Iowa City, but it should not be
seen as a privilege. Dilkes stated that the philosophical debate is between
representative democracy and direct democracy. Chappell reiterated that it is
unique to Iowa City to have initiative and referendum. Schantz stated that it
doesn't fit in every situation, but that it appears to fit in Iowa City's culture.
b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): None
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
Chappell asked that they move on to this section, as he wanted to address a few points. The
public forum has been set for September 23 at 7:00 P.M. The Commission has one more
meeting scheduled before the public forum. Chappell stated that he would like to go over what
everyone's expectations are for this forum, and what type of interaction they want to have with
those who speak. He added that it may actually depend on how many people show up to
speak. If there are very few, they can engage in more back and forth. If 40 people show up,
they would want to keep things timed so there's enough time for everyone to speak, thus limiting
how much interactions may take place. He stated that he thinks the Council's five - minute rule
would work here. They can always allow people to come back a second time, depending on
turnout, time, etc. Shaw responded that he would find it very awkward if as a citizen he
addressed the Commission and then received no response from them. Kubby stated that she
would find it cold and unresponsive for there to be no interaction with speakers. Vanderhoef
suggested the Chair try to perhaps group the comments around specific topics and begin the
conversation that way. Chappell stated that he would have some concern doing it this way, that
people might be dissuaded from joining in. He added that he thinks they need some interaction,
and until they see the questions they really won't know what that is going to be. Shaw asked if
they shouldn't let the public know what happens after this Commission's review, what they can
expect from this process. Chappell noted that they can touch on that in his remarks, and Kubby
stated that doing so in an introduction could show what the process has been, how the next
public forum may be more interactive, what the Commission's timeline is, and what the process
will be with recommendations to Council.
Schantz stated that he believes it would be a good idea if at the next meeting they identified four
or five items where they have indicated some concerns and want to have further discussion.
This would let the public know of some specific issues that they might become interested
enough in to attend the meeting. Shaw asked where else the group might advertise to get the
word out about this forum. Kubby stated that she sent out the notice that they received from
Karr to people she knows that have an interest in government, and suggested that others do the
same with people they know. Atkins noted that Chappell, as Chair, will most likely give a brief
presentation at the frontend of the forum, explaining where the Commission is in this process.
He also stated that most likely it would be a good idea to give some rules of conduct at the
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 5
beginning, as well. Chappell agreed, adding that if someone feels the need to comment or ask
a question of a speaker, they should be able to do so. The goal is to hear from as many people
on as many issues as they can. Schantz stated that he would like to hear from people in the
community, what they like about Iowa City's government, and what they think the problems are,
if any. Kubby stated that the conversation is about the Charter, not the government in general,
although they are related. Chappell stated that they will have to wait and see what type of
comments they receive and deal with it accordingly. Karr stated that going back to Shaw's
question, she identified in her memo some of the things they've done in the past to publicize the
forums. She added that how the forums are run, however, is entirely up to the Commission.
Karr stated that she will have copies of the Charter available for the public's review the evening
of the forum. She asked if Members wish to have a 7:30 A.M. meeting that day, as well.
Chappell asked if Members would like to set a meeting shortly after the public forum in order to
review what they hear. After some discussion, Chappell asked if the meeting on September 9
could go until 9:30 to give them more time for discussion. Kubby stated that she would need to
leave by 9:15 on September 9. Chappell suggested they try to complete their discussion on
Section 7.03 so that they can finish up the discussion of initiative and referendum, prior to their
September 23 forum. September 30 was suggested as a follow -up meeting to September 23's
evening forum; and the morning meeting on September 23 will not be held.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TENTATIVE THREE -MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each
month — 7:30 AM):
September 9 —
September 23 — evening public forum 7:00 P.M.
September 30 — tentative special meeting
October 14
October 28
November 11 (City holiday)
November 25
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried
9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:Pt
M
W
NAME
EXP.
O
w
N
o
N
:Et
N
N
N
N
as
O
ah
4/1115
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
Schantz
E
Melvin
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
Moyers
E
Stone
Adam
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
3b(3)
NEW
IOWA CITY
I� P BLIC LIBRARY
123 S. Linn St. a Iowa City, IA 52240
da:..xw Susan Croig.vs,as 314356 - 5200•x... 3t435GSJ84•wwwicpl.org
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
July 24, 2014
FINAL APPROVED
Members Present: Diane Baker, Tom Dean, Janet Freeman, David Hamilton, Thomas Martin, Linzee
McCray, Robin Paetzold, Meredith Rich - Chappell, Jay Semel.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller,
Brent Palmer, Vickie Pasicznyuk.
Guests Present: Rev. Doyle Landry, Bill Wilson, Strategic Planning Consultant.
Call Meeting to Order. President Paetzold called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Rich - Chappell in at 5:04 pm.
Public Discussion. Rev Doyle Landry returned to answer questions the Board have from the
information he shared during the public discussion at the June meeting. Hamilton was not clear
about whether Mr. Landry was intimating there is something the library is not doing. Landry replied
the Library does a good job. Mr. Landry will be bringing more material for the Board in August.
