The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-11-20 Info Packet-44 2 *S' wowrA0; ffqi 6 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY November 20, 2014 www.icgov.org IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Article from Council Member Botchway: Racial Equity Toolkit IP3 Article from City Manager: Florida Finds Tricky Balance Over Feeding of the Homeless IP4 Article from City Manager: Consultant On Homelessness: Cities Enable The Poor IP5 Police Bar Check Report — October, 2014 IP6 Civil Services Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Refuse IP7 Civil Services Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Wastewater Treatment IP8 Invitation — ECICOG Legislative Open House IP9 Iowa City's 175t`' Birthday — Schedule of Events DRAFT MINUTES IP10 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee: November 12 IP11 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee: November 14 IP12 Charter Review Commission: November 10 IP13 Citizens Police Review Board: November 10 IP14 Planning and Zoning Commission: November 6 (Formal) �� P CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Tuesday, December 2, 2014 :L11-20-14 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Subject to change November 20, 2014 Time Meeting 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Location Emma J. Harvat Hall Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:30 AM Spec. Work Session w/ JC Supervisors Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 16, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 10, 2015 8AM-5PM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (Department Presentations) Monday, January 12, 2015 1:00-7:OOPM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (CIP Presentations) Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:00 PM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 26, 2015 4:30 PM Joint Meeting / Work Session TBA Tuesday, Feburary 3, 2015 5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 3, 2015 5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 7, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting from Council Member Botchway IP2 Racial Equity Toolkit to Assess Policies, Initiatives, Programs, and Budget Issues The vision of the Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative is to eliminate racial inequity in the community. To do this requires ending individual racism, institutional racism and structural racism. The Racial Equity Toolkit lays out a process and a set of questions to guide the development, implementation and evaluation of policies, initiatives, programs, and budget issues to address the impacts on racial equity. When Do 1 Use This Toolkit? Early. Apply the toolkit early for alignment with departmental racial equity goals and desired outcomes. Now Do I Use This Toolkit? With Inclusion. The analysis should be completed by people with different racial perspectives. Step by step. The Racial Equity Analysis is made up of six steps from beginning to completion: Step 1. Set Outcomes. Leadership communicates key community outcomes for racial equity to guide analysis. P Step 2. Involve Stakeholders + Analyze Data. Gather information from community and staff on how the issue benefits or burdens the community in terms of racial equity. Step 3. Determine Benefit and/or Burden. Analyze issue for impacts and alignment with racial equity outcomes. Step 4, Advance Opportunity or Minimize Harm. Develop strategies to create greater racial equity or minimize unintended consequences. Step S. Evaluate. Raise Racial Awareness. Be Accountable. Track impacts on communities of color overtime. Continue to communicate with and involve stakeholders. Document unresolved issues. Step 6. Report Back. Share information learned from analysis and unresolved issue with Depar!meot , Leadership and Change Team. j Racial Equity Toolkit Assessment Worksheet t I I , Title of policy, initiative, program, budget issue: I I I Description: I I I I I I Department: Contact: j I I I ❑Policy ❑Initiative ❑Program ❑Budget Issue j I I I I I � I I I I I 1a. What does your department define as the most important racially equitable community outcomes related to the issue? (Response should be completed by department leadership in consultation with RSJI Executive I , Sponsor, Change Team Leads and Change Team. Resources on p.4) I I � I 1 b. Which racial equity opportunity area(s) will the issue primarily impact? I I I ❑Education ❑Criminal Justice i ❑Community Development ❑Jobs ❑Health ❑Housing I I ❑Environment I , 1c. Are there impacts on: I ❑Contracting Equity ❑Immigrant and Refugee Access to Services ❑Workforce Equity ❑Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement I I Please describe: Step 2. Involve stakeholders. Analyze data. I I I , I 2a. Are there impacts on geographic areas? ❑Yes ❑No I Check all neighborhoods that apply (see map on p.5): I I I ❑AII Seattle neighborhoods ❑Lake Union [—]East District j I ❑Ballard ❑Southwest ]King County (outside Seattle) ❑North ❑Southeast I Outside King County I I ❑NE ❑Delridge Please describe: ❑Central ❑Greater Duwamish I � I I I 2b. What are the racial demographics of those living in the area or impacted by the issue? j (See Stakeholder and Data Resources p. 5 and 6) I I I I I I I I 2c. How have you involved community members and stakeholders? (See p.5 forquestions to ask community/staff at this point in the process to ensure their concerns and expertise are part of analysis.) I I I I I I I I I I ---------------I I I 2d. What does data and your conversations with stakeholders tell you about existing racial inequities I I that influence people's lives and should be taken into consideration? (See Data Resources on p.6. King I County Opportunity Maps are good resource for information based on geography, race, and income.) I I I I I I I I 2e. What are the root causes or factors creating these racial inequities? j Examples: Bias in process; Lack of access or barriers; Lack of racially inclusive engagement ' IS tep 3. Determine Benefit and/or Burden. I I Given what you have learned from data and from stakeholder involvement... I I 3. How will the policy, initiative, program, or budget issue increase or decrease racial equity? What are j potential unintended consequences? What benefits may result? Are the impacts aligned with your department's community outcomes that were defined in Step I.? I I I I I I I I I step 4. Advance Opportunity or Minimize Harm. 4. How will you address the impacts (including unintended consequences) on racial equity? What strategies address immediate impacts? What strategies address root causes of inequity listed in Q.6? How will I you partner with stakeholders for long-term positive change? If impacts are not aligned with desired community I outcomes, how will you re-align your work? j I I Program Strategies? I I Policy Strategies? I I Partnership Strategies? I I I I I Ste Evaluate. Raise Racial Awareness. Be Accountable. I I j5a. How will you evaluate and be accountable? How will you evaluate and report impacts on racial equity j over time? What is your goal and timeline for eliminating racial inequity? How will you retain stakeholder participation and ensure internal and public accountability? How will you raise awareness about racial inequity related to this issue? I I I I 5b. What is unresolved? What resources/partnerships do you still need to make changes? I I I I I II I I I I ,. .. .:,::a;W Share analysis and report responses from Q.5a. and Q.5b. with Department Leadership and Change Team Leads and members involved in Step 1. I I I I I I I I I I L-------------------------------------------------------------------- I Creating Effective Community Outcomes Outcome = the result that you seek to achieve through your actions. Racially equitable community outcomes = the specific result you are seeking to achieve that advances racial equity in the community. When creating outcomes think about: • What are the greatest opportunities for creating change in the next year? • What strengths does the department have that it can build on? • What challenges, if met, will help move the department closer to racial equity goals? Keep in mind that the City is committed to creating racial equity in seven key opportunity areas: Education, Community Development, Health, Criminal Justice, Jobs, Housing, and the Environment. Examples of community outcomes that increase racial equity: OUTCOME OPPORTUNITY AREA Increase transit and pedestrian mobility options in communities of color. Community Development Decrease racial disparity in the unemployment rate. Jobs Ensure greater access to technology by communities of color. Community Development, Education, Jobs Improve access to community center programs for immigrants, refugees and Health, communities of color. Community Development Communities of color are represented in the City's outreach activities. Education, Community Development, Health, Jobs, Housing, Criminal Justice, Environment The racial diversity of the Seattle community is reflected in the City's workforce Jobs across positions. Access to City contracts for Minority Business Enterprises is increased. Jobs Decrease racial disparity in high school graduation rates Education Additional Resources: • RSJI Departmental Work Plan: http://inweb/rsii/departments.htm • Department Performance Expectations: http://webl.seattle.gov/DPETS/DPETSWEbHome.aspx • Mayoral Initiatives: http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/issues/ rd Identifying Stakeholders + Listening to Communities of Color Identify Stakeholders Find out who are the stakeholders most affected by, concerned with, or have experience relating to the policy, program or initiative? Identify racial demographics of neighborhood or those impacted by issue. (See District Profiles in the Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement Guide or refer to U.S. Census information on p.7) Once you have indentified your stakeholders Involve them in the issue. Describe how historically underrepresented community stakeholders can take a leadership role in this policy, program, initiative or budget issue. Listen to the community. Ask: 1. What do we need to know about this issue? How will the policy, program, initiative or budget issue burden or benefit the community? (concerns, facts, potential impacts) 2. What factors produce or perpetuate racial inequity related to this issue? 3. What are ways to minimize any negative impacts (harm to communities of color, increased racial disparities, etc) that may result? What opportunities exist for increasing racial equity? Tip: Gather Community Input Through... • Community meetings • Focus groups • Consulting with City commissions and advisory boards • Consulting with Change Team M Ana Shared by Two Districts O NNphbortmod S•rvio• C•rtt•rs Examples of what this step looks like in practice: • A reduction of hours at a community center includes conversations with those who use the community center as well as staff who work there. • Before implementing a new penalty fee, people from the demographic most represented in those fined are surveyed to learn the best ways to minimize negative impacts. For resources on how to engage stakeholders in your work see the Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement Guide: http://inwebl/neighborhoods/outreachguide/ Data Resources City of Seattle Seattle's Population and Demographics at a Glance: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Population Demographics/Overview/default. asp Website updated by the City Demographer. Includes: Housing Quarterly Permit Report • Employment data • 2010 Census data • 2006-2010 American Community Survey • 2010 Census: Demographic highlights from the 2010 Census; Basic Population and Housing Characteristics Change from 1990, 2000, and 2010 — PDF report of counts of population by race, ethnicity and over/under 18 years of age as well as a total, occupied and vacant housing unit count; Three-page subject report — PDF report of detailed population, household and housing data American Community Survey: 2010 5 -year estimates and 2009 5 -year estimates • Census 2000 Permit Information: Comprehensive Plan Housing Target Growth Report for Urban Centers and Villages; Citywide Residential Permit Report • Employment Information: Comprehensive Plan Employment Target Growth Report for Urban Centers and Villages; Citywide Employment 1995-2010 The Greater Seattle Datasheet: a report by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations on many aspects of Seattle and its region. SDOT Census 2010 Demographic Maps (by census blocks): Race, Age (under 18 and over 65) and Median Income http://inweb/sdot/rsii maps.htm Seattle's Population & Demographics Related Links & Resources (From DPD website: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Population Demographics/Related Links/default.asp) Federal • American FactFinder: The U.S. Census Bureau's main site for online access to population, housing, economic, and geographic data. • Census 2000 Gateway: The U.S. Census Bureau's gateway to Census 2000 information. State • Washington Office of Financial Management: OFM is the official state agency that provides estimates, forecasts, and reports on the state's population, demographic characteristics, economy, and state revenues. Regional • Puget Sound Regional Council: PSRC is the regional growth management and transportation planning agency for the central Puget Sound region in Washington State. County • King County Census Viewer: A web -based application for viewing maps and tables of more than 100 community census data indicators for 77 defined places in King County. • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services: the growth management planning agency for King County. • Seattle & King County Public Health - Assessment Policy Development. and Evaluation Unit: Provides health information and technical assistance, based on health assessment data • King County Opportunity Maps: A Study of the Region's Geography of Opportunity. Opportunity maps illustrate where opportunity rich communities exist, assess who has access to those neighborhoods, and help to understand what needs to be remedied in opportunity poor neighborhoods. Puget Sound Regional Council. City Other The Greater Seattle Datasheet: A Seattle fact sheet courtesy of the City of Seattle's Office of Intergovernmental Relations. Seattle Times Census 2000: articles, charts related to Census 2000 and the Seattle/Puget Sound region. 0 Glossary Accountable- Responsive to the needs and concerns of those most impacted by the issues you are working on, particularly to communities of color and those historically underrepresented in the civic process. Community outcomes- The specific result you are seeking to achieve that advances racial equity. Contracting Equity- Efforts to achieve equitable racial outcomes in the way the City spends resources, including goods and services, consultants and contracting. Immigrant and Refugee Access to Services- Government services and resources are easily available and understandable to all Seattle residents, including non-native English speakers. Full and active participation of immigrant and refugee communities exists in Seattle's civic, economic and cultural life. Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement- Processes inclusive of people of diverse races, cultures, gender identities, sexual orientations and socio-economic status. Access to information, resources and civic processes so community members can effectively engage in the design and delivery of public services. Individual racism- Pre -judgment, bias, stereotypes about an individual or group based on race. The impacts of racism on individuals including white people internalizing privilege and people of color internalizing oppression. Institutional racism- Organizational programs, policies or procedures that work to the benefit of white people and to the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently. Opportunity areas- One of seven issue areas the City of Seattle is working on in partnership with the community to eliminate racial disparities and create racial equity. They include: Education, Health, Community Development, Criminal Justice, Jobs, Housing and the Environment. Racial equity- When social, economic and political opportunities are not predicted based upon a person's race. Racial inequity -When a person's race can predict their social, economic and political opportunities and outcomes. Stakeholders- Those impacted by proposed policy, program or budget issue who have potential concerns or issue expertise. Examples might include: specific racial/ethnic groups, other institutions like Seattle Housing Authority, schools, community-based organizations, Change Teams, City employees, unions, etc. Structural racism - The interplay of policies, practices and programs of multiple institutions which leads to adverse outcomes and conditions for communities of color compared to white communities that occurs within the context of racialized historical and cultural conditions. Workforce Equity- Ensure the City's workforce diversity reflects the diversity of Seattle Florida Finds Tricky Balance Over Feeding of the Homeless - NYTimes.com article from Cit, �e�l r ork�im>e8 http://nyti.ms/lEw83pi U.S. I NYT NOW Page 1 of 4 Florida Finds Tricky Balance Over Feeding of the Homeless By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and FRANCES ROBLES NOV.12, 2014 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — As dusk settled over the city s main beach, Arnold Abbott, frail but determined, broke the law late Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Abbott, a 9o -year-old World War II veteran, stood on the pavement and piled tilapia and rice and beans on plates for dozens of homeless people. A crowd stood and watched, waiting to see what the police would do. "I am trying to allow homeless people to have the same rights as everyone else," said Mr. Abbott, who has ignited a skirmish with the city over new restrictions on feeding the homeless in public places. "There is no rug big enough to sweep them under." Once again the police issued him a notice to appear in court for the criminal violation of an ordinance — the third one in nearly two weeks — and then allowed Mr. Abbott, who has worked to help the homeless for decades, to resume serving food to those waiting in line. And once again Mr. Abbott, who has become a cause celebre, vowed to continue to feed the homeless "as long as there is breath in my body" — be it at the beach or in a park. To press his case, Mr. Abbott also said he took the city to court on Wednesday, a tactic he used successfully nearly 15 years ago to beat back a similar local ordinance. Mr. Abbott's stance against the city's newest restriction on the homeless has put him at the center of an escalating debate in cities across Florida: How to feed, help and handle the ever-present homeless population in a state that, with its balmy winter climate, draws an outsize share of the dispossessed. In 2012, the state had nearly 55,Ooo homeless people, ranking third behind California and New York. http://www.nytimes. com/2014/ l l / 13luslflorida-finds-tricky-balance-over-feeding-of-the-homele... 11/18/2014 Florida Finds Tricky Balance Over Feeding of the Homeless - NYTimes.com Page 2 of 4 "We have no desire to fight with Mr. Abbott," said Jack Seiler, Fort Lauderdale's mayor, who has spent days trying to counter reports that Mr. Arnold had been arrested (he was not) and that his city is harsh on homeless people. On one side of the debate are local businesses and the chambers of commerce, which would like the homeless population to be less visible. On the other side are increasingly vocal homeless activists who want to ensure that homeless people are dealt with humanely. The balancing act is particularly tricky in Florida, where tourists blanket the state and tourism officials cringe at the thought of scared tourists. "Florida has had a sorry history of criminalizing the homeless," said Michael Stoops, director of community organizing for the National Coalition for the Homeless. "That war is being played out all around the country. Florida leads the pack." This year, Fort Lauderdale, despite a reputation for being more progressive than most Florida cities on homelessness, passed a series of measures that surprised and drew the ire of homeless activists. The latest one, passed last month, made food distribution in public places difficult by requiring toilets, written consent from property owners and feeding sites located 500 feet away from each other. But the law also relaxed the rules on feeding the homeless in houses of worship and on private property, an attempt to steer food distribution away from parks. On Wednesday, a police officer recommended two nearby sites to Mr. Abbott, an offer the mayor said Mr. Abbott had refused earlier in the day. The new ordinance stemmed from long-running complaints about crowds of homeless people who congregated daily to wait for food at Stranahan Park, a small park in front of a library and the Fort Lauderdale Woman's Club. "The Woman's Club said it couldn't hold any more weddings, events with children, yoga classes," said Mr. Seiler, who underscored that most experts agree that handing out food in public spaces is a bad idea "They said: `Mayor, we have people urinating all over our property and porch, defecating on our property and our porch. There is garbage and litter. There is no respect for our property.' " Ronald L. Book, chairman of the Miami -Dade Homeless Trust, said public feedings were typically counterproductive. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/ 11 / 13/uslflorida-finds-tricky-balance-over-feeding-of-the-homele... 11/18/2014 Florida Finds Tricky Balance Over Feeding of the Homeless - NYTimes.com Page 3 of 4 "There are ways to help within the boundaries of the rules: feeding indoors," he said. If not, he added, "You sustain them on the street, and that's not a good thing." The city's other new ordinances include restricting panhandling at intersections and allowing the police to confiscate and store property left in public spaces. Similar laws — and opposition to them — have cropped up across Florida. Pensacola was forced to repeal a law that made it a crime for the homeless to sleep on public property with a blanket. A month later, in nearby Fort Walton Beach, a homeless man, apparently rankled by laws that made it illegal to lie down at the park, called the police on a picnicking family. In May, the police in Daytona Beach dismissed more than $2,000 in fines against a couple ticketed for feeding the homeless after the case drew national attention. "New downtown merchants are like, `Chief, I can't have customers outside," " said the Daytona Beach police chief, Mike Chitwood. "They are panhandling, urinating and sleeping in my doorway because they know someone is coming to feed them." But Fort Lauderdale and a few other cities in Florida, including Orlando, are moving beyond a mostly punitive approach. Recognizing that the homeless cannot simply be pushed out of sight, they are increasing funding for low-cost housing and providing more services. Among other things, Fort Lauderdale has a large homeless assistance center offering 23o beds for short-term stays and a variety of services. It is part of a national network participating in Housing First, a program that seeks to find homeless people permanent housing as soon as possible. "We have one of the most comprehensive policies of any city," Mr. Seiler said. But Nathan Pim, a volunteer for Food Not Bombs whose wife, Jillian, is on a hunger strike to protest the new law, disagreed. He said the city was unnecessarily criminalizing the homeless and people who simply want to help the homeless by "food sharing." "Food is a right and not a privilege, and we believe in the importance of public spaces for public use," Mr. Pim said. The law, he added, "is now encouraging starvation." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/ l l / 13/uslflorida-finds-tricky-balance-over-feeding-of-the-homele... 11/18/2014 article from City Manager 1P4 _LV_ IP5 LV- IP5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = university of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA iQerM -PAULA Rati Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 120 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Airliner 223 5 7 1 54 7 15 0.1296296 0.2777778 American Legion 140 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 165 0 0 -0 Bardot Iowa 2 0 0 5 1 0 0.2 0 Baroncini- 0 0 0 Basta 176 0 0 0 Blackstone— 297 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ]Blue Moose— 436 3 0 0 75 2 3 0.0266667 0.04 ]Bluebird Diner 82 0 0 0 ] Bob's Your Uncle 260 0 0 0 ] Bo -James 200 0 0 0 48 0 2 0 0.0416667 ] Bread Garden Market & Bakery 0 0 0 ] Brix 0 0 0 ] Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 8 0 0 263 33 55 0.1254753 0.2091255 ] Brown Bottle, [The]— 289 0 ' 0 0 ] Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar— 189 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ]Cactus Mexican Grill 0 0 0 1 Caliente Night Club 498 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 ]Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 ]Carlos O'Kelly's— 299 0 0 0 ] Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 0 0 0 ]Chipotle Mexican Grill 119 0 0 0 ]Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 ]Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 ]Club Car, [The] 56 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Thursday, November 20, 2014 Page 1 of 5 C Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) =university of lows Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bart$tl0 Checks Under2l PAULA V r 21-o i MULA "� ti0 (.PrW 2 MoT' (Prev 12 Mo) Coach's Corner 160 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 ^`- 0 Colonial Lanes— 502 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 DC's 120 12 3 1 226 57 16 0.2522124 0.0707965 Deadwood, [The] 218 3 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 Devotay— 45 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 49 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 57 2 0 0 -18 0 0 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 315 0 0 0 Eden Lounge 2 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 EI Banditos 25 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 1 0 0 _0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 104 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 161 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 205 0 0 0 Englert Theatre— 838 0 0 0 Fieldhouse 178 7 1 1 165 27 6 0.1636364 0.0363636 FilmScene 0 0 0 1 0 -0 0 0 First Avenue Club— 280 3 0 1 8 0 2 0 0.25 Formosa Asian Cuisine- 149 0 0 0 Gabes— 261 1 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 George's Buffet 75 1 0 0 11 0 _ _0 0 0 Givanni's— 158 0 0 0 Godfather's Pizza 170 0 0 0 Graze— 49 0 0 0 Grizzly's South Side Pub 265 3 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 Thursday, November 20, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Vnder 21- PAULA Ratio's Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 IC Ugly's 72 1 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 India Cafe100 0 0 0 - Iron Hawk 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 71 0 0 0 IJobsite 120 4 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 Joe's Place 281 4 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 JJoseph's Steak House— 226 0 0 0 J Linn Street Cafe 80 0 0 0 Los Portales 161 0 0 0 JMartini's 200 7 1 0 88 11 6 0.125 0.0681818 J Masala 46 0 0 0 J Mekong Restaurant- 89 0 0 0 ]Micky's- 98 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 )Mill Restaurant, [The]- 325 ; 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ] Moose, [Loyal Order of] 476 0 0 0 ] Motley Cow Cafe 82 0 0 0 ] Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 ]Okoboji Grill- 222 0 0 0 ]Old Capitol Brew Works 294 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ] One-Twenty-Six 105 0 0 0 ]Orchard Green Restaurant- 200 0 0 0 ] Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87 0 0 0 ] Pagliai's Pizza- 113 0 0 0 1 ] Panchero's (Clinton St)- 62 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Thursday, November 20, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthlv Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under 2r PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 95 0 0 0 Pints 180 4 0 0 - 87 12 2 0.1379310' 0.0229885 Pit Smokehouse 40 0 0 0 Pizza Hut- 116 0 0 0 Players 114 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Quinton's Bar & Deli 149 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Rice Village 0 0 0 Ridge Pub 0 0 0 Riverside Theatre- 118 0 0 0 (Saloon- 120 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sam's Pizza 174 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132 0 0 0 (Shakespeare's 90 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Sheraton 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ] Short's Burger & Shine- 56 0 0 0 ]Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 ]Sports Column 400 7 0 1 158 31 29 0.1962025 0.1835443 ]Studio 13 206 1 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 ]Summit. [The] 736 12 4 3 143 44 41 0.3076923 0.2867133 ]Sushi Popo 84 0' 0 0 ]Szechuan House 0 0 0 ]Takanami Restaurant- 148 0 0 0 ]Taqueria Acapulco 0 0 0 ]TCB 250 7 0 0 81 4 0 0.0493827 0 ]Thai Flavors 60 0 0 0 ]Thai Spice 91 0 0 0 Thursday, November 20, 2014 Page 4 of 5 * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance Thursday, November 20, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Business Name Occupancy Monthlv Totals Prev 12 Month Totals rU+tder 21 PAULA (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) Bar Under2l PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Ratio, -� Ratio 0= University of Iowa Checks Checks (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) []Times Club @ Prairie Lights 60 0 0 0 F-1 Trumpet Blossom Cafe 94 0 0 0 ❑ Union Bar 854 10 0 0 173 11 42 0.0635838 0.2427746 ❑ VFW Post #3949 197 0 0 0 F-1 Vine Tavern, [The] 170 0 0 0 18 2 0 0.1111111 0 ❑ Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 154 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑Yacht Club, [Iowa City]- 206 1 0 0 35 0 1 0 0.0285714 ❑Yen Ching 0 0 0 ❑Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 0 0 0 Totals 114 16 82074 242 220 0.1166827 0.1060752 Off Premise 0 0 12 0 0 166 0 0 Grand Totals 20 386 * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance Thursday, November 20, 2014 Page 5 of 5 11-20-14 IP6 ,fir ..:Itl R" CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org November 13, 2014 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Refuse 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 Worker I — Refuse. Ramiro Ortiz IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION c-- Lyra . Dickerson, Chair 11-20-14 IP7 r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org November 14, 2014 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — MAINTENANCE WORKER I — WASTEWATER TREATMENT 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 Worker I — Wastewater Treatment. Kathleen Goff IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION kyr W. Dickerson, Chair Kristin Simon from the MOR, From: Kristin Simon <kristin.simon@ecicog.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:11 PM To: Council Subject: 2014 Legislative Open House Invite 64 Tuesday "t` ��•'. , r, November 251h ° 4:00pm - 6:00pm AL _ Coralvme City Hall W-` 15127th Street .46 Coralville 7�M •� R •ep � , 1 '' ` Legislative rnaopen House by TOG, the Wvv Leogue of cities. the Iowa Slate AI Caton of Goun6es. and the City of corotAM 4:00pm - 4:30pm - Enjoy refreshments and meet informally with legislators 4:30pm - 6:OOpm Formal program, provides legislators the opportunity to give iheir views on the upcoming session. including time for questions and answers City and county officials and members of the general public are encouraged to attend Please feel free to forward this invitation to others Please join us in celebrating to wa City's 175th birthday! Schedule of Events -Friday through Sunday, December 5, 6, 7 Iowa City kicks off a three-day birthday celebration with a series of events that define the character of the City, ranging from healthy living, historic photos, tours, and readings to live music, old-time activities for the family, fireworks and, of course, a birthday cake. Friday, December 5 Iowa City City Hall and Senior Center celebrate becoming official Blue Zones worksites. Enjoy this exciting designation with a ribbon cutting and refreshments at Emma Harvat Hall in City Hall on Friday, Dec.5 at 3 p.m. Parents Night Outfrom 4 to 8:30 p.m.The Parks and Recreation Dept. and Iowa City Downtown District team up to give parents an opportunity to explore Downtown Iowa City, do some shopping, or enjoy dinner or a movie while the kids are entertained at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center. $10 pre -registration or $15 at the door. For online registration visit www.icgovorg/pr. Iowa Watercolor Society Traveling Show from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Senior Center. Refreshments and live entertainment will accompany the show. Saturday, December 6 Arts and Crafts Bazaar and used book sale at the Iowa City Public Library from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Historic walking tours of the City begin at 12:30,1:30 and 2:30, and will cover area historic sites. Tours will be hosted by the Friends of Historic Preservation and begin and end at the Iowa City Public Library. Hot cocoa and cookies at the Senior Center from 3 to 4:30 p.m. Enjoy the harmonies of the Old Capitol Chorus Harmony Chorus and Quartets, who will perform at the Senior Center from 4 to 4:45 p.m. The Iowa City Downtown District will be offering free horse-drawn trolley rides through Downtown and free photos with Santa from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at FilmScene, an all -day "Elf on a Shelf"scavenger hunt, and open houses at various Downtown businesses. Visit www.downtowniowadtycom for details. Open Houses at City Hall's Police Department and Fire Station from 12:30 to 3 p.m. Enjoy rare winter fireworks display! Iowa City hosts a fireworks display from the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp at 5:30 p.m. Family activities at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center: free roller skating from 6 to 9 p.m. and family swim (just $1 per person) from 6 to 8 p.m. Sunday, December 7 Music, history, and cake —The Iowa City Public Library will host the incredible fiddle and stringed instrument talents of Iowa City's own Guy Drollinger and friends at 12:30 p.m., followed by a welcome from Mayor Matt Hayek at 1 p.m. Shortly after, historic readings will be presented, followed by more music from the Drollingers, with cake and refresh- ments at 1:30 p.m. Steer the kids to the Children's Room from 2 to 3 p.m. for Children's Sunday Funday and old-time activities. Throughout the three days of celebration, you can purchase a commemorative 1854 map of Iowa City at the Public Library's Help Desk for $5 each. While at the Library, enjoy the display of historic photos and artifacts on the first floor and test your knowledge of Iowa City history. The display will be available to view the entire month of December, featuring a rotating set of images from the Digital History Project. For updates and weather-related cancellations visit www.icgov.org or www.icpiorg CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee IP10 November 12, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 12, 2014 — 3:30 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair) Members Absent: Ellen Cannon Staff Present: Marian Karr, Michelle Buhman< Geoff Fruin 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 10/22/14 b. Minutes of the meeting on 10/25/14 Honohan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent. Before moving to public comment, Karr stated that Cannon would be unable to attend this evening, and has notified her that she will be resigning from the Committee due to health reasons. Cannon did pass along that she has enjoyed working on the Committee with everyone and that she is sorry she is unable to continue. Younker stated that he understands her position and thanked Cannon for her input in the process. PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT REPORT: Younker then explained how the evening's agenda will proceed, noting that they have broken down the topics and have shown corresponding page numbers from the meeting packet. He asked that those wishing to speak limit their comments to the section they are talking about at that particular time. a. Initial Sections (pgs 36-37) — Younker began with the initial sections, asking if anyone wished to address these. He responded to general questions from the audience regarding page numbers. No one spoke regarding these sections. b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 38-40) — Younker noted that this section is on pages 3 — 5 of the draft report. Bob Welsh addressed Members, stating that the one question he has is in regards to the three models for senior centers that he presented on June 23, where he recommended one that he felt was the most practical. Looking over the minutes and draft report, he questioned if there was any discussion or Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 2 consideration of his suggestions. Younker stated that the Committee did receive Welsh's material and he noted that what they are currently addressing is Charge 1 — Evaluation of the Senior Center and that he would like to limit comments to the report. Younker asked if he is asking why his suggestions are not in Charge 1. Welsh responded, stating that he is questioning if any consideration was given to his suggestion. He noted that he did not see any discussion regarding it in the minutes, only acceptance of his report by the Committee. Younker reiterated that the Committee did receive these comments and did consider them as they put the report together. Kathy Mitchell, a Member of the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Council, spoke next. Her first recommendation is on page 5 of the draft report and pages 112- 117 on the handout. She noted that under 'participant fees,' she is recommending that they add 'Senior Center staff, Commission, and Steering Council' to this. She added that these three groups can work together to address this issue. Continuing, Mitchell stated that another possibility is to take B with participant fees and combine it with C, pages 129 —131, regarding evaluating membership fees so that the two would be reviewed together. Younker asked for clarification of Mitchell's comments, noting that her first comment was in regards to page 40 of the packet, page 5 of the report, line 114. She responded that what she is suggesting is taking the C bullet point and combining it with B. In other words that they would evaluate membership fees and all participant fees thereof. Karr stated that for the Members knowledge, Mitchell did provide a late handout this evening regarding her comments. Honohan responded to Mitchell's suggestions, asking if they were to eliminate the one from line 114 to 117 and combine parts of it with the 129 — 131 if that would satisfy her concerns. Mitchell stated that this may be a possibility, that the difference is you would only have it focused on in one section. Younker then asked Mitchell to continue with her page 5 suggestions. She next reviewed pages 119 —121 and 125 — 127. Mitchell's suggestion is to remove any definition regarding diversity and replace it with 'current level of diversity.' She explained that the Senior Center already has diversity, and that they wish to expand what they have. She believes this should be consistent throughout the report. Next, Harry Olmstead commented that he noticed the report does not speak to persons with disabilities and that it should. C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 41-45) — Mary Gravitt addressed the Committee regarding Charge 2, page 7. She spoke to the services that are supposed to be serving senior citizens. She stated that they do not know exactly what services these agencies provide, that they only have their word on what it is they provide. She noted that they did not get client input on the services and whether they are sufficient. Gravitt noted that Elder Services, for example, is no longer serving Sunday meals at the Senior Center, and as of the 22nd they are also stopping Saturday meals. She stated that most of the agencies listed have nothing to do with the Senior Center itself. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification of Gravitt's comments, asking what she means when she says they are 'mixing them in with us.' Gravitt responded that the Ad Hoc Committee is supposed to be about the Senior Center and the senior citizens of the community. She explained that, for example, most seniors have Medicare and therefore cannot use the services of the Free Medical Clinic. The VNA, on the other hand, does serve the population at the Center and even has an office in the building. SEATS serves those seniors who can afford the services, according to Gravitt. Continuing, Gravitt noted that many of the agencies listed serve other populations, not Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 3 seniors. Bern -Klug stated that when Gravitt says 'we,' she could mean senior citizens or the Senior Center, and that while there may be an overlap, they are not the same thing. Gravitt agreed they are not the same thing, but that the Senior Center is basically there to serve seniors, not other populations. She reiterated what she had previously said, that she feels this report has gone too far. It is bloated and goes beyond what this Ad Hoc Committee was charged with, in her opinion. Bern -Klug stated that the charge to the Committee was beyond just the Senior Center and that the second charge was to look at the needs of the senior population, not just at the Center itself. Gravitt asked if the Committee is following the strategic plan as they have made their review. She stated that if they are not following the strategic plan, they are going to get lost. Younker asked that they try to stay on topic, suggesting that Gravitt make further comments later in the agenda. Larry Rogers, a resident of Ecumenical Towers, referred to page 8 of the draft report, line item 237. He stated that he is concerned that they are talking about different types of dementia, increased life spans, and demand for supportive services all together. Rogers spoke to some studies on aging, noting that many people are surprised at how long they live. When it comes to dementia issues, he believes the Senior Center should not handle these, that dementia should be handled by people who are trained in the mental field. He questioned why dementia has been put into consideration in this section. Harry Olmstead stated that he is concerned that the Committee overlooked the Johnson County Task Force on Aging, that it is not referenced in this section. He asked that the Committee attempt to get some information from them. Kathy Mitchell spoke to pages 8 and 9 on the draft report, pages 232 — 244. On #1, the suggestion is that everything up through the word 'area' be dropped. It would then read 'It will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse senior population. This is especially true for those of limited financial resources.' On #2, the suggestion is to completely redo this. The suggested would read 'Demand for programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence, and prevent or delay the onset of chronic diseases, are likely to increase.' #2 would then become #3. #3 would become #4. Mitchell then stated that #4 currently appears to be incomplete and she questioned if something needs to be added. If not, she asked that #4 be removed. Ed Flarrety spoke next to page 7, lines 176 — 183. He questioned if the word 'will' on 176 and 182 shouldn't be changed to 'may.' He stated that he would refer to the consistency, skipping ahead to line 240 where it says 'may.' Flarrety added that they do not know what the State will do as far as its kickback to cities to even out the property tax decreases, and they also do not know what the political climate in Washington, D.C. will be. Ina Lowenberg addressed the Committee, beginning with Section IV, lines 251 — 253. 'The Committee is recommending the reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City residents.' She pointed out that non -Iowa City residents have paid higher fees previously, and that they will undoubtedly continue to do so. She added that the recommendation of reconsidering the fee structure is not only for non -Iowa City residents, but also for all members of the Senior Center. Moving to Section 2, lines 255 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 4 — 256, `Generating revenue through the rental of meeting and gathering space.' Lowenberg stated that this sounds very hopeful, but that it would require staff. She stated that there would not be an option to add staff time to make this possible, and that it may also require redoing these spaces to make them attractive for rent. Jumping to Section 4, lines 265 — 266, she noted that trying to increase the funding received from Johnson County is a noble goal, but that people have been trying to do this for some time. Lowenberg stated that by doing this it appears that they are taking the onus off the City, and the City is really the main supporter of the Center, as she believes it should be. Larry Rogers addressed Section IV, #8, lines 284 — 286, 'To aid these seniors...' He asked what seniors they are referring to. `The Committee proposes that the City Council initiate a program ... full participation awards for the next three years of four grants, of $10,000 each to non -profits for programs to enhance social programming for these seniors.' He stated that he thought they did not have extra money to be using for things like this. He is instead proposing that the City give tax incentives to businesses serving the citizens of Iowa City, and tax incentives to developers who build low-income housing, senior housing, and medical facilities that provide care for senior citizens. Rogers stated that he believes these are the types of incentives the City needs to provide, not grants of the nature described. Kathy Mitchell returned to the podium to address page 9, Section IV, lines 268 — 271. She noted that the Center currently does what this charge says, with the SHIPP program, the VNA, income tax help, both personal and legal counseling, holistic health, and senior college. There are also programs done in partnership with the University of Iowa, Kirkwood Community College, and the area city business community. d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 45-47) — Ina Lowenberg began by addressing C, Lack of Available Programming, lines 318 — 322. She stated that she does not understand what the content is of this obstacle. She added that there is a 72 - page program guide currently available, that programs keep increasing every term, and she questioned which organizations would be involved in identifying gaps in service, that could without additional staff, be offered at the Senior Center. She added that she would like to have some information on this issue. Honohan then asked for a clarification of the line numbers being referred to. Kathy Mitchell spoke to B, page 312, and obstacle C, page 318 — 322, and obstacle E, pages 329 — 331. She stated that she is recommending that in all three of these the words 'lack of be removed. She added that the reasoning is that the wording gives the impression that the Center is not doing these things, when indeed they are doing them. Regarding obstacle C on page 318 — 322, Mitchell stated that they are questioning who `City staff' is, since Senior Center staff is City staff. The question, again, is who is the City staff that would be part of this. Also, the Center already collaborates with the Johnson County Livable Community, and the Task Force on Aging; therefore, collaborations are already in place. On obstacle E, lack of community awareness, Mitchell stated that the Center has promoted multigenerational activities and programming through its program guide, through its commercials, and through its community outreach program — the Ambassador Program — as well as participation with students from the University of Iowa and Kirkwood Community College. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 5 Harry Olmstead spoke to A, Transportation. He stated that they need to find out what the impact of doing away with reduced fares is going to have on seniors, and particularly on the Center, as many of the members take the SEATS bus to get there. He added that he is afraid there will be a reduction in attendance at the Center due to this increase. Larry Rogers spoke to lines 333 — 334, Affordable Housing, stating that he hates to be quoting a rumor since he does not have the facts to back it up, but he heard from a neighbor that a couple of the low-income senior citizen centers, handicap centers, in the downtown area are now being used by students of the University. Rogers stated that his question is, is the City currently monitoring what space is available, and who is using it. He recommended that the City check into this issue, if indeed there is truth to this rumor. e. Exhibits: A — Res. 14-37 (pgs 48-51) — Larry Rogers spoke to Members, stating that he is interested in the fourth 'whereas.' 'It's important for City services to recognize and adapt to the changing demographics and socioeconomic profile of Iowa City residents in order to ensure that municipal services are best meeting the needs of the population.' He spoke to the moving of the Post Office out of the downtown area. He noted that you want your services centered in the town and he gave several examples of why this should be, noting that the Senior Center is located in the center of town. Younker reiterated that this section is for the public to comment on whether they think these exhibits should be included in the final report. Otherwise if there are comments in general about documents in the report, he noted that during agenda Item 7, Public Discussion, would probably be the best time to discuss these. B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 52-68) — Mary Gravitt stated that to her it appears that things are designed to confuse them. She spoke to what the Committee has been charged with, asking about the strategic plan. Gravitt noted that most of the time she has no idea what the Committee is talking about. C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 69-74) — Honohan stated that this section is going to need some cleaning up, that it was basically his draft. Younker noted that as he previously noted, they will go through and make sure punctuation marks are correct and that formatting is consistent. Bob Welsh spoke to the statement 'is the central resource,' asking if this can be phrased to recognize the real contribution of the various agencies. Honohan responded that this is something that is in error. The last draft that was approved by the Committee was changed to read 'is the primary central resource.' He apologized for not catching this error. Welsh asked if 'primary' is the correct term here in relation to other agencies. He stated that he is thinking specifically of Elder Services and the wide range of services that they offer. Younker added that they did have extensive discussion about use of the word 'primary' and `central resource,' and that they will be sure that the final report has the approved wording. Larry Rogers then spoke to the survey that the Center carried out, noting that it was sent out to all of the people who receive the monthly guide, removing those who were outside of Johnson County and those who were businesses. He added that he did not find any breakdown of those other people, within Johnson Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 6 County, indicating how many of them were from Iowa City, how many from Coralville, etc. Beth Clompton stated that the matter of 'central' and 'primary' came up several meetings ago, and that she believes the word 'unique' should be used here. She believes the Senior Center is a unique resource for quality programs and services and should be labeled as such. She added that this is what makes the Center so valuable. D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 75-81) — Mary Gravitt asked what is meant by the word 'physical.' Younker asked where she is exactly in Exhibit D. Gravitt responded that she is on 3, where it talks about Charge 2 — physical and financial resources. Karr attempted to clarify which document Gravitt was referring to. Gravitt stated that she is looking at the agenda. Younker noted that he thinks Gravitt is looking at the item they just finished. He asked if she could hold her comments until they reach the final public comment section. E - National Council on Aging (pgs 82-83) — No comments. F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 84-92) — No comments. G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 93-178) — An audience member stated that this is incorrect, that the program guide begins on page 95. Younker noted that this is correct, that the other pages are a Senior Center brochure that was not part of the program guide itself. Karr encouraged people to come to the microphone when making comments, as they are not heard otherwise. H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 179-184) — No comments. I — Census (pgs 185-187) — No comments. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft report items): At this point in the meeting, Younker asked Gravitt if she wanted to discuss Charge 2 again. Gravitt stated that what she wants to know is the legal definition of the word 'physical' in this instance. She noted that on page 10 it says they are recommending to maintain the current location for the Center. Younker responded that the Committee's understanding of the charge was that they were to provide recommendations regarding financial and physical resources. He added that they did not come up with a definition as a committee, but that the working definition was that 'physical resources' would include everything other than financial resources. Gravitt noted that she has read the Charter, and that the Charter works on specific words. She questioned if the strategic plan mentions physical or not, but that she really just wants to know the legal definition of 'physical.' Younker stated that for the purposes of the report, the Committee was considering physical resources to mean the building. Honohan responded that he is not concerned about a legal definition of 'physical' as this is not that type of situation. His personal opinion would be that 'physical' refers to concrete things, like the building. He added that he thought it was a very broad statement, not a limited one. Younker then asked for a motion to accept correspondence from Kathy Mitchell and Mary Guttmann. Honohan moved to accept correspondence. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent. Honohan commented that for everyone's information, Mary Wallis Gutmann gave the Committee several different comments regarding the draft report and they will be part of the record. The Committee will be discussing them in detail at the next meeting, according to Honohan. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 7 Harry Olmstead asked if the position being vacated by Cannon will be filled. Younker stated that it will not be, that the Committee itself dissolves on December 1, per resolution. Ina Lowenberg asked if this will not cause a problem with there being an even number of members on the Committee, versus an uneven number as originally planned. She asked if any effort has been made by Member Cannon to participate in votes. Kathy Mitchell stated that she noticed the older Americans report being noted here but that the State of Iowa also puts out its own report on older Americans, specifically geared towards Iowa. She asked why this is not part of the report, adding that perhaps it has not been released yet for this year. Mary Gravitt addressed the Committee, stating that the City Council appointed a Member of the Council to the Ad Hoc Committee. She added that the Council also appointed the Chair and the Vice -Chair. She asked who is representing the members of the Senior Center, when the City is appointing all of these people. Younker reminded Gravitt that they are still speaking to the draft report at this point. DISCUSSION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT (pas. 188-189): Younker noted that the Chair and Vice -Chair asked City staff to put together a draft Executive Summary for discussion. This is on pages 188 and 189 of the packet. Dohrmann moved to accept the Executive Summary as it appears on pages 188 and 189 of the packet. Younker seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0, Cannon absent. Discussion on the Executive Summary began with Honohan reviewing his suggested changes. On the next to last line where it states 'Committee's draft report to the City Council,' he is asking that 'initial' be inserted here, as this is not the final draft that was presented. It is instead the initial draft report. Honohan moved to insert `initial' between `Committee's' and `draft,' as discussed. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent. Honohan then moved to Charge 1, Evaluation of the Senior Center. In the second line, he stated that he does not like the word 'direct.' He believes this should be deleted. Down to the fifth line, Honohan questioned the use of 'further' before 'agreed.' He would like to delete this. In the next to last line, Honohan questioned 'various external agencies,' stating that it should be `agencies that provide services to seniors' instead. Honohan moved to make the three recommended changes, as discussed. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent. Moving to Charge 2, financial and physical, Honohan stated that he agrees with Ed Flarrety's suggestion to change 'will' to 'may' on line 3. In the same paragraph, he suggested on line 4 that 'several' be deleted before 'City staff.' Line 5, Honohan stated that after the word 'and' he would add '...Committee members investigated,' and then jump over to before 'in the community,' and say 'agencies providing services to seniors in the community.' Honohan moved to accept the changes as discussed above. Webber seconded the motion. Bern - Klug stated that investigated seems more in-depth than what they actually did. Honohan suggested saying 'Committee Members reviewed' instead. Bern -Klug stated that this sounds better to her. Younker then stated that he does not have a problem with the last two suggested changes, but that he does believe the budget situation is severe and while not a certainty, it is a very strong possibility and pretty close to a certainty that things will play out this way. Bern -Klug Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 8 suggested using 'will likely' in this situation. Honohan moved a friendly amendment to add `will likely' to his original motion. Webber upheld his second. The motion carried 6-0, Cannon absent. Bern -Klug stated that she would like the last sentence changed, that what is shown there is not what their motion was. She moved that they change this to say 'and the Committee suggests an official survey of the needs of seniors. Fruin stated that anything in italics and quotations was pulled from the draft report verbatim. Therefore, he thinks that this language may have been changed in the recommendations section and that somewhere in the body of Charge 2, this statement appears as is written here. He noted that if the Committee does make a change in the Executive Summary, they should go back to Charge 2 and consider a similar change to that wording. Younker stated that he would like to get to the point where they can vote on the Executive Summary, perhaps with the understanding that they will accurately quote their own report. He asked Karr if they could footnote this so they could discuss it at Friday's meeting, once they've had a chance to go back and look at the report. Bern -Klug agreed, as long as they discuss it on Friday and have the option to change where it is on page 8. Karr noted that for the agenda, she will note this and page 8. Bern -Klug agreed, adding that lines 215 through 217 are where the discussion takes place about a 'scientific survey.' Bern -Klug withdrew her motion. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2, as it appears in the Executive Summary. Honohan then spoke to the summarized recommendations. He read the second recommendation, noting that he does not believe this to be a viable recommendation. The Center already does rentals, but Honohan does not believe this avenue would generate much revenue. Honohan proposed that they delete this particular recommendation. Continuing, Honohan questioned whom they are talking about when they say 'the City' will do something. He asked if this refers to staff at City Hall, staff at the Senior Center, or the Senior Center Commission. Honohan stated that if they are going to make strong recommendations, he believes they need to clarify who it is they are recommending should do these things. Younker stated that the intent was to summarize the recommendations in the Executive Summary and that they do identify in the actual recommendations the staff they are referring to. Honohan noted that they do, but that he is concerned that when they are sending this to the Council, that perhaps the Executive Summary is what is really read, considering the thickness of the overall report. He added that many only read the Executive Summary, and therefore, he believes it needs to be very clear. Honohan stated that on Friday he will speak to trying to delete some of the attachments to the report. Younker asked if Honohan had a proposed recommendation to share, and Honohan stated that he will have that at Friday's meeting. Honohan then moved to the fifth bullet, stating that he believes this is another one that should be removed. He noted that they already share space with SHIP, the VNA, the volunteer lawyers, and others. He added that there is no extra space available. Younker noted that they have an approved recommendation regarding this, `That City staff and Center staff should continue to assess opportunities to share space, funding strategies, and other resources with relevant community social service agencies to increase efficiencies and leverage various funding opportunities.' He asked Honohan if he wouldn't agree that this fifth bullet point summarizes what they have already approved. Honohan responded that they have not yet approved the final draft, and that he has several things on the final draft that he will be moving to delete. Younker asked if they could then limit the discussion to the Executive Summary itself then at this point, and that if Members think something has been misstated in the Summary, now is the time to bring that up. Bern -Klug spoke to the fourth bullet from the bottom, noting that 'any' should be removed here in her opinion. Younker stated that this comes from recommendation 6 on page 45 of the packet. Bern -Klug stated that she is speaking to the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 9 phrase 'any available funds,' and she believes 'any' should be removed as it sounds like they are expecting these agencies to be writing grants right and left. Bern -Klug moved that they delete the word `any' in this bullet. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 5- 1, Younker in the negative. Moving on to Charge 3, Honohan spoke to the obstacles. He stated that in this text, perhaps it would be best to list the obstacles, similar to the format of the rest of the report. He would like to see the obstacle listed and then the recommended solution. Younker clarified this, noting that the first bullet would be 'transportation' and then the text of the bullet point. Honohan noted that the second one would be 'diversity.' He added that he does not like the third one and will have a suggestion for it later. The fourth one would be `Center accessibility.' Younker suggested they use the same language that they used in the body of the report, and Honohan agreed. Younker clarified that the first one would be 'transportation,' with the second one being 'lack of diversity,' followed by 'lack of available programming,' 'barriers to access the Center,' 'lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of the Center programs,' and the last one 'lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors.' Karr noted that if the body of the report should change, these bullets would change as well. She added that there is another obstacle on page 12, as well. Younker then suggested that they need to capture obstacle G, page 47 of the packet, noting that it does not currently appear in the bullet point. Honohan then referred to the third bullet point, asking again who is supposed to carry this out. He stated that if it is the Center staff, they do not have the time to do this type of additional work. He questioned who would complete this task. Younker asked that they first entertain a motion to revise the bullet points so that they are including the obstacle to better track the report to the summary. Honohan moved to revise the bullet points to better track the report to the summary. Webber seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that one of the biggest obstacles they heard was that when the human services programs went to the priority system and older adults were not a priority, some local agencies lost money. She stated that she does not see that reflected here at all. Fruin interjected at this point, noting that where this is captured is the sentence where the Committee previously struck the word 'any.' He added that when he wrote this recommendation and was trying to track the report, this issue came up in Charge 2, under the recommendations for the physical and financial resources. He stated that this speaks to the financial resources of the external agencies, and that this bullet is where the Committee was trying to express to the Council that those agencies that serve seniors — regardless if that is their primary function or not — that they apply for funds to serve low-income seniors. Honohan asked Bern -Klug if the addition of obstacle G didn't address her concern. She replied that she finds that they have drifted away from a very important opportunity to clearly state that an obstacle to providing services for low-income seniors is the lack of funding to agencies that in the past received funding. She noted that this has been a thread through the last six months, yet she does not see it listed here as an obstacle. Bern -Klug stated that she does not want this issue to be diluted when she believes it to be a very important part of their charge. Younker responded that he thinks they are talking about several issues at once here. He reiterated that what they are talking about right now is the proposed Executive Summary. Honohan suggested that Bern -Klug come up with suggested language for them to discuss on Friday. She stated that she could work on this and welcomed other's input. Members continued to discuss this issue, referring to the addition of obstacle G and how this may address Bern-Klug's concerns. The motion carried 6-0. Younker then asked for a motion to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Honohan moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. Younker then asked Karr for a Point of Order on this issue. She suggested that staff give Members a revised Executive Summary, per tonight's discussion, for Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 10 them to review and discuss at Friday's meeting. They could then adopt it at that time. The Committee agreed. Honohan withdrew his motion. DISCUSSION OF CONCLUSIONS DRAFT (pa 190): Moving on, Younker noted that he and the Vice-Chair prepared a draft Conclusion document for discussion. He stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt this. Bern-Klug moved to adopt the Conclusions draft. Honohan seconded the motion for discussion. Discussion began with Honohan discussing his handout. His first concern is on line 1, 'fulfilled' is the term in question. Honohan stated that this seems more than they really did. He stated that he would like to use 'completed' here instead. On line 2, he stated that he does not believe they performed an 'assessment,' but did 'review.' He would like to add 'to meet the needs,' in the next paragraph. 'Should continue to support the Senior Center in its current location,' and he questioned the term 'by allowing it.' Honohan moved to make the proposed changes to the draft document. Bern-Klug seconded the motion. Bern-Klug asked if this means that they are accepting what is on Honohan's handout, or just the two items he talked about. Younker stated that they are accepting the changes to the draft as it appears on page 190. The changes are exchanging 'completed' for 'fulfilled,' 'review' for 'assess,' and then deleting 'by allowing it to remain.' Karr added that it is also adding 'to meet the needs.' Karr asked if this could be a friendly amendment to the original, that they currently have two motions on the floor — one to adopt it as presented and one to do it as amended. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE: November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.) — Younker noted that the next meeting is Friday at 3:00 P.M. The packet will need to be released by 3:00 on Thursday. He added that on Friday they will discuss the public comment received and also what changes they want to make to the report, if any. Karr noted that noon on Thursday would be the deadline for anyone wishing to get something into the meeting packet. Discussion continued about the agenda for the final meeting and just what needs to occur then. Dobyns stated that he believes they should be done after Friday's meeting. Bern-Klug spoke briefly to the World Health Organization (WHO) and its program for 'age friendly cities.' She asked if people would be willing to look over this information prior to Friday and consider recommending that the City pursue getting Iowa City named a WHO 'world friendly city.' Younker suggested that Bern-Klug put together a recommendation for Friday's packet so that it can be an agenda item. Dobyns stated that he would be a bit concerned, that the sense of the agenda is to comment on things that have already been brought up. He believes that to introduce something new at this point is not a good idea. Younker agreed that discussion of a new program at this stage might not be something they can accomplish, but he suggested Bern-Klug bring this to Friday's meeting for further discussion by the Committee. November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.) Special meetings if needed. PUBLIC COMMENT (items not on the agenda): Bob Welsh addressed the Committee, noting that in relation to Bern-Klug's comment, Des Moines is the one city in Iowa that has done this. This effort was led by the Iowa AARP. Welsh also spoke to the Executive Summary, noting that in Charge 1 there are no summarized recommendations, but there are in Charges 2 and 3. Welsh also spoke to the statement, Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 11 `...with our own stuff.' He stated that there is a tendency to say 'ours' and 'theirs' when speaking about such programming. He believes they need comments that are about collaborating and sharing, more positive terms. Kathy Mitchell of the Senior Center Commission and Steering Council spoke next. She pointed out that the Iowa City Johnson County Senior Center is multigenerational. It is county wide. It is inclusional, and the programs are not elite programs just for the Center, but are programs provided at the Center for the members and the general public. Mary Gravitt stated that she wanted to point out something in lines 14-37, on page 2, section B. She pointed out 8B where it talks about current financial and physical resources, not future. Gravitt stated that she keeps hearing about the future, but that that is not the charge here. She reiterated that it is existing resources, not what might happen in the future. She also noted that things need to be in line with the Council's strategic plan. Gravitt suggested the Committee go back and read what they have been charged with. She also stated that there has to be a meeting on November 24, as the public has a right to comment on this final report. Shirley Lundell followed up with a comment regarding Mitchell's comment about the wording as far as 'lack of.' She stated that she hopes that when the Committee looks at their final report that they take out the 'lack of terminology. ADJOURNMENT: Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 12 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 Cn 0 v1 0 C) o M O V o V 0 V 0 w 0 w 0 w O O O O NAME EXP. O O N O N -' W o 00 O w N a' O 0 1! ^' N 0 N 46 � 41h P, 41h 0, 11h 0, 111, ah 1211/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Joe Younker Jay 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Honohan Mercedes 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bern -Klug Hiram 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Richard Webber Ellen 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ O/ O/ O/ O/ Cannon E E E E E E Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X X X Dohrmann E Rick 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ X Dobyns E E Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time 11-20-14 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee IP11 November 14, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 14, 2014 — 3:00 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair) Staff Present: Marian Karr, Linda Kopping, Michelle Buhman RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. He noted that the purpose of today's meeting is to digest and consider the comments that they received from the public at Wednesday's meeting. DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF REPORT: a. Initial Sections (pgs 2 -3) - Younker began with the Initial Sections review. Dobyns moved to accept the Initial Sections as typed. Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 4-6, comments pgs 165-168) — Moving on to Charge 1, Honohan noted that everyone has a copy of his handout regarding this section. Honohan stated that he would propose to delete on page 5b, bullet 2, lines 119-121, and replace with: The current level of diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a concern of the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and staff. Efforts are being made to increase the gender, age, ethnic, racial, economic, and other types of diversity of the participants, seeking to maintain or enlarge the level of diversity that reflects the community as a whole. Honohan added that these changes reflect the suggestions of Mary Gutmann and Kathy Mitchell. Honohan moved to make the above noted changes. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began with Dohrmann speaking to the word 'diversity' in Honohan's proposal. She suggested dropping the specifics and instead saying: 'Efforts are being made to increase diversity of participants.' Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Bern - Klug asked if Mitchell didn't suggest this portion at the last meeting. Honohan stated that the first part is what Mitchell suggested. The second portion was left in from the original wording. Kathy Mitchell then spoke to this suggestion, stating that her request had to do with the differentials in diversity, and she asked that all of these lists be removed and replaced with 'current levels of diversity,' with the understanding that the Center already has diversity, but that they are working very hard to expand it, especially in certain areas. After further discussion, Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe they need the second sentence in Honohan's proposal. She would merely say, `Efforts are being made to increase diversity,' and she asked to amend the original motion. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 2 Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Webber stated that his second stands. The motion carries 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Dohrmann then moved to line 126, page 5. She made the motion to strike the words `racial' and `ethnic' from this sentence. Dobyns seconded the motion. Honohan stated that it appears that they are deleting the specifics. He added that if they are going to be consistent, this change is a good idea. The motion carried 6-0. Younker asked if there were any further comments regarding Charge 1. Bern -Klug asked if they have addressed all of the changes suggested at Wednesday's meeting. Younker referred to page 165 of the packet, noting that this is where the summary of Charge 1 comments appears. Honohan noted for the record that he did review Miss Gutmann's comments, as well as Kathy Mitchell's comments, in great detail. He stated that he did not agree with all of them, but that many of the suggested changes arose from their comments. Dohrmann agreed that she reviewed all of the comments and suggestions, as well. Webber moved to approve Charge 1 as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 7-10, comments pgs 169- 171) — Honohan began on page 8, 111, line 228, suggesting that the following be added at the end of the second paragraph: 'Both the City and non-profit agencies serving seniors will be challenged... (continue rest of paragraph.' Honohan moved the above proposed change on Charge 2, per his handout. Younker seconded the motion. Bern -Klug asked if there is a reason for changing to 'will be' from 'are' challenged in this sentence. Honohan stated that he took this to mean in the future. He added that what he is trying to show is that the City itself is going to also be challenged, not just the non- profit agencies. Dohrmann spoke to this, as well, noting that all of them are currently challenged to meet the needs of seniors, and that they heard this when they heard how stretched the Senior Center staff are right now, as well as other non-profit agencies. Honohan stated that the reason he is still leaning towards 'will' is shown on pages 232 to 239, where they are speaking to the future. Younker responded to this, noting that he would agree that it probably does make sense to add `The City' here but that he thinks the present tense, using 'are,' makes more sense. Honohan agreed to this friendly amendment. Younker stated that his second stands. The motion carried 6-0. Moving to page 8, III, lines 232-236, Honohan stated that he would delete these lines entirely. He would change this to say: 'The Committee recognizes that with the growing senior population, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasing diverse senior population, especially for seniors with limited financial resources.' He added that this came from Mitchell's suggestions, with some editing on his part. Honohan moved the above proposed change on Charge 2, per his handout. Dobyns seconded the motion. Younker asked Honohan why the shift from organizations to the Committee. Honohan stated that he believes as a Committee they are supposed to be making positive statements about various issues. He thinks it makes this a stronger statement. Members briefly discussed their thoughts on the amendment. The motion carried 6-0. Honohan's next amendment, also page 8, III, lines 237-239 is as follows. He would delete lines 237-239 and replace with: 'The Committee recognizes that the demand for programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence and prevent or Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 3 delay the onset of chronic diseases will increase.' Honohan moved the above proposed change under Charge 2, lines 237-239, as discussed. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Moving to page 9, III, lines 244-245, Honohan suggested deleting these lines entirely. He added that his thought is that they are putting into this report a recommendation that the City conduct a professional survey of seniors in the community to determine needs, concerns, etc. He stated that he was uncomfortable with this sentence and that he feels they should not put anything in the report that detracts from the survey. Honohan moved the above proposed change under Charge 2, lines 244-245. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2. Honohan moved to accept Charge 2 as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 10-13, comments pgs 172-175) — Honohan began his suggestion proposal on page 10, line 300. This deals with Mary Gutmann's recommendation to change as the title of Charge 3: 'Obstacles and Recommendations.' Honohan moved to add `Obstacles' to the title line of Charge 3, as discussed. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Next under Charge 3, Honohan proposed a change on page 11, line 312, to delete 'Lack of Diversity,' and to replace it with 'Expand Current Level of Diversity.' Honohan moved to delete 'Lack of Diversity,' and replace it with 'Expand Current Level of Diversity.' Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that this really is not an obstacle. Honohan responded, noting that he believes it is, that they do have diversity, but the Center is wanting it to be greater. The problem then is how to expand this. Bern -Klug stated that this would then be the obstacle. Younker suggested 'difficulty with diversity expansion' instead. Honohan stated that he is concerned with how it currently reads, as it sounds like there is no diversity at the Center. Younker suggested they vote on what is written here first, and then discuss a way to rephrase it to capture what they are trying to express. Bern -Klug stated that she thought they were going to go through the public comments, piece by piece, and that she is somewhat confused by what they are doing at this point. Younker stated that he believes that was the intent of Honohan's motion, that it was made in response to comments received at Wednesday's meeting. Honohan stated that with this particular motion that is true. Younker suggested Bern -Klug look at page 172 of the packet where there is a summary of the comments received from the public. Bern -Klug stated that she is confused that only some of the comments were made into motions. Honohan responded that he ran out of time with the rest of them and that his motions were not meant to be all-inclusive. Younker tried to draw the discussion back to the point at hand. Honohan then withdraw his motion. Honohan stated that he believes Bern -Klug makes a good point here. He stated that perhaps they should change what they have been doing and go back to where they began, the comments on pages 165-168, and see what the Committee thinks should also be changed here and not just what Honohan has proposed. Younker stated that he believes they have pretty much done this so far, that there is nothing else he would suggest they change. Dohrmann stated that she would agree with this, that she went through everything too. Honohan asked Bern -Klug if this is what she is wanting to do Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 4 with the public comments, and she responded that it is, that she wanted to make sure they directly addressed what everyone said at the public forum, and that she wanted to clarify what Honohan had done in his handout. Younker asked Bern -Klug if she felt there was something that had not been addressed so far. She stated that she does, but that they are not at that point yet in the discussion. Younker restated what they have been through so far. The initial sections — they received no public comment here, thus there were no comments to review. In Charge 1, the comments begin at page 165 and go through page 168, according to Younker. Discussion was held regarding Honohan's motions about diversity, levels of diversity, and subsequent amendments were made. In Charge 2, the comments run from page 169 to 171. Younker asked Honohan if his proposals here were drafted in consideration of public comments. Honohan responded that they were. Larry Rogers, audience member, stated that his one comment under Charge 2 was skipped over completely. Rogers noted that on page 169, his name is mentioned twice. The first comment was covered by Honohan; however, the second comment regarding the proposed grants to be given to community agencies was skipped completely. Rogers again questioned where the City is going to get the $40,000 when they are talking about budget shortfalls. He read the section he is referring to, again asking how this is going to improve the Senior Center's financial status, or that of the City, to give out these grants. His proposal was to look into incentives to keep businesses that affect senior citizens in Iowa City. Younker again asked Bern -Klug if she had anything she wanted to address up to this point. Dobyns then made a Point of Order to the Chair, as several audience members continued to add to the discussion. He stated that public comment was this past Wednesday, and that he believes, for the purposes of the Committee's deliberations today, that they should withhold public comment. Younker responded that he would like the Committee to have an opportunity to discuss the public comments from Wednesday and that he would not entertain any further comments from the audience. Dohrmann then spoke to Honohan's motion about the difficulty with expansion of diversity. Younker moved that on line 312 delete `lack of diversity' and replace it with 'difficulties with expansion of diversity.' Dohrmann suggested adding to this same section the alternative that Guttmann suggested. This can be found on page 174, under Charge 3, Obstacles and Recommendations. This proposal states: 'The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add to the current diversity of participants at the Center and make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.' She asked if they could combine those two. Younker then withdrew his original motion. He then moved to delete `lack of diversity' on line 312 and replace it with `difficulties with expansion of diversity,' delete the recommendation that begins at line 313 and replace it with `The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add to the current diversity of participants at the Center and make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.' Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Moving to page 11, obstacle C, line 318, Bern -Klug noted that on Wednesday it was suggested they delete the language 'lack of available programming' by Ina Lowenberg. She asked if others are interested in doing this. Honohan moved to delete entirely lines 318-322 on page 11. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion began with Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 5 Honohan speaking to what the staff of the Senior Center is responsible for. He noted that it is not for them to coordinate and bring agencies in, and to help other agencies within the community. He does not believes this is the role of either the City or the Center staff. Honohan stated that he believes the requested survey will be important in solving the problem that appears to be addressed in this item. Younker stated that he would disagree somewhat with this. He believes their charge here is to make recommendations regarding how the City should use financial and physical resources. Through that discussion, the fact that there may be gaps in services was brought up. Continuing, Younker noted that in Charge 3 then, identifying the gaps and providing recommendations, they are not saying that the Center staff should be charged with coordinating services among agencies, but that there appear to be some gaps in services. The Center is in a position to have information, potentially, about that and would be in a position to collaborate with some of these other agencies. The recommendation, according to Younker, is that this issue be discussed. Dohrmann stated that to her this is really critical, especially in light of the City's strategic plan and goals. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this is beyond the scope of the responsibility of the Senior Center staff. Younker asked Bern -Klug what it is she believes the Center's staff will be doing here. She responded that she does not believe the staff should be responsible for better understanding any gaps in senior services in Iowa City, that they are responsible for the programming that the Senior Center provides. Younker stated that he would disagree with this. Honohan reiterated that he believes once the City performs the requested survey that this will identify the gaps in services. He asked how this would actually go, if a meeting would be held with Center staff and Elder Services and the VNA, for example, where everyone would be asked what the gaps are. Honohan spoke then to Elder Services, noting that they must be going through some changes as they have moved out of the Senior Center, but with no consultation given on this. He added that he has heard they are considering dropping their collaboration with the federal government so they do not have to set the lower price for meals and could therefore raise prices. Honohan continued, stating that he just does not see how this type of meeting would even be productive. Younker stated that this would be a good reason to highlight why it would be appropriate to categorize the lack of dialogue as an obstacle. Bern -Klug then suggested they delete this, as Honohan had suggested. She spoke to her suggested wording, and Younker noted that this is covered under item 2.f., page 154 of the packet. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding obstacle C. The motion failed 3-3; Honohan, Bern -Klug, and Webber in the positive. Moving to line 319, page 11, obstacle C, Bern -Klug suggested they delete 'the Center staff' so that it would read 'City staff should continue to engage in dialogue.' She noted that as Honohan had previously mentioned, Center staff are City staff, and she questioned the distinction. Bern -Klug moved that she would change her suggestion to `Agencies involved with providing services to seniors should continue to engage in a dialogue ... (cont as stated).' Younker stated that he believes they do need to have the City involved in such dialogue, that this was the point of the recommendation. Honohan seconded the motion. Younker again stated that he believes the City needs to be involved in such dialogue, and Dohrmann agreed. Bern - Klug stated that she believes the City does not need to be involved in what happens at these agencies. She believes this is too broad of a statement. Discussion continued, with Members giving their thoughts on this statement and what it actually means. The motion failed 2-4, Webber and Bern -Klug in the positive. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 6 Honohan then moved to title this obstacle as Gaps in Services for Seniors, and add `The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand gaps in services,' and then delete the next sentence entirely. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan stating that the reason he is against this paragraph is mainly due to the second sentence, that the dialogue should include Center staff. He stated that he would be agreeable to using the suggested wording he has given. Younker stated that he does not have a problem with the first sentence proposed; however, he does believe that a discussion of possible areas of collaboration will be very important. Dohrmann asked Honohan to clarify his proposal again, which he did. Dobyns stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to retain the second sentence and to make the suggested changes to the first. Honohan stated that he would not be agreeable to this amendment, as he wants to get rid of the second sentence. Bern -Klug agreed that she too is not open to this amendment. She added that the last sentence insinuates that the Center has not been doing this for the last decade, and that the report shows example after example of collaboration between the Center and various agencies. Younker suggested the second sentence be modified to read, 'The dialogue should include the continued identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the Center and various agencies.' He added that the intent was not to say that this is a new idea that the Center has not been doing. The intent was to say that if there is an opportunity out there, it should be discussed and identified and taken advantage of. Dohrmann stated that she supports this, but her big concern are the groups that come to mind — hidden groups — those consisting of people from other countries with different languages and cultures who are not as fully engaged in the community. She believes it is the responsibility of the City and the Senior Center to address this, and that this means attempting to foster relationships with these other groups. To her this second sentence speaks to the importance of doing this. Honohan then made the proposal to keep the first sentence as proposed, and change the second sentence to `The dialogue should include the identification of possible areas of collaboration.' Younker proposed saying `between the City and various agencies.' Honohan stated that he would be agreeable to this. Bern -Klug stated that she would hold her second and agreed, as well. Younker then reiterated how the proposal would read: `The dialogue should include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration between the City and various agencies.' The first sentence is, `The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services.' Honohan withdrew his pending motion and moved the motion as just read. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Moving to page 12, Honohan proposed reducing this obstacle to one line. Decrease in funding was suggested by Younker. Honohan moved to change the obstacle to a Decrease in Funding. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Younker then asked if there was any further comment regarding Charge 3. Honohan moved to approve Charge 3 as amended in the discussions. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. e. Exhibits (comments pg 176): Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 7 A — Res 14-37 (pgs 14-17) — Younker worked his way through the exhibit list, asking if there were any further comments regarding each exhibit. Discussion ensued about this list, with Members asking if they can delete some of these documents from the report. Younker stated that it makes sense to include the Resolution with the report so that it is clear what the Committee was charged with. B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 18-34) — Retain, no comments. C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 35-40, clean version pgs 156-160) — Retain, no comments. D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 41-47) — Retain, no comments. E — National Council on Aging (pgs 48-49) — Younker stated that this was the Fact Sheet. He questioned if they spoke directly to this or not. Karr stated that they did on page 3 and she cited the reference. Bern -Klug stated that this particular document is not part of the assessment, but rather a brochure about senior centers in general. She stated that she does not believe they need to include this. After a brief discussion, Younker noted that the Accreditation letter and report, pages 41-47, are the actual report and what is needed. Honohan moved to delete Exhibit E. Younker seconded the motion. Younker stated that he believes they included it because they stated that they agree with the nine standards of national excellence, and this fact sheet identifies those nine standards. However, he thinks the nine standards are also in the report, and Honohan stated that they indeed are. The motion carried 6-0. F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 50-60) — Karr noted that pages 58 and 59 do not belong here, that the report ends on page 57. Younker agreed with this, noting that those were a cover memo and a Senior Center flyer. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to delete these pages. Honohan moved to delete pages 58 through 60 per the discussion. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 61-144) — Honohan moved to delete the Program Guide of Spring 2014. Younker seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan stating that he realizes they refer to the guide in the report and discuss the various programs, etc., however, he believes they do not need an 83 -page program guide to be a part of this report. He added that as he has previously suggested, less paper in the report is better. Younker stated that he would agree with this, especially since the guide is available online if anyone needs to refer to it. Bern -Klug suggested they embed the link to the program guide. Karr noted that they cannot archive a link, but that perhaps they could refer the Council to the program guide as it appears on the Senior Center's web site. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 145-150) — Bern -Klug stated that she believes this should say 'Senior Center Strategic Plan booklet.' Younker noted that what Council will receive is what is shown on the screen. I — Census (pgs 151-153) — Retain, no comments. Younker asked Bern -Klug if she wanted to return to exhibit F. She stated that she wondered if all 10 pages should be part of the report to Council or if they should refer them to the web site on this one, as well. Karr noted that it is now only seven pages, as they removed the three pages that were inadvertently attached. Also, Karr noted that when things are archived for Council, they are not responsible for archiving other sites and when those sites are updated. With Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 8 the program guide it makes sense; however, with the survey results, you don't know how long they will be kept on that site at that address. She suggested they keep these seven pages in the report. Younker agreed that this makes sense. Honohan moved to approve the Exhibits section as modified. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. f. Age Friendly City (pgs 154-155) — Bern -Klug stated that she would like to propose a motion dealing with the lack of a vision for older adults in Iowa City. She stated that the World Health Organization has developed a vision that can be applied to cities around the world and then subsequently adapted by cities to fit their needs. Bern -Klug thought this would be a good idea to have a meeting of the key organizations to see if this would be something beneficial for Iowa City. Instead of the Council coming up with a vision for dealing with older adults and the aging population, the WHO's vision would be used as a starting point. Items like transportation, services for frail older adults, and social participation are all items that are part of the WHO's vision, many obstacles that the Committee has themselves identified. Dobyns stated that this sounds like a good document, but that he does not believe this is the time to introduce this into the report. He added that there were times back in August and September to add new information to the report. He would want more time to digest this information, something they do not have at this point. Honohan stated that he has a thought for a motion, he recommended that the City Council establish an exploratory committee comprised of representatives from community groups and the University, of seeking the WHO Age Friendly City designation. Bern -Klug stated that she is not suggesting the Council adopt this, but that she is suggesting they use something like this to better understand the services in a big connected picture versus piece meal. She added that she wishes she had thought of this earlier, as she believes it would have been more effective. Bern -Klug reiterated that the WHO's vision would give the City a framework to work with on these issues. She stated that much of what the WHO's vision states, they have already touched upon. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. She then asked Honohan to reread the motion for clarification. 'Recommend that the City Council establish an exploratory committee,' and then continue with what Bern -Klug already suggested. Younker asked if the framework provided by the WHO would go to the discussion of gaps in services. He asked what connection she sees between the WHO's framework and the gaps in services obstacle discussed earlier in the meeting. Bern -Klug stated that since their charge was to look at how the City could provide better services for seniors, this framework lays out a way to assess the extent to which cities are providing better services for senior citizens. Therefore, she believes it is completely consistent with the charge. It does not go into as much depth as they had talked about for the survey for low-income seniors, but that this could be incorporated into this. Younker stated that speaking to Dobyns' point, the Committee has not had the time to vet the WHO's framework. He suggested that if they do believe it fits well with the recommendation they have, should they just make Council aware of this instead. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this item should be a separate obstacle, the lack of a stated vision for the City's role with senior services. Dohrmann stated that she wonders if a different avenue should be taken, with perhaps Bern -Klug submitting the report to the Council — separate from the report itself. She added that she believes the concept is good, but that they have not had the time to vet the report. Bern - Klug asked if they could revisit this at the meeting on November 24. She believes it ties in directly with what they have been discussing. Dobyns stated that he believes they need to move forward at this point. Bern -Klug responded that she believes the City Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 9 needs to see this type of framework, to help them move forward with their planning. Younker agreed that it is probably a bit late in the game to add this report at this point. He does believe they should make Council aware of it and suggested that individual Members could do so, or they could make it part of the obstacles. Bern -Klug stated that she could change the wording to say that 'dialogue be engaged with the City and agencies to consider this.' Honohan asked for some clarification on why Younker has made the statement he did. He suggested they make a recommendation through the Committee, agreeing that he himself has not had a chance to read through the WHO's documentation. However, he believes that suggesting to the Council to establish a committee is not a bad idea. Younker stated that he agrees they should make Council aware of this resource, but that he has not read this so he does not believe he should make a recommendation that Council do something with it. He stated that they could make a comment in the conclusion section. Bern -Klug stated that she would be prepared to propose an obstacle that there is a lack of an articulated City vision for how to make Iowa City a city for all ages, which is the goal of the WHO tool. She added that she would like to make this as an obstacle and then this tool is one approach that has been vetted at the national and international level as a solid approach for cities to use. She again stated that if today is not a good time to discuss this issue, she would like to revisit it at the November 24 meeting. Younker stated that today is the day to have that decision, that they need to be ready to vote on the report at the next meeting. Honohan withdrew his motion. Bern -Klug moved to add an obstacle to the report, the lack of an articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly. Her recommendation would be for the City Council to establish an exploratory committee to consider the WHO approach to age friendly cities. Honohan seconded the motion. Dobyns replied that he will be voting against this as that is the mission of this Committee, to establish a vision. Bern -Klug stated that they were never told to come up with a vision. Dobyns replied that that is how he interpreted it, as,a Member of Council. She replied that this would have been helpful information to have back in June and again in August when she asked what the vision was. Dobyns stated that he did say this. She asked if he had proposed any visions for them to discuss. Dobyns replied that the majority of this Committee's vision is what is in their report. This is the vision that will be presented to Council. Bern -Klug stated that this is a reframing that she was not aware of and that nowhere in the document does it say what the vision is for the City. Younker stated that they are getting off track and he brought the group back to the motion on the floor. The motion carried 4-2, Dobyns and Younker in the negative. Younker noted that this will become obstacle H. DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (pas 161-163) — Younker noted that what they have in front of them is a red -lined version, capturing the changes made at the last meeting. Dohrmann moved to adopt the Executive Summary as it appears in their packet. Dobyns seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan referring to Younker's comment earlier that what they do today to the report is basically the end. He added that he is not prepared to approve a final report to Council until he sees the actual report. He stated that he is reserving the right to move to amend things in the final report if he sees things that he is uncomfortable with. Younker stated that they have gone through each section and approved each section, that the final meeting will be that final approval. Members will have that final report in the meeting packet. Younker questioned if they have an obstacle on page 163. Honohan stated that he is assuming the last obstacle, which was changed, will need to be shown, as will the new obstacle (H) that they approved at this meeting. Karr noted that the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 10 highlighted portion on page 163 was a staff question and that it can be changed in the summary and the report. Dohrmann stated that for clarity, they could drop `the City' from this. Bern -Klug noted that on page 162, she mentioned that the wording should be taken out — the first sentence now on page 162 that is in quotations, 'If the Council wishes for a more scientific approach for determining the needs, it will likely need to utilize...'. They had talked about this being toned down. Karr stated that as she remembers, Fruin had brought up that this was text from another part of the report. She added that she is unsure if they resolved this matter any further. Younker noted that there was no motion to amend this sentence, as he recalls. Bern -Klug moved to amend the sentence by saying the needs of the senior populations could be better understood through an official survey. Younker asked what Bern-Klug's concern is with quoting text that is already in the report. She stated that they talked about changing this in the body of the report also. Her concern is that it sounds a little snooty to her. She stated that this was the previous concern as well. She believes it should be changed in the summary. Bern Klug reiterated her motion for clarification, stating that building off the sentence at the bottom of page 161, 'Time and resource constraints did not allow for a more formal approach to gauge the needs of the senior population, a professional survey should be considered by the City Council.' Honohan seconded the motion. Younker suggested they make two sentences out of this. He suggested putting a period after populations and then starting a new sentence. Bern -Klug agreed to a friendly amendment. Honohan kept his second and approved this, as well. The motion carried 6-0. Dohrmann moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF CONCLUSIONS (pa 164) — Moving on to the Conclusion, page 164, Younker asked for a motion to approve said document. Bern -Klug moved to approve the revised Conclusion. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Honohan asked where in the report this section will go, and Younker replied at the end. He asked where the Executive Summary is placed, and Younker stated that it will go at the beginning of the report. Dobyns spoke to Honohan's statement of having the right to make changes at the final meeting. He asked if they would then have another meeting to make those amendments. Younker stated that they need to wrap things up at the next meeting. They dissolve by resolution on December 1 st. and the 24th is the Monday of Thanksgiving week. Therefore, the 24th has to be their last meeting. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Honohan and Bern -Klug stating that they need to see what the final document is going to look like. Bern -Klug stated that she agrees with the Chair, that now is not the time to bring up new topics. Members asked when to expect the packet for the last meeting, and Karr responded that it could be available on Thursday the 20th. Younker stated that if significant changes are submitted prior to the meeting on the 24tH they do have that meeting to review them and make their final decisions. He stated that in his view, substantive discussion ends today. Karr stated that she would like to get Member concurrence to take down the web site of the draft because the draft has been changed significantly and substantively. She can then replace it with something else, such as a link to the upcoming packet. Bern -Klug asked if there is any way to put up just the report without the exhibits. Karr noted that this is how it currently is on the web site. Younker clarified the report contains the exhibits and should be approved as one item. After some discussion, Members agreed that the next packet will contain the final report in its entirety. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 11 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE: November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.) PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft report items): Kathy Mitchell thanked the Committee for their time and effort in this endeavor. She did note that the reason she wanted to clarify her remarks regarding `lack of in the obstacle section, especially for sections B, C, and E, is because she felt that these are things the Center is already doing. Therefore, she does not believe them to be obstacles, but are continuing goals. She added that she would have liked to have not only a recommendations section, but also `continuing goals.' Mitchell stated that she believes the Committee has now created obstacles that were not there, and now she feels this is somewhat troubling. She reiterated that she wishes they had removed these issues, and only put up those that would be perceived as goals. Mary Gravitt stated that she sees a problem already. They were interested in the current funding, not the projected funding. Section B speaks to current, not projected. On line 244, she noted that this is part of the strategic plan and needs to stay. Also the language about the programs, she questioned if they are referring to the written programs or something else. Dialogue is another part of the strategic plan, according to Gravitt. She stated that the Committee is going into areas that they are not charged with, such as on line 337, it should be deleted because this is not part of their charge. Gravitt stated that the Committee has to get the language straight in their report as they cannot go against the strategic plan of the Council. She stated that she plans to address Council on these issues. Larry Rogers stated that he would like to clarify something with line 276. `Serving older adults that address a substance abuse emotional health services.' He asked if this shouldn't have a comma after substance abuse. Dohrmann responded that there is a comma missing here and that they would make that correction. ADJOURNMENT: Bern -Klug moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 12 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 (A 0 0n 0 M 0 M 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 00 0 w 0 w O O s O O — -A NAME EXP. QQ c� m � I! w O � K)W � o j o po O w N � O c' K) ^' N Cn ^' ah Ab ah 1211114 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Joe Younker Jay Honohan 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Mercedes 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bern -Klug Hiram Richard 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Webber Ellen Cannon 12/1/14 X X X X X X X1 X X O/ O/E O/ O/ O/ O/E N E E E E M Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X X X X Dohrmann I E Rick Dobyns 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ X X E E Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time 11-2 L Charter Review Commission 1P12' November 10, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2014 — 7:45 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz (via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Julie Voparil RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 10/28/14 b. Citizens Police Review Board Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Atkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell reviewed previous discussions and stated that they do need to make a decision on participation. He stated that they have committed to doing the forum, and what the League would like to see is three to four Members present at their upcoming public forum. Chappell stated that he is happy to attend the forum, especially in light of being Chair. He stated that he would like to have two females and one additional male attend, so as to achieve a gender balance. Vanderhoef suggested Shaw attend. He noted that he is scheduled to be in Cedar Rapids at 6:00 that day. Members continued to discuss the issue, with Schantz stating that he would be happy to attend. In addition, Moyers -Stone and Craig agreed to attend the forum. b. Compensatory History — Chappell noted that Karr provided the changes in the ordinance dealing with council compensation. C. Other — Chappell asked if there were any other reports from staff or Commission Members. Kubby stated that she has some ideas about the word 'person' and corporations and the association, but that she did not have the time to get her report done prior to this meeting. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Compensation of council members — Chappell noted that their previous discussions ended with them unsure if they wanted to do anything about this piece. He noted that Moyers -Stone and Schantz were gone at the last meeting, Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 2 and that he would be interested in what they may have to say. He added that he believes this may be something they want to talk about at their second public forum, that it would be interesting to see what feedback they get. Moyers -Stone stated that her feelings are pretty much the same, in that she believes the compensation should be enough to compensate council for the amount of time that they are spending on council duties, but not so much that this would become a real job. She does not believe a number should be set in the Charter necessarily. Schantz stated that he believes the compensation is too low, but that there is something to be said for the Charter taking the burden off the council itself of raising their own salary. Chappell suggested they indefinitely table this item until they decide how they are going to structure their second public forum. Atkins stated that he believes they should settle on something and not leave this item hanging. Chappell stated that he is comfortable in hearing some input at the public forum. Kubby stated that not only is it a compensation issue, but it is also a Charter issue — whether compensation should be part of the Charter or not. Dilkes noted that State law says that compensation must be set by ordinance. If the Charter addresses compensation, the Council will probably adopt an ordinance to reflect whatever the Charter says. b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell then moved on to discuss use of the word 'citizen.' He noted that everyone has the document where Karr highlighted all of the different uses of the word. Chappell then asked who would like to replace the word 'citizen' with 'resident' in the Charter. Sullivan stated that he would be open to that change. Atkins stated that he would like to hear a bit more discussion on this issue. Chappell then asked if any of the Members believe it would be a bad idea to replace 'citizen' with 'resident.' Kubby stated that the one section she believes it would not work is the Citizen Police Review Board section. Vanderhoef stated that as they previously discussed, changing the Preamble section which may eliminate the need for this change. Dilkes then asked if the option of defining 'citizen' as a 'resident of Iowa City' was discussed at all. Kubby stated that they did, but the reason behind the change is due to the connotation of the word, not the definition of the word. She noted that they also discussed defining 'resident,' and that they should not do this as it can lead to its own issues. Moyers -Stone stated that for her, she would like to see one term used and to have it defined. She noted that currently neither word is defined and that they are used back and forth throughout the Charter. Sullivan noted that both are used very sparsely, with 'citizen' appearing 10 times in two different sections, and 'resident' only appears twice. Half of the uses of 'citizen' appear in the Preamble, which could be solved with a new Preamble. Sullivan continued, noting that he likes what Kubby said about the connotation of 'citizen,' but that he also believes if they define 'citizen' as they see it in this case that it would address the issue to some extent. Atkins added that 'resident' is more of a location -sounding word, that you are physically there. 'Citizen,' on the other hand, is something broader in definition. Atkins stated that he likes the idea of writing their own definition for the use here. Members continued to discuss this issue, with some believing 'resident' should be used and others leaning towards 'citizen.' Shaw stated that more importantly, how often does the issue of citizenship versus resident come up. He added that if they cannot agree on the use, he asked if either use of the word 'citizen' or'resident' has less political connotations, than perhaps a broader interpretation should be used. Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 3 Members continued to discuss the issue, agreeing finally that use of 'resident,' undefined, is their preference but that they would still use the word in reference to the CPRE. Dilkes questioned this, which led to a brief discussion, with Members speaking to the CPRB and whether it should be the Police Review Board instead. Chappell reiterated what is being proposed, which is changing the name to 'Residents Police Review Board,' or the 'Police Review Board.' Continuing, Chappell moved through the sections that they are proposing changes to. He stated that it appears they have consensus to change the word 'citizen' to 'resident' throughout the Charter document. He noted that he will contact Melissa Jensen, the CPRB Chair, to let her know what the Commission is considering, as well as the reasoning behind it. Chappell stated that from what he has heard, the CPRB has recommended some changes. He continued, noting that this is on page 10 of the meeting packet. The CPRB's proposal is to 'hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of the CPRB hearing views on the polices, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department.' Chappell noted that the first thing being recommended is to get rid of the word 'citizen,' which the Commission have themselves addressed. The second recommendation is to remove the phrase'... and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the City Council.' Chappell stated that he is uncomfortable removing this phrase, and he asked if others on the Commission are as well. Craig stated that she thought this was the point of the CPRB — to make recommendations based on what they hear. Chappell stated that he would raise this issue with the Chair, as well. C. Preamble and Definitions — Moving on, the discussion turned to the Preamble and Definitions sections of the Charter. Chappell asked Schantz if he would like to discuss his recommendations, which are on page 18 of the meeting packet. Schantz spoke first to the decision to add 'Home Rule' to the Charter, noting that he believes the best place is in the first phrase — between 'full' and 'powers.' 'To confer upon it the full Home Rule powers of a Charter city.' Continuing, Schantz stated that he believes these words were left out as he put 'self determination' in instead. He noted that this comes mainly from the model Home Rule Charter document. Schantz stated that he believes the first two bullet points are essential, and that the last two may be debatable. Chappell asked Schantz if he could speak to why he believes this version is better than the current one. Schantz responded that first off he likes the 'We the people' phrase as it is used in many constitutions and emphasizes a 'bottom-up' process, which he believes the current wording does not do. He believes the language he is proposing captures the importance of what the Charter is attempting to do. Secondly, Schantz stated that some of the items in the Preamble are there so that in political discussions or arguments about city government, there would be some very broad principles that you could grab hold of and indicate that those come right from the core of the Charter itself. Chappell then asked the Commission if there is a general consensus to change the Preamble to something along the lines of what Schantz is proposing. He added that they can then look at making any changes to it that Members may want to make. Sullivan stated that he likes Schantz's proposal and would agree to using it as a starting point for a recommendation. Others agreed with Sullivan's statement, with Shaw stating that he would be happy to work with Schantz on any revisions to the most recent Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 4 draft. Atkins and Moyers -Stone both agreed with Schantz's proposal. Chappell suggested that they put the Preamble on the next agenda and that everyone bring any revisions they would like to see made to it. d. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) — Chappell then suggested they briefly discuss the public forum set-up that he would like to see for the second meeting. He asked Kubby to help explain the second public forum that was held 10 years ago, during the previous Charter review. Kubby stated that the purpose of the process was not to just have people say what they think and have the Commission absorb it, but to really have conversations and the exchange of ideas with the public. She explained that at this forum, people were split up into small groups, and each Commission Member facilitated a small group. Each Member led their group with a specific topic, asking people what their opinions were and asking how they felt about a possible change to something in the Charter. Continuing, Kubby stated that they each had around three topics and typically spent about 20 minutes on each topic. Chappell noted that the group would identify beforehand what the top three or four topics are that they want to get feedback on. He added that typically an hour to an hour and a half timeframe is the most they should have. Chappell then asked Members how they feel about this type of format for the second forum. Sullivan stated that to him this is a completely new idea, and that his first concern is that not everyone who comes is heard by the entire Commission. Chappell stated that this is a good point and they would need someone to take detailed notes. Sullivan added that if someone takes the time to come to the forum, he would like to hear what they have to say, rather than read someone's notes. His other concern is that it seems very formulated, in that people end up feeling that their viewpoint was lost in the shuffle of others' viewpoints. He feels that a forum like this kind of molds peoples' viewpoints together. Kubby noted that it is different — that they are asking people to think about where they are at and to put themselves in a different frame, to look at both pros and cons — not just one viewpoint. Craig noted that there are all kinds of avenues for people to share their opinions — emails, Commission meetings, forums — and she thinks this type of forum adds to those available avenues, so people can share their thoughts and opinions. Shaw spoke to this type of forum, asking if they are there to 'referee' each small group. He noted that at the first forum people could say what they want, but that the second is stricter in what people share. Kubby noted that it is a different way to get feedback, and that the job of the facilitators is to really keep the conversation on topic. Chappell stated that they are definitely not referees at this forum, that it is facilitating the group and keeping people on topic. Kubby stated that she could send to Karr what the previous Commission used at their second forum. They had a 'cheat sheet' of sorts that formatted the topics and gave them ideas on how to run the group. Chappell asked Sullivan if he has ideas for other ways to conduct such a forum. Sullivan responded that he thought it would be similar to the first forum, where people speak from the podium. He added that once they know what the changes are going to be to the Charter, they should have another'open mic' style meeting to gather input. Others agreed that once they have their final draft it would make Charter Review Commission November 10, 2014 Page 5 sense to ask for public input again. Moyers -Stone stated that the small group approach appeals to her, versus the open mic, in that the public can see exactly what the Members are doing and what the process has been. Chappell stated that they need to now figure out the best date for this second forum. He stated that over the next three meetings, they need to discuss 'Initiative and Referendum.' Other issues where they have not had consensus yet include the direct election of the mayor, and whether to change to 'pure' or keep the bifurcated district system. Continuing, Chappell suggested they look at a January date for the forum. Some discussion ensued regarding the Council's schedule at that time and room availability. Chappell suggested January 7 as the forum date and asked Members their thoughts. Vanderhoef asked if they should have a special meeting themselves, prior to the forum. Others agreed that the day before, January 6, would work. Chappell then reiterated his request that Karr check for a forum space and time for Wednesday, January 7, at 7:00 P.M. (or earlier if necessary), and also a special meeting of the Charter Review Commission on Tuesday morning, January 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified: November 25 — Chappell noted that they should have the report on the League of Women Voters regarding their forum. He asked that Members bring their calendars to this meeting so they can get their meetings set for 2015. Craig asked if they should plan on specific topics to discuss at the next meeting, and Chappell stated that they would definitely talk about Initiative and Referendum, as well as the Preamble. Before adjourning, Atkins asked for some clarification of the second forum's format. Chappell and Kubby responded, with Kubby noting that she will find the suggested format outline and facilitator notes so that everyone understands how they conducted this previously. Dilkes noted that Karr can probably access this fairly easily from the previous Commission's minutes and notes. Dilkes suggested the group keep track of the pros and cons when they themselves discuss some of these bigger issues, as it may help them conduct the upcoming forum. December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission November 10, 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 0 0 O ft c7+ c?1 M -4 COCOtG CC CO NAME EXP. O o w N -4 o N N N O N w o .p o0 o cn 0. Al .9h. .1h, .1h. Ob � .1h. 4�- � -N 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X X O/ X Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/ X X Vanderhoef E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time 11-20-14 DRAFT IP13 CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — November 10, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez Perez, Mazahir Salih, Joseph Treloar MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-09 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 10/13/14 • ICPD Memorandum (Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 3rd Quarter 2014) • ICPD Memorandum #14-20 (September 2014 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Use of Force Report — September 2014 Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION Treloar commented on the article written in the paper about Officer Schwindt initiating the Thank you Iowa City program and how it highlighted one of the many good things the police department is doing in the downtown area. Jensen officially welcomed the new Board member Fidencio Martinez Perez. STAFF INFORMATION None CPRB November 10, 2014 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Salih, seconded by Treloar to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 5:35 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:39 P.M. Staff will email available dates to the Board for a special executive session only meeting. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #14-04 to 8-8-7 (13)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to summarily dismiss CPRB Complaint #14-09 due to the complaint not being filed within 90 days of the alleged misconduct. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • December 9, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to December 3rd) • January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to move the December 9th meeting to Wednesday, December 3rd at 5:00 P.M. due to scheduling conflicts. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Salih, seconded by Treloar. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:44 P.M. rD Ato 7 r. '►� � nom, Oy A n A O 'O d S fD Vri y A • N cC to •�j• /`1 ISI f•l '.7 ryq (A % J W— (ON W lJ1 Q1 00 N+ F+ H+ 0 9 o x o 00 A ulW N 00 CN Fr W O CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 CPRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL q s, igp iprj, 9 ComplaintP CPRB Complaint #14-09, filed October 9, 2014, was summarily dismissed as required by the City Code, Section 8-8-3 D and 8-8-3 E. The complaint was not filed within 90 (ninety) days of the alleged misconduct. DATED: November 10, 2014 CD J 777" M MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6,2014-7:OOPM–FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Sandra Steil, Steve Gordon, Sharon Sorensen, Melinda Ragona, Bob Barta, Kyle Dieleman, Lon Drake, Linda Moss, Joe Snyder, Tom Sorensen, Wynn Johnson, Alan Jones, Tammy Smith, Adam Yack The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay - Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development – Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (0PD-CH1). This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a 9 -lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 (REZ14-00020/SUB14-00019) CP1>— 4;� Eastham called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none. REZONING ITEM (REZ14-00019) Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of approximately 2.3 acres of land in the 600 block of S. Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone to Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone. Applicant has requested deferral to November 20, 2014 meeting. Theobald made a motion to defer discussion of REZ14-00019 until the November 20 meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 2 of 16 Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham opened the discussion for public hearing. There was none. Eastham closed public hearing. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 Rezonina / Development Item (REZ14-00020/SUB14-00019 Discussion of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A. Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres from Interim Development- Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD-CH1). This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a 9 -lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 Howard presented the staff report. The development is located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1. Howard showed a map of the area in which the red lines showed the current boundary lines of the zoning and the hash lines showing the entire first development phase. There are two items before the Commission tonight; first rezoning that will shift zoning boundaries and second that zoning shift will coincide with lot lines in the revised plat. Howard noted that preliminary plats are valid for two years and the previous plat had just expired. A preliminary plat and associated rezoning for the office park was approved in 2012, and through the development of the master plan and the grading plans for the site to make the lots more conducive to office park development they found they need to shift the boundaries. Additionally, Howard pointed out that due to the sensitive areas on the site, one of the roads previously proposed across the center of the development would be eliminated in order to preserve more of the wooded areas in future phases of the development. There was an environmental review that determined this area to contain habitat for the endangered Indiana Bat so any woodland disturbed in this area will have to be mitigated. The plan for stormwater management has been refined since the previous preliminary plat was approved, which has also caused a shift in the lot lines. The revised plat also indicates areas that will be reserved for wetland mitigation and bat habitat conservation. Howard showed a plat of the new proposed zoning boundaries to illustrate the shift in the boundaries. She also showed a map showing the lot lines in the revised plat. There are nine lots; 4 - 7 are reserved for retail services that would support a larger office park, and the remaining lots are reserved for research development park. It is the same basic plan as the original plat, what shifted was the stormwater basins are more refined and will be designed as a feature of the new office park with some trails around the larger basin. As mentioned previously, the other change from the original plat is to eliminate the road across the center of the property to preserve more of the woodlands. Howard also noted that the applicant had discussions with Pearson to see if there could be a road connection on the south side near the Pearson property to connect to Highway 1. However, Pearson was not agreeable to that road connection, so the plat no longer includes a cul-de-sac at the east end of Creek Preserve Drive. However, an outlot is being reserved in this location in case in the long term future such a road connection becomes possible. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 3 of 16 Howard explained that the changes to the preliminary plat caused the need for the change to the zoning, so that the new lot lines correspond with the correct zoning. In addition, the applicant has requested a change to the conditional zoning agreement. When zoned in 2010 and rezoned in 2012 they had not yet developed a detailed master plan for the office park and because of that in the conditional zoning agreement they had agreed to submit site plans for each lot to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review rather than through the typical administrative review process conducted by staff. Now that the developer has developed a more refined master plan with the lots identified, stormwater management plan, trails and landscaping to enhance the area, and a signage plan, they are requesting to eliminate the requirement to bring every individual site plan to the Commission for approval. Staff recommends approval of this change. Hektoen reiterated that it was just the provision regarding review approval by the Commission that would be struck from the conditional zoning agreement. All other provisions of the CZA would remain the same. Eastham stated that the Commission had looked at the zoning and site plans for this property previously and expressed interest in the view from Interstate 80 into this area and if it would be a desirable view and an indication of what Iowa City is about and posed the question to Howard to speak on how this revised plat contributes to that interest. Howard stated that the conditional zoning agreement has quite a few requirements for quality building materials, signage plan to assure there is not signage clutter along the interstate, parking lots will have to comply with all landscaping requirements. Staff therefore feels it is an extensive list of quality checks for the developer to fulfill to make this a Class A office space. Thomas asked if the developer was present to present the project and answer questions. Howard confirmed there was someone from the development team. Thomas has a question regarding the bicycle component (as in what is the bicycle circulation concept) of the project and was unsure if it should be addressed to staff or to the developer. Howard suggested Thomas ask the developer for the details, however pointed out there is an extensive set of trails and sidewalks extending throughout the property. Eastham opened public hearing. Sandra Steil (Shive Hattery) representing Moss Development Group came forward to answer any questions the Commission has. Thomas asked Steil about the bicycle circulation and if the plan was for the bicycles to share the streets. Steil answered that bicycles could share the streets, but since this would be a Class A business park and the trails will be hard surface bicycles will likely use the trails. Thomas asked for verification that the sidewalks and trails would be five feet wide. Steil could not confirm that. Howard stated that the streets are designed as collector streets and will be able to accommodate bicycles and the sidewalks would meet the city standard of five feet for city sidewalks. Howard stated there would be an eight foot sidewalk leading into the development along the south side of Moss Ridge Drive. Howard pointed out that in the future, Oakdale Boulevard will be an arterial street extending through the property, which would also have a wide sidewalk on one side. Thomas shared his concern of traffic speeds if the road is shared due to the wide width of the proposed street. Steil stated the developer would work with City Staff to address that concern when working on the final plat. Eastham closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend approval of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A. Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres and subdivision of approximately 172 acres from Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 4 of 16 Interim Development- Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD-CH1). This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a 9 -lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 (REZ14- 00020/S U B 14-00019). Thomas also moved to recommend amending the conditional zoning agreement to delete the provision that requires Planning and Zoning Commission review of all site plans. The remaining provisions in the conditional zoning agreement would remain the same. Martin seconded the motion. Thomas stated that looking at the overall site plan it is very pleasing and shows appropriate attention to open space, woodland sensitive area preservation, and the fact that it will be open to the public is a great amenity. He stated that the use of the roundabouts is appropriate and will add to the features of the plan. Thomas did state his concern about 15 foot traffic lanes if speeds are higher than 25 mph and thought perhaps the traffic lanes could be narrower or bike lines inserted. Swygard agreed with Thomas that the plan was improved from previous reiterations including the improved signage plan and agreed it is not necessary for the Commission to review all the individual site plans. Eastham agreed that the overall plan for the development is improved and thinks the use of the roundabouts in the development is forward -thinking, feature oriented, street design. He also stated an appreciation of the signage throughout the development. In terms of the street width, Eastham shared Thomas' concern about the street width of two, 15 -foot wide lanes and feels it could be less wide. Dyer stated it was a great improvement over the first plan as it shows more attention to the current topography and landscape. Theobald stated she hoped to see a selection of various tree types in the park. Also in response to the width of the streets, she is concerned about larger vehicles (delivery trucks, etc.) and the need for wider streets for that reason. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Development item (SUB14-00021 Discussion of an application submitted by MBHG Investment Co. for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for Sycamore Woods, approximate 34.86 -acre, 115- lot residential subdivision located west of Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, along extensions of Whispering Meadow and Blazing Star Drives. Eastham stated he is a member of a board of trustees of a non-profit that owns affordable housing and the non-profit is the general partner and a limited liability corporation which owns property adjacent to part of this property. Eastham stated he would be impartial in his consideration of this Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 5 of 16 development item as he knows of no interest whatsoever of the non-profit corporation he is part of with this subdivision. Walz presented the staff report beginning with explaining that the City sent out notification to meet the seven-day deadline ahead of the meeting. At the time the applicant had applied for a rezoning and Staff did not realized until after the letter went out that rezoning was not required. When it went through the rezoning in 2007 it was subject to a conditional zoning agreement and an OPD plan. In the staff report it explains that while the subdivision expires after two years, the zoning stays in place so long as it meets the conditions. The Zoning Code indicates that a re -zoning is not required so long as changes to the approved preliminary OPD or Sensitive Areas Development Plan are not substantial. The code defines a substantive change as "any significant change in the land uses, street locations, character of the development from what is shown on the approved OPD Plan or Sensitive Area Development Plan, or any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or street standards beyond the ranges approved on the Preliminary OPD Plan or Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan." Because there are no substantive variations in street layout or location, open space or protection of sensitive features, or lot configuration, no rezoning is required as part of the approval process. The proposed development remains subject to the existing conditional zoning agreement. The letter did cause some confusion for the neighbors and for that Walz apologized. Walz shared email correspondence from neighbors with the Commission and indicated that City Council will receive the same correspondence when the preliminary plat is forwarded to them. In 2007, the property was conditionally rezoned OPD -8 and OPD-RS12 with a sensitive areas development plan. The approved plan allowed for clustered housing and located streets away from sensitive features, which include woodlands, a regulated stream corridor, and wetlands. A preliminary plat for a 122 -lot subdivision (76 detached single-family and 46 townhouse units) was also approved and later granted an extension in 2009. Preliminary plats expire after two years, and thus the applicant is now submitting a new, amended plat. The current plat reduces the number of lots from 122 to 115 (71 detached single-family lots oriented along Whispering Meadow, Indigo, and Blazing Star Drives and 44 townhome lots mostly along Verbena and Whispering Meadow Drives). Street layout, open space, lot configuration, and protection of sensitive areas are otherwise consistent with the previously approved OPD Plan. The applicant has also submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to illustrate how the land will be developed in a manner that will protect, preserve, or mitigate for disturbance of these sensitive features. A conditional zoning agreement (CZA) for the property includes requirements for the developer to construct Whispering Meadows Drive to the western edge of the Sycamore Greenway (connecting into the General Quarters subdivision) and to extend Blazing Start Drive to the east across a portion of City -owned property adjacent to the Greenway trail. Whispering Meadows Drive will connect with the future Dickenson Lane and supply connectivity to Sycamore Street for developments. The CZA also requires a wetland mitigation plan to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and other applicable State and Federal agencies prior to development activity and addresses maintenance of wetland during and after housing construction. Walz commented on the Sensitive Areas Plan. According to a note on the plat, this property contains 430,544 square feet of woodlands (approximately 9.9 acres), and 162,418 square Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 6 of 16 feet (approx. 