Board photo. President Paetzold stopped the meeting at 5:06 pm for the Board photograph.
Martin out at 5:07. The Board reconvened at 5:13 pm.
Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the June 26, 2014 Regular Meeting of Library Board of Trustees were reviewed. A
motion to approve the minutes was made by McCray and seconded by Dean. Motion carried 8/0.
Unfinished Business.
FY16 Strategic Plan. Bill Wilson talked about the draft strategic plan presented in the July packet.
Semel asked a question about whether individual transformation can happen at the public library.
Wilson believes transformation turns into a higher level of service. He thinks the plan is
comprehensive and will be a stretch for ICPL. The plan will not be easy and will take time to
implement. There are components of the plan, like the virtual library, that move the library forward.
There are options to explore library service beyond the building walls that push the library into the
community, perhaps one solution to the parking issue. McCray would like stronger, more practical
language. Craig said specific actions will take place in FY16 and will be an outgrowth of the plan;
they will be forthcoming. Semel asked if there is enough of a distinction between the engage and
enrich parts of the plan for staff to be able to evaluate at the end of the year. Craig believes the
proof will come with the specifics. Wilson thanked the planning committee and the library staff for
their hard work. Craig seeks Board approval to adopt the draft with the understanding that new
language will be added to reflect McCray's concerns and it will be brought back to the Board in
September with the staff proposed objectives. McCray moved this be adopted as a draft with
wordsmithing by Dean and McCray. Rich - Chappell seconded. Motion carried 8/0.
Lauritzen out at 5:29 pm.
Board Annual Report. All City boards and commissions submit a report for the City of Iowa City's
Annual report. Craig drafted a document based on conversation at the June Board meeting. The
FY14 Board Annual report was reviewed. A motion to approve the Board Annual Report as drafted
with one change in wording was made by Freeman and seconded by Semel. Motion carried 8/0.
New Business.
Strategic Plan Review. This is the end of the year, FY14, strategic planning report. No action
required. Freeman asked about dropping radio advertising. Craig said that we have a presence on
local radio stations and have many opportunities to promote library classes, programs, and events
on the radio. IPR is too broad for us to promote things like our databases since you must live in
Iowa City to use them. Baker asked about Sierra, the new software.
FY15 Strategic Plan. A preliminary version was approved last July and used for budgeting purposes.
Staff have reviewed and updated. A motion to approve the FY15 Strategic Plan as presented was
made by Baker and seconded by Dean. Motion carried 8/0.
FY14 Public Relations Annual Report and FY15 Plan. Paetzold asked how we evaluate our public
relations efforts and if we have criteria for what we do. Logsden says we watch trends over time and
distribute evaluations at programs which help us target our advertising. McCray asked about the
blog.
FY15 NOBU Budget. The NOBU budget is Board - controlled contingency money. The money comes
from gifts and includes state money for Open Access and direct state aid. Freeman asked if there is
any use that is prohibited for this money, for example, could this money be used if funds are
reduced from the City to keep the library running. Craig said donors give us private money to
incrementally improve library services, not keep the doors open. Rather, it is for enhancing and
improving library services over and above what tax money brings to the library. Paetzold asked
about the library's support for the City of Literature and if we expect the $3,000 in the NOBU budget
to be our sustaining support. Craig believes this to be a fairly modest investment from which our
identity is enhanced. Several things related to new strategic plan are in the NOBU budget. A motion
to approve the FY15 NOBU budget as presented with a math correction was made by McCray and
seconded by Rich - Chappell. Motion carried 8/0.
Change October Meeting Date. The Iowa Library Association Annual Conference is October 22 -24,
2014 in Cedar Rapids. Many library staff will attend and Library Board members are also encouraged
to do so. Craig requests the date for the October Board meeting be changed to avoid this conflict. A
motion to change the date of the October meeting of the Library Board of Trustees from October
23 to October 16 was made by Baker and seconded by McCray. Motion carried 8/0.
Staff Reports.
Director's Report. The City begins work on the playground outside the library on August 3. Fencing
will be placed around the building and the play space. This is the first project of the City's
streetscape update and it is expected to last most of the month of August.
Departmental Reports.
Adult Services. Summer Reading Program statistics so far: 1,228 adults and 400 teens registered for
SRP. McCray said she heard wonderful things about the World Cup at the library.
Community & Access Services. McCray asked about tracking use of library cards.
Logsden out at 6:40 pm.
Development Office. McCarthy said the golf event was awesome and Finkbine was great to work
with. Craig demanded that it not rain and it didn't. Library Links raised $4,000 more than last year's
golf outing. Additionally, there was a successful book sale on Saturday. This year there was an early
bird opportunity, for $5.00 one could get into the sale early; three persons took advantage of the
early bird special.
Miscellaneous. No comments.
Spotlight on the Collection. No comments.
President's Report. President Paetzold began a discussion about the August Board Dinner. It was
agreed that the Board will gather at Brix upstairs after the Board meeting and have pizza delivered
from Pagliai's for a more casual atmosphere that would allow good conversation.
Announcements from Members. No comments.
Committee Reports.
Foundation Members. McCarthy reported that the first meeting of FY15 took place in early July.
There are seven new Foundation Board members. The Board members filled out a new member
opportunity survey. The next meeting is in September.
Communications. None.
Disbursements.
The MasterCard expenditures for June, 2014 were reviewed. A motion to approve the disbursements
for June 2014 was made by Hamilton and seconded by Rich - Chappell. Motion carried 8/0.
Set Agenda Order for August Meeting.
Circulation policy.
Confidentiality policy.
Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Hamilton and seconded by McCray.
Motion carried 8/0. President Paetzold closed the meeting at 6:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Elyse Miller
N
d
N
I+
IA
3
L
H
O
L
O
m
J
a
c �
.00
y V
N W
�£
E W
O V
VQ=
1. Z O
0
co
Q
i x i I x iii x I x i x i x i
x I x I I x I x I x I x I x I X I X
X X X I X X X I X 1 O X
X X X X 0 X 0 X X
C
a�
w w �
O O X X X X X X X
X w X X X 0 X X X
0
x I x x x >< I , I x x
X
0
m
0
m
l0
0 LU
L
X
X
X
X
X
r-
0
m
0
Ol
0
m
110
to
-2
C
co
O
L
v
-se
(O
v
3
E—
w
m
a
m
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
0
L
L
I
0
N v
u
E
c
0
Z
w
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
0
X X O X X 0 X X I X
X I X I O I X I I x I X I X I X I X
a)
Ln
V
X
t a�
c c
a� a, _a 0
Ln Q) -0 Q z
d Q II II
} II II w
LU
�2xOOz
ra
E: ='
L
W
m
0
m
l0
Ln
0
m
l0
Ln
0
m
l0
of
0
m
l0
Ln
0
m
l0
0
m
l\0
Ln
0
m
110
0
m
Q0
r-
0
m
0
Ol
0
m
110
to
-2
C
co
O
L
v
-se
(O
v
3
E—
CD
a
m
0
w
co
L
L
I
N v
u
E
c
N
a)
Ln
V
X
t a�
c c
a� a, _a 0
Ln Q) -0 Q z
d Q II II
} II II w
LU
�2xOOz
3�
MINUTES APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
J U LY 9, 2014
ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER — MEETING ROOM B
Members Present: Suzanne Bentler, David Bourgeois, Larry Brown, Clay Claussen,
Maggie Elliott, Cara Hamann, Katie Jones, Lucie Laurian, Joe Younker
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Zac Hall; Karen Howard, Urban Planning, Steve Long,
Community Development
Others Present: Temple Hiatt, Del Holland, Ben Clark
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Claussen called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION:
Younker noted an amendment that was necessary to the June 10, 2014 minutes. The
minutes stated that the motion to adjourn the meeting was passed 9 -0; however it should
have been written 6 -0 as three Commission members were absent.
Moved by Bouraeois, seconded by Bentler to approve the June 10, 2014 minutes as
amended. Motion passed 9 -0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Temple Hiatt, was in attendance, as the former president of the Iowa City Girls Softball
Association. In a past meeting Dyson distributed an affiliate group cost analysis for affiliate
groups; however, she would like to see a more specific breakdown of this report. Dyson
also handed out an affiliate policy that was written in 2009. Hiatt was not familiar with this
policy. In Dyson's absence, Claussen stated that this was a reasonable request and would
pass on to staff.
IOWA RIVER RESTORATION /BURLINGTON STREET DAM MITIGATION &
RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS PARK PLANNING PROCESS:
Karen Howard, Planner with the Urban Planning Division and Steve Long, Coordinator with
Neighborhood Services, Community Development Division were present per Commission
request to present the most recent Riverfront Crossings plan.
Howard and Long first presented the "major catalysts" for the planning of the Riverfront
Crossings include:
• Arterial streets (Burlington, Benton, Kirkwood, Hwy 6, Riverside & Gilbert)
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
July 9, 2014
Page 2 of 7
• Center of employment
• Cultural, entertainment, civic core
• Demand for high density housing already exists.
• Barriers for the plan include:
• Low density commercial and industrial development
• Potential brownfields
• Uncomfortable for pedestrians & bicyclists
• Broken street grid
• Wastewater treatment plant
• Prone to flooding
Goals of the plan are to
• Create a resilient riverfront park system
• Maintain Downtown Iowa City as a focal point in the region
• Encourage pedestrian- oriented mixed -use redevelopment
• Enhance Ralston Creek to become a community asset
• Develop a multi -modal transportation network
• Incorporate art throughout the district
• Create a network of green streets in the district
• Promote sustainable design practices throughout the district
To implement the Riverfront Crossings Plan the area needs to incorporate new zoning
standards that will facilitate private redevelopment and allow developers to take advantage
of the new zoning standards. Planning and development of the new riverfront park is a
major motivation for redevelopment. Part of this redevelopment would also include
restoring the street grid and developing and implementing enhanced street - scaping along
Clinton Street linking downtown to the new riverfront park.
Staff held public forums for the community to provide input. Their suggestions are as
follows:
• Park should be flood- resistant.
• Provide better access to the river for fishing, boating, recreation, views
• Stream bank restoration along the Iowa River
• Restoration of Ralston Creek
• Construct wetlands (for function, demonstration, and education)
• Develop and connect a trail network through the park and along both sides of the
river
• Public Art
• Green infrastructure (extension of green fingers into surrounding neighborhood)
• Open space and recreational amenities for future high density neighborhood that will
surround the park
Howard and Long then presented the Iowa River Restoration /Burlington Street Dam
Modification project. Goals include:
Partnership with the EPA, State DNR, Iowa Dept. of Cultural Affairs, Iowa City and
University
Create new education and recreation opportunities
Multi -use for all ages and a variety of activities
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
July 9, 2014
Page 3 of 7
• Improve safety & access to river
• Improve fish habitat
• Riverbank restoration
• Fill in the gap in the riverfront trail network on the west bank of the river
Howard and Long noted that to implement the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan it is more
cost effective to combine and coordinate the planning for improvements to the Iowa River,
Ralston Creek and the new Riverfront Park.
Steve noted that that the flood of 2008 opened up an opportunity to look at how we use the
river. The City took the stance of buying homes and demolishing them, develop open
space and to open this up as a flood plain. Another opportunity arose when the City
received funding due to the flooding to move the wastewater plant. The City initially started
looking for a place where a recreational component could happen and while doing so, they
were awarded funds to demolish the wastewater plant. City would like to amend the
existing agreement to further expand the riverfront crossing area to extend from Burlington
to Highway 6. This would allow 5 acres of wetlands on site and would allow for both a
passive and active recreational component.
Long talked about the consideration of making the site of the old wastewater treatment plan
into a whitewater park. City Council will be voting soon to hire a park planner who will be
asked to develop two possible concepts. Concepts will show an active /passive park plan to
include a whitewater course and other water recreation, as well as trails, wetlands and
usable green space.
There will be more opportunities for public input during this planning process. Commissions
will be invited to attend. The full Riverfront Crossings master plan is available online at
www.icgov.org.
Commission thanked Howard and Long for the presentation.
WILLOW CREEK/KIWANIS PARK PLANNING & TIMELINE:
Brian Boelk with HBK Consulting firm, who was hired to prepare a comprehensive Park
Master Plan for Willow Creek and Kiwanis Park, was at tonight's meeting to give a
presentation to the Commission. Boelk has met with staff to go over programming needs
such as t -ball, soccer, etc. His intent is to move forward by having more conversations with
the Commission as well as the neighborhood. Boelk distributed a tentative schedule asking
them to let him know of any suggested changes. Elliott addressed concern of several
people not being able to attend neighborhood meetings. She asked if there would be online
opportunities for surveys /input. Boelk said that there would be on the website for the project
as well as Facebook, Twitter and in hard copy. Moran noted that the goal is to have the
project ready for bid in November. Laurian asked what the vision is for these parks. Moran
noted stream restoration and drainage, perhaps adding another backstop for t -ball leagues
and certainly a trail system. Moran will keep Commission up -to -date on neighborhood
meeting dates and is strongly encouraging commission members to attend if possible.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
July 9, 2014
Page 4 of 7
NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REVIEW
None.
RECREATION DIVISION REPORT: In the absence of Dyson, Moran reported. Staff will
started bringing in affiliate groups one or two at a time to Commission Meetings to discuss
an affiliate group policy. Commission will discuss the affiliate policy at the August meeting.
PARKS DIVISION REPORT:
City Park Rides Hall reported that the City Park Amusement rides have been
disassembled and placed in storage in preparation for flooding of the park.
Hickory Trail Park: The playground equipment has been installed. There have been some
specification delays on the shelter but currently working on those. He hopes to have
everything in place and complete within a couple of weeks of this meeting.
Mercer Park: The department will be working with Carol Sweeting, Public Works
Department, on a pilot program. This program includes volunteers coming in to lay mulch
around 40 trees with the hopes of reducing the need for trimming and well as lessen the
damage from mowers to the trees.
Backyard Abundance: On June 28 Backyard Abundance held a mulching event at Wetherby
Park. This went very well and the department dropped off more mulch for them today.
Emerald Ash Borer: The department received no calls regarding the confirmed finding of a
female beetle in Iowa City. The department is in the process of working through their
Emerald Ash Borer plan. Bentler asked what the lifespan is of a tree once infested. Hall
reported that a tree can die within one year. Preemptive cutting down of the trees is
generally the practice. Elliott asked if property owners would be notified prior to trees being
removed from a right -of -way even though not on their private property. Hall said that they
would. Laurian asked if all ash trees will die from this. Hall said that potentially 100% of
them will die without treatment. Hall said they will replace the trees and will look at
diversifying species when replacing them. Jones asked if the City has given any more
thought to planting edible fruit trees. Hall stated that flowering fruit trees are more
accessible to disease. However, there is an edible forest being planted at Wetherby Park.
If this proves to be a success, there may be more consideration given to the idea.
DIRECTORS REPORT:
Flood Update: Moran discussed the Corps of Engineers plan for decreasing the water flow.
City Park rides will be put back in as soon as possible. Riverside Theatre staff is pretty
discouraged about what the future means for them as they have had to move their shows
two years consecutively. They lose a large amount of revenue when moving the shows as
they have to go to places that do not accommodate the same number of guests (theatre
holds 472, moved to a facility that holds 120). Laurian asked if the stage could be moved to
Upper City Park. Moran reported that there is not enough space in this area, not to mention
the parking issues that would occur when the pool is open etc. Moran said that he watched
Ralston Creek water come about 25' into the Recreation parking lot which he has never
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
July 9, 2014
Page 5 of 7
seen before. Moran will provide Commission with costs for storm damage and flood
recovery. Bentler asked how the flooding has affected Project GREEN progress at Ashton
House. Moran stated that they have stopped working for now but will resume as soon as
threat of flooding subsides.
Staffing: The department continues to have issues with staffing. In fact, Chad Dyson is not
present at tonight's meeting because he is covering park security duties due to shortage in
staff. The staff is struggling with an explanation of why this is the case and will continue with
hiring efforts.
Highland Park: The Highland Park area formed a neighborhood association and has
received a PIN grant. This is the area of Keokuk and Highland Streets. They would like to
see new playground equipment as well as a new park shelter added to the park.
CHAIRS REPORT:
None
COMMISSION TIME /SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Laurian asked if City could identify some of the hot spots for trail crossings. Moran will ask
Kris Ackerson from the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County for trail
counts.
Jones noted that she was recently at City Park Pool and the renovations look great. She
was very pleased with the twilight swim that is offered ($2 admission from 5 -8 p.m.) and
said that she had a chance to speak with the folks from Riverside Theatre who were
extremely grateful for the help from City staff in moving them out of the park so quickly
when prepping for the flood.
Bentler noted she was recently walking dogs on Normandy Drive and was very pleased with
the renovations taking place. Moran noted that another phase will be completed this
summer.
Hamann asked for an update on Chadek Property. Moran is expecting a purchase
agreement by the end of this week. Will then do an environmental assessment and survey
work.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Elliott, seconded by Hamann to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Motion
passed 8 -0 (Claussen departed meeting at 5:45).
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
July 9, 2014
Page 6 of 7
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
M
M
M
M
V-
�
v
v
et
et
TERM
O
r
o
N
r
o)
EXPIRES
w
°'
�
a
W
Suzanne
1/1/17
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Bentler
David
1/1/15
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bourgeois
Larry
1/1/18
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Brown
Clay
1/1/14
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Claussen
Maggie
1/1/13
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
Elliott
Allison
1/1/14
X
O/E
O/E
X
NM
X
Gnade
Cara
1/1/16
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hamann
Katie
1/1/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jones
Lucie
1/1/15
O/E
O/E
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Laurian
John
1/1/14
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
Westefeld
Joe
1/1/16
X
X
X
O/E
NM
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Younker
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
r r 1
Via'"
ON%,wr ®10
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 5, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
"x..14
3s■
At their September 4, 2014 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the August
21 minutes with the following recommendations to the City Council:
1. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ14- 00011, an application
submitted by XJ -23 LLC for a rezoning of approximately .54 -acre of property from
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC -CX)
zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912 -914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S.
Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark.
2. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ14- 00013, an application
submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 25.8 -acres of property
from Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business Support (CB -5) and Planned
High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -
SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone located south of
Burlington Street in the South Downtown and a portion of the Central Crossings
subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 21 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, John Thomas, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Bruce McDonald (855 Cypress Ct.), Jennifer
McDonald (855 Cypress Ct.), Jeff Clark (908 N. Gilbert St.)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ14- 00011, an application
submitted by XJ -23 LLC for a rezoning of approximately .54 -acre of property from
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC -CX)
zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912 -914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S.
Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark.
The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ14- 00013, an application
submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 25.8 -acres of property
from Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business Support (CB -5) and Planned
High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -
SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone located south of
Burlington Street in the South Downtown and a portion of the Central Crossings
subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Development Item
SUB14 -00015
Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a preliminary plat of Evan
Heights, a 10 -lot, 3.59 -acre residential subdivision located at the NE corner of First
Avenue and Hickory Trail.
Yapp showed the preliminary plat and location maps from an aerial view. He explained that the
commission had received a planned development proposal for this a few months ago for 11
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 2 of 8
multi - family units. He stated that after consultation with the Commission and City Council the
application was withdrawn and the applicant then submitted the current preliminary plat. Yapp
explained that the current proposed plat is largely a single - family subdivision and is 3.59 acres
and contains a stream corridor and linear wetlands along the east side of the property. He noted
that 10 lots are proposed with eight detached single - family structures and the corner lot for zero -
lot line or attached two -unit structure with each structure on its own lot. Yapp stated that this is
permitted in the RS -5 zone. No new public streets or utilities are proposed.
Yapp stated that stormwater management is accounted for in the regional stormwater facility in
Hickory Hill Park. He also stated that the applicant submitted a request to be exempted from the
requirements in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The ordinance exempts grading, clearing and
development activities for single - family and two - family structures in situations where there are
no common facilities or infrastructure proposed and the applicant demonstrates there is no
encroachment into a jurisdictional wetland, designated conservation tract or a sensitive area.
Yapp said that access management standards state that when land is being subdivided into lots
intended for single - family or two - family uses, individual lot access to arterial streets is
discouraged. Yapp noted that due to topography it would not be recommended to construct
shared driveways, because each dwelling unit would be at a different elevation and require
additional grading. Staff does not recommend the requirement for shared driveways. Yapp also
stated that the other access management issue is that along arterial streets there should be 150
feet between an intersection and a driveway. This rule would affect the structure on lot 3 in
which the applicant would either need to apply for a minor modification or construct a shared
driveway off Hickory Trail to serve both lots 2 and 3.
Yapp explained that staff finds that this subdivision meets the requirements of the subdivision
code and recommends approval.
Freerks stated that she had a couple questions. She stated that she has never known anyone to
be exempt from the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and she stated that she
was unsure as to why this was the route. Yapp responded and stated that this one is unusual
because it is already zoned RS -5 and there are no public infrastructure improvements
proposed. Freerks asked why this subdivision is different from any others and she asked for an
explanation as to why this is different.
Yapp said that the ordinance states that if there is less than 20,000 square feet of development
the subdivision is exempt. Eastham said he believe that the ordnance says 20,000 square feet
on a tract of land. Hektoen stated that the application shows that there would be less than
20,000 square feet of disturbed soil and therefor the application can be exempt.
Freerks asked about the requirement for a 100 foot buffer from the wetlands. Hektoen stated
that the buffer is required if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance applies. She continued that based on
the language in the code the application qualifies for an exemption. Eastham then asked to go
over the code which discusses the exemption. He stated that there is clearly development
activity for more than 20,000 square feet in this subdivision. Hektoen explained that the
exemption is for single family lots and when a lot is developed, and there is not disruption to
20,000 square feet of land, and there are no encroachments into the protected sensitive
features, then the subdivision is exempt because there are no shared features between lots.
Freerks asked what the difference is between other single family subdivisions, because the
commission has never approved this before. Hektoen stated that this was the City Attorney's
interpretation of the ordinance as it applies to this particular subdivision. She also stated that
Doug Boothroy also allowed the exemption because the public infrastructure is already in place
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 3 of 8
and there will not be a disturbance of sensitive features for the development of this subdivision.
Freerks then referred back to a staff report from December and read a description of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance and then stated that based on the description she does not
understand the difference. Hektoen stated that this is a different subdivision and the code states
that unless otherwise exempt a subdivision needs to comply with the ordinance. She stated that
based on the code the applicant has satisfied the requirements for exemption. Freerks stated
that she is concerned that standards would not be applied uniformly between subdivisions.
Eastham stated that he is also confused and echoes Freerks' concerns. He asked for
clarifications on the wetland delineation. Yapp stated that a wetland has been delineated.
Eastham then stated that the ordinance, as he understands it, would then require a 100 foot
buffer. Hektoen stated that the buffer does not apply on this property because it is exempt from
the ordinance.
Yapp stated that this subdivision is different because no new infrastructure is needed. Typically
new infrastructure is needed and therefor more than 20,000 square feet is disturbed and would
not be qualified for an exemption. Eastham asked if staff has calculated the exact amount which
would be disturbed as a result of this development. Yapp replied that staff had not because the
applicant satisfied the requirements for exemption. Freerks stated that she fears that a
precedent will be set that they will not want to follow. Freerks said if this is a loophole in the
sensitive areas ordinance, then we should go back and correct this.
Thomas asked if actual speed was known for First Avenue. Yapp stated that posted speed is 25
miles per hour. Yapp stated that he would need to look it up, but thought that downhill it was low
to mid 30's and uphill it's in the high 20's. Thomas asked the roadway width. Yapp stated that it
is a two -lane 31 -foot wide street.
Dyer asked if there is room on Lot 1 100 feet from the stream to build a house. Yapp said there
was not. She then asked if Lot 1 would be liable to flood. Yapp stated that it is not in the stream
corridor itself and that he did not believe it was liable to flood.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants introduced himself on behalf of the developer. He addressed
the flooding issue and stated that based on their requirements for structure elevation, the
subdivision would not flood. The lowest openings on the structure are set at one foot above
flood elevation. He stated that in relation to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the reason this
subdivision is exempt is because no public infrastructure improvements are being installed. He
said the exemption says anything less than 20,000 and that is the amount of two lots.
Freerks asked if he was breaking down the disturbance down to individual lots. Amelon agreed.
Thomas asked what flood level Amelon was referring to. Amelon said they would calculate that.
Freerks ask if he could address why they won't have shared driveways. Amelon responded that
there would be about 8 feet of elevation difference between the homes as you go down the
street so it would be difficult to share driveways. There would need to be retaining walls.
Bruce McDonald introduced himself as a resident at 855 Cypress Ct. which is located on the
northwest corner of this plat. He stated that he is pretty happy with the proposed subdivision but
he would like to see the types of homes that would be constructed. He stated that he would
prefer shared driveways. He also stated that in regards to flooding, he did not believe that a
house constructed on Lot 1 would flood, but if there is a full basement that could be problematic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 4 of 8
He stated that during heavy rain events the neighboring creek can flood. He did think that
flooding should be taken into consideration.
Jennifer McDonald introduced herself as a resident at 855 Cypress Ct. and she stated that she
heard at their neighborhood meeting that the single - family homes were not feasible and so she
was confused when single - families are now proposed. She stated her concerns about flooding
on Lot 1 during heavy rain events.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ14- 00015, an application submitted by
Allen Homes for a preliminary plat of Evans Heights, a 10 -lot subdivision located east of
First Ave and north of Hickory Trail. Martin seconded the motion.
Eastham stated that he would like to review the discussion of the wetland buffer. He asked if there
were a 100 foot buffer, would that affect the ability to build on Lot 1. Yapp stated that if it were
required the buffer would make it difficult to develop Lot 1. Eastham said that wetland buffers have
been reduced in the past. Yapp stated that reduction in the buffer is not permitted where a
wetland is located within a stream corridor. Eastham then asked staff to review why a buffer is
required in most cases. Yapp stated that in most cases a buffer is required to prevent paving and
structures close to the wetland and also to allow for wetland and prairie vegetation which would
typically be planted in the buffer, which helps protect the wetland. Eastham said the buffer would
also apply to the eastside where a lot of the vegetation has already been removed. Yapp said the
area to the east was developed prior to the adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Freerks stated that she has concerns about this and that she would prefer to defer this and come
up with other solutions regarding the buffer. She said that applying the buffer would eliminate Lot
1, still allowing significant development. She also is concerned about the number of driveways
onto First Avenue.
Martin said she preferred the previous proposal that clustered development away from the
wetlands. She does not like this proposal, but the masses have spoken and they prefer this
amount of paving so she would vote for this.
Theobald said her first home was situated similar to this (Lot 1), and the first time it rained the
area flooded. She would support deferral.
Thomas stated that he would like to see staff come back with more information in regards to how
this subdivision complies. He would not support changing the rules if this is found to be exempt.
Hektoen said she would provide more information, but it is unlikely that the City Attorney's opinion
will change.
Eastham said he would like to see this deferred. He did not recall any case when the 20,000 was
considered on a per lot basis. He wanted to understand how the exemption clause interpretation
was arrived at. He asked if Thomas would withdraw his motion.
Thomas withdrew his motion to approve. Martin seconded.
Eastham moved that REZ14 -00015 be deferred to the September 4, 2014 meeting.
Theobald seconded the motion.
Freerks said she was concerned about flooding on Lot land would encourage that it be
removed from the subdivision.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 5 of 8
Eastham said he would not rule out approving a plan that includes Lot 1.
Dyer said she was concerned about Lot 1 in relation to the buffer and stream. She would prefer
that it be eliminated and the area be added to the back of lots 2 and 3.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -1 (Martin voting no).
Rezoning Item
REZ14 -00011
Discussion of an application submitted by XJ -23 LLC for a rezoning of approximately .54-
acre of property from Intensive Commercial (CIA) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central
Crossings (RFC -CX) zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912 -914 S. Dubuque Street and
designation of 914 S. Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark.
Miklo stated that as noted there are three individual lots involved in this application. There is
currently an office building which is in the process of being dismantled on the corner lot, the
center lot is vacant, and the southern lot includes the Tate Arms building at 914 South Dubuque
Street. Miklo showed the office building and the Tate Arms from an aerial view. Miklo then
showed the commission photos of the Tate Arms.
Miklo explained that there are two parts to this application. The first part is to rezone the area to
Riverfront Crossing — Central Crossings, which allows mixed -use development. He stated that
the second aspect is to designate the Tate Arms as a Historic Landmark. If approved that would
require Historic Preservation Commission approval for any changes to the exterior. It also
provides some zoning incentives, which would allow transfer of development rights to the
remainder of the property and consideration of reduction in parking requirements. The property
is in the 500 year floodplain so any development would have to comply with the floodplain
regulations.
Miklo stated that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the application last week. The
Commission deemed the property to be worthy of Historic Landmark status. The designation is
not so much a result of the architecture but instead of the history of the building. Miklo stated
that the building functioned as a rooming house for African American students from the 1930's
to the 1960's. He said a detailed report on the significance of the building was included in the
meeting packet.
Miklo stated that staff recommends approval for the both the zone change to the Riverfront
Crossings zone and the designation as a Historic Landmark.
Martin asked if landmark status would require upkeep to the interior of the house. Miklo stated
that the historic preservation regulations only apply to the exterior of the property.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Jeff Clark stated that he is representing the owner XJ -23. He stated that he has been working
with staff. He also stated that the intention is to turn the Tate Arms into a duplex and construct
multifamily dwelling units on the vacant lot. He stated that the multifamily building will be 30 to
40 feet away from Tate Arms and between four and five stories. He also stated that the multi-
family structure will be designed to go well with the Tate Arms.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 6 of 8
Martin asked staff if there would be further review by the commission. Miklo stated that there
would not be.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Eastham moved to recommend approval REZ14 -00011 a request by XJ -23 LLC for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings (RFC -CX) zone
at 201 E. Benton Street, 912 -914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S. Dubuque
Street as a Historic Landmark.
Martin seconded the motion.
Eastham stated that he thought that the Tate Arms is an important part or Iowa City History and
Freerks agreed. Swygard stated that she is excited to see Riverfront Crossings development
beginning south of Benton Street.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Rezoning Item
REZ14 -00013
Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of
approximately 25.8 -acres of property from Central Business Service (CB -2), Central
Business Support (CB -5) and Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront
Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central
Crossings (RFC -CX) zone located south of Burlington Street in the South Downtown and
a portion of the Central Crossings subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District.
Howard stated that this was a little bit different situation than other rezonings. This time the City,
under the direction of the City Council, is initiating this rezoning to help facilitate redevelopment
according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She stated that in this particular area there is a lot of
redevelopment pressure and there is no need for additional infrastructure to be built. Howard
showed the property from an aerial view.
She also noted that the RM -44 property is the one piece in the South Downtown plan that is in
need of additional right -of -way. She noted that the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to reestablish
the street grid by reconnecting Capitol Street. She stated that there are a number of publicly
owned properties, which would not, be included in this rezoning.
Freerks asked when Capitol Street was removed. Howard thought it was in the 1970's during
Urban Renewal activities.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Seeing none Freerks closed public discussion
Eastham moved to recommend approval REZ14 -00013 a proposal to rezone
approximately 25.8 acres from Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business
Support (CB -5) and Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront
Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central
Crossings (RFC -CX) zone located south of Burlington Street in the South Downtown and
a portion of the Central Crossings subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District as
illustrated in the attached location map included in this packet.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 7 of 8
Swygard seconded the motion.
Eastham asked Howard if there were any results from the Riverfront Crossings meeting that the
City hosted on July 22 "d. Howard stated that the meeting attendance was pretty low and that
she took that to mean that property owners were satisfied with the rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Au ust 7 2014
Dyer moved to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION
Miklo stated that the design of arterial streets informal meeting could be scheduled for
September 18 at 6:00 pm.
Howard stated that the planning for the Riverfront Park is starting and they are anticipating a
meeting in late October or early November. She stated that the commission would be on the
mailing list.
OTHER
Freerks asked about mailbox placement on South Dodge Street. She said they are being placed
very close to the sidewalk. She asked staff to look into whether the City could influence the
location. She would like to see if there is a better solution. re
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomas moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote.
z
0
V)
U)
0
_Z
Z
N
06
Z
E
z
J
CL
p
W
w
W
0
Z
D
z
W
H
Q
r
O
N
M
r
0
N
z
W
W
0
'lxlxlxlxlxlxlx
,*-Ixlx x xlxlolx
Ixlxlxlxlxlxlx
W'Ixlxlolxlxlxlx
xlxlxlx xlx x
to
Ixlxlxlxlxlxlx
41XixIxlx�x1XIX
'Ix xlxlxlxlxlo
MIxlxlxlx101xlx
lxlxlxlxlxlxlx
N
NIxlx x xlxlxlx
'IOlxlxlxlxlxlx
�
1x xlxlxlxlxlx
T'Hx��x��xlxl
N
r
xlx xlolxlxlx
N
ww(om1-- U)wU')
1- W 0 0 0 O O O O
w
J W J W
ZW p
�aZLu oz
0va0a 0
azoo�
N
w�20C�U' mQ
�WtnW�
Z0WILi U) HH
z
W
W
O
a Nxxxxxxx
N x x x x x x x
z
M
;xxxoxxx
Nxxxxxxx
Nxxxxxxx
gwo(Dm - LowL)
Lo L
�Xo L L L 0 00o00
W
U.1
J W J W
a z W p 0 z
00QOa -
� zaoo�
a�C � i
LU LUu, ~WOCOOED
a�a�a� =i
z a W ti M U)
U) 0) c
X N
W � N
j ai -0 0
a`QQz�
u n n n If
xOw
O
r
W
Y
U) 0) c
X N
W � N
j ai -0 0
a`QQz�
u n n n If
xOw
O
r
W
Y