3.7 acres) will be preserved, which represents approximately 37.7%. Most of the tree removal will occur at the northwest quadrant of the property where Whispering Meadows Drive is proposed to be extended and in areas where the stream corridor will be graded and reconstructed to create new wetland areas proposed as mitigation. The sensitive areas ordinance allows for more than 50% of the woodlands on a property to be removed if an appropriate tree replacement plan is submitted indicating a replacement ratio of 1 tree per 200 square feet of woodland lost above the 50% allowed. The applicant is required to replace trees to mitigate for the 52,854 square feet of woodland lost or 264 trees. The applicant proposes to plant 146 trees in the upland areas surrounding the newly created wetland cells, 4 trees on the islands within the wetland cells, and plant 1 tree in the front yard of every dwelling unit prior to occupancy for a total of 265 trees. In addition, the code requires the preservation of "groves of trees" wherever possible. The applicant is proposing to preserve the grove of trees that exists along the southern border of the property where it abuts the Sycamore Greenway by establishing a construction area limit and implementing tree protection measures during construction. To preserve these trees over time this area is designated as a no -build conservation area. Walz stated that Staff finds that, with the measures taken above to preserve and replace trees, that the plan meets the standards for woodlands and groves in the sensitive areas ordinance and are consistent with the previously approved plan. In regards to the stream corridor, Walz explained that a regulated stream corridor extends in an east -west direction across the center of the proposed development. The stream corridor in this case is 30 feet wide. The buffer areas are illustrated on the sensitive areas development plan. The existing wetlands are mainly of a linear variety associated with the stream corridor, particularly in the area east of Verbena Drive. The development as proposed will impact 1.5 acres of wetland, some of which is within or adjacent to the stream corridor. The applicant is proposing to provide replacement wetlands in the area of the existing stream corridor east of Verbena Drive. A series of wetland cells will replace the existing stream corridor. The applicant has illustrated how this can be achieved with the mitigation area being proposed. In order to develop the property, the applicant is requesting to disturb 1.5 acres of wetland, which will require 2.26 acres of replacement wetlands according to the replacement ratios in the sensitive areas ordinance. For properties containing a wetland, a wetland mitigation plan is required as part of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The applicant submitted a wetland mitigation plan to the City and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007. The plan was reviewed by staff and a wetland specialist and was recommended for approval. The developer must verify that the plan has the current approval of the Army Corps prior to any development activity. Because it is unlikely that construction of the homes in this development will be completed within the typical 5 -year wetland monitoring period required by the Corps, the conditional zoning agreement requires that the wetlands be monitored for as long as home construction is occurring on lots that surround the wetlands with written reports submitted to the City after every site visit, rather than just yearly as proposed in the mitigation plan. This will allow a quick response to any damage to the new wetlands occurring due to ongoing construction activity. Also, prior to final platting of the property, the applicant must submit a maintenance plan prepared by a wetland specialist and approved by the City that estimates maintenance costs for the wetland areas and Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 7 of 16 private open space within Outlets A and B, and specifically details long-term maintenance responsibilities, and describes generally to who these responsibilities will be assigned. Walz shared that the plat includes of 115 residential lots clustered away from the sensitive areas on the site. The subdivision will consist of a mix of townhouse lots and detached single-family home lots. Staff finds that the proposed lot layout is acceptable. Townhouse units will be clustered along the south side of Whispering Meadows Drive and along Verbena Drive. Staff finds the placement of the various housing types within the development to be appropriate. The sensitive areas development plan shows the rear lanes behind the townhomes will be screen with rows of evergreen trees and landscaping. Walz explained that the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and the current subdivision regulations require, that "all streets, sidewalks, and trails, should connect to other streets, sidewalks, and trails with the development and to the property line for their extension to adjacent properties. However, the possibilities for street connections through the subject property are severely constrained by the extensive network of sensitive environmental features on the property. Both Indigo Drive and Blazing Circle Drive end in cul-de-sacs in order to limit impacts to the wetlands and woodlands on the site. Connections to adjacent development are limited due to the location of the Sycamore Greenway and the established street layout and development of residential lots in the neighborhood to the north. While street crossings of the Sycamore Greenway should be minimized, at the time of the rezoning of this property a collector street crossing was deemed necessary between Lakeside Drive and the future east -west arterial (McCollister Boulevard) proposed further south. The conditional zoning agreement requires the applicant to construct the extension of Whispering Meadows Drive across the Sycamore Greenway to connect up with Dickenson Lane in the General Quarters subdivision. Dickenson Lane connects into Sycamore Street. At the southeast comer of the plat, the extension of Blazing Star Drive will cross the corner of City - owned park property adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway. Allowing this street crossing location will benefit both the developer and the community; the developer will gain land for the development of 3 or 4 additional lots on the east side of Blazing Star Drive and the community will gain street access to a corner of City parkland. While connections to and through Sycamore Woods are less than ideal, opportunities to improve circulation and connectivity for neighborhoods to the south are possible and should be required with future plats in this area. With future extension of Blazing Star Drive to the east and Whispering Meadows to the south, a more grid -like pattern should emerge, connecting into the future extension of the McCollister Boulevard. This will bring better circulation within the area and provide better access to the many recreational amenities, schools, and commercial destinations in south Iowa City for what has been a somewhat isolated neighborhood. Walz explained that sidewalks are required along all streets within new subdivisions, including along all outlets. The plat indicates sidewalks along both sides of all streets in compliance with this requirement. This includes sidewalks along both sides on Verbena Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 8 of 16 In addition, the proposed plat indicates that an 8 -foot sidewalk will be constructed in Outlot C between lots 86 and 87. Said outlot will subsequently be dedicated to the City. The Parks Department has agreed to accept this outlot to satisfy a portion of the open space requirement for this development. The plat also shows a public access easement over the storm sewer drainage easement next to lot 61 along Indigo Drive. This easement will provide access for area residents along Indigo Drive and Thistle Court to the private open space in Outlot B. Walz showed on the plat the three mailbox clusters: one at the southwest corner of Verbena and Whispering Meadows Drive; one at adjacent to lot 58 searing 14 units on Indigo Drive; and another located in Outlot C serving 53 units. Parks and Recreation will not allow a mailbox cluster to be located in an outlot to be dedicated to the City (Outlot C will be dedicated). Staff therefore recommends that the mailbox cluster be moved to an area north of lot 115 or east of lot 101 along the private open space. Walz indicated that, if the Commission believed it appropriate, they could require some design treatment or landscaping around the mailbox clusters, which are large but are not located directly adjacent to any residential lot. Walz stated Staff recommends that SUB14-00021, a Sensitive Area Development Plan and preliminary plat for Sycamore Woods, an approximate 34.86 -acre, 115 -lot residential subdivision located west of Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, be approved, subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: • All townhome lots must meet the 3,000 square foot minimum of the RS -12 zone. Indicate lot width for lot 22. • Relocation of mailbox cluster from Outlot C. • Technical discrepancies as noted by the City Engineer Eastham asked Hektoen to explain what the role of the Commission is with regards to this item since it is not a rezoning application. Hektoen stated the Commission is to vote on the compliance to the sensitive areas ordinance and compliance with the subdivision code. Thomas asked Walz about the pedestrian connection at the south of the subdivision and requested it if could be aligned with Verbena Drive rather than the offset. Walz explained that it is lined up so that the sidewalk from Verbena Drive lines up with the trail connection on the other side of Blazing Star. Thomasshared a concern with lot 87 which is directly aligned with Verbena Drive and vehicle lights, etc. will point directly into the center of that lot. If the outlot was centered there, that would correct that issue. Eastham asked regarding compliance with the sensitive areas ordinance if those were new requirements or if they were from the original subdivision. Walz confirmed they were approved with the original subdivision request in 2007. Additionally the applicant will have to show they have approval of the Army Core of Engineers and other agencies for the changes that are proposed. Since it's been seven years since the original approval, it needs to be revisited to make sure those approvals are still valid. Eastham opened public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 9 of 16 Steve Gordon (605 Grandview Ct) with AM Management spoke representing the developer. He stated a lot of work was done several years ago putting this plan together with the sensitive features and connectivity. At that time was in the process of developing Whispering Meadows Parts 2 & 3 and then the housing market fell, so they did not continue onto final plat for this development. They are ready to proceed at this time. One of the changes in the new preliminary plat is the townhomes are larger to accommodate better construction as well as some of the angled lots on the cul-de-sacs did not have enough buildable space. That is why there is now a reduction in the total number of lots. Gordon did confirm they will move the mailbox cluster wherever the City recommends. He also discussed the sidewalk from Verbena Drive to the trail and stated it was aligned the way it is so a sidewalk will connect with a sidewalk, and not have the sidewalk from Verbena Drive align with a driveway. Martin asked if Gordon had designs for the mailbox clusters and he stated not at this point. Sharon Sorenson (26 Amber Lane) presented notice as read "we the residents bordering or near the above stated location would like to protest this proposal as it stands. We request no wooded area within 500 foot of existing homes be torn down. This wooded area that adjoins the City walking park should also remain undisturbed. These trees and wetland area are sensitive. By not destroying the trees, birds such as pheasants, duck, geese, owls and also deer could remain protected for everyone to enjoy." Sorenson presented the signed document to Waltz. Sorenson stated that she received the letter from the City on October 28, and were told in that letter to have any comments back to the City by Thursday, October 30, which was less than the seven days required. Additionally it was written that citizens had to have any comments notarized. Only the people bordering the area were allowed to sign. In 2007 Sorenson collected signatures from people who used the walking path because they will be impacted by the development. Sorenson said that the letter and Waltz stated to her this development was a "done deal" because it is not a rezoning it has already been accepted. Sorenson's main concern is the trees, between her home on Amber Lane and the first home on Regal Lane (14 properties) there will be 21 new properties built in the new development. And in that area, more than half of it is filled with trees. Sorenson stated along the walking path to the left there are trees that will also be cut down as part of this development. Whispering Meadows, the main street, will eventually connect with Dickenson Lane, but Dickenson is not a completed road yet, and that subdivision is owned by a different developer, so will all these new houses be built before that road is complete? That is a lot of traffic to dump out onto Lakeside Drive, and onto Sherman Avenue to get to Lakeside. If the road is to go through Sherman, that is currently a turnaround, so they will have to open up that road and it will create so much additional traffic through that area. Sorenson requested from City Staff a list of the names of the citizens that own homes that received the letter and was told verbally over 300 people were sent the letters. When insisted upon, a list was presented there were only 150 names and some were duplicates. Only 84 of the names on the list were residences the rest were owned by the City or companies that Sorenson was told were not allowed to sign neighborhood petitions. Sorenson explained her concern regarding being told this development was a "done deal" from Walz. And if this is not a rezoning (although the letter stated rezoning) how can it be stated to be a "done deal". This has to be approved by the Commission, and then approved by the City Council so it is not a "done deal" and should not be described as such. Sorenson closed her comments by stating again her concern about the removal of trees and the close proximity of the homes and concerns about all the traffic until the through streets can be constructed. Walz stated that she had not use the phrase "done deal", the zoning is completed so that is done, but informed all who inquired they had the right to come to the meeting to discuss the issue of the trees. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 10 of 16 Additionally Walz confirmed where the trees were being removed from, and indicated where there will continue to be trees along the Greenway. As far as the trees on the lots, the developer will determine if they need to remove all the trees on each lot to allow for building or if some can be maintained. She showed on the map the areas where trees must be maintained along the buffer. Sorenson questioned if there was a City requirement to keep trees along the City walkways and Walz replied that if the City is required to keep the trees on the City property they would, and regardless the developer will not be removing trees from the City property. The development property does not cross over the City walkway, thought he street does. Walz asked Hektoen for clarification that the City mails to every property owner within 300 feet of the development area and Hektoen confirmed that as well as people within 200 feet of the property can officially protest a rezoning. However, this development is not a rezoning so there is no right to file a formal protest that is limited to a rezoning application. Everyone in the community has the right to come to the Commission meeting and speak, however there is no formal protest or need for a super majority vote by the Council. Sorenson questioned if the rezoning expires after two years and Walz stated that it does not— the preliminary plat expires after two years, but rezoning does not expire as long as the new plat does not vary substantially from the OPD plan. The preliminary plat was renewed again in 2009 but then it expired in 2011, so now the developer is back before the Commission to renew the preliminary plat. Sorenson asked about the drainage of the wetland, in 2007 the developer said it would be behind the 21 houses and there would be a drainage ditch that would connect to the other side by Sherman, but in this plan that will now go under the roads and questioned how that will work. Walz stated she cannot speak to exactly how the drainage system will function, the applicant's engineer would have to speak to that, however there are storm sewers that do run from this area between Regal and Amber Lanes that will bring the water down and into the outlots. Melinda Ragona (32 Regal Lane) stated concern that the property had already been rezoned and property owners were just notified they don't have any say in the matter. She is passionately against the rezoning of Sycamore Woods to a medium density subdivision. Her backyard is at the edge of the wetland prairie on Regal Lane, as a mother of two young children and having lived in this home for five years, bought this home at this location was for the beauty of the area. As a stay at home mother of a 2 and 4 year olds living at this residence was affordable for their one income family. She feels it would be disastrous and environmentally unstable to build on this land and it should just be maintained as part of Whispering Meadows Wetlands and Park. Over the past few years, Mother Nature has demonstrated weather extremes in form of flooding and drought. During the torrential downpours of late Sycamore Woods turns into a water drainage system helping to deviate water from surrounding properties. It would be unstable ground to build upon and would perpetuate the flooding problems all properties are experiencing. Keeping this area in its natural form not only helps with the ever-increasing flooding the wetland serves as wildlife habitat to frogs, pheasants and deer. Ragona also shared concern about the density of housing proposed for rezoning, and if it would be more low- income units and help or hinder the FRL school problems. She noted that this side of town holds an unsavory stigma for low-income housing. She stated she has great neighbors and has never had any problems. Her daughter attends Grantwood Elementary for preschool and the teachers are wonderful. Ragona mentioned the ongoing school boundary discussions and how it is deluding the district diversity policy, and her concern is to have more low-income housing which will create an Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 11 of 16 even more unbalance in the schools. She noted that perhaps one could reinvest in the two vacant homes already on Regal Lane, they have been sitting vacant multiple years and no one is up keeping this property. Adding more properties to the area will affect the property values of existing homes in the area. Why oversaturate the market when there are two vacant homes on just one block. Why build on a natural wetland that everyone can appreciate and enjoy and is a natural habitat for wildlife and a detrimental environmental flood mitigation zone. She suggest the City incorporates Sycamore Woods officially into Whispering Lanes Wetland Park and reinvest in the dilapidated vacant properties on this side of town. Bob Barta (20 Amber Lane) read a portion of a letter he drafted to the City. He wrote to express his opposition to the proposed Sycamore Woods property development. He and his wife have been homeowners on Amber Lane for nearly 18 years, and close to the proposed development. When originally moved into this neighborhood from Coralville to escape the development and traffic associated with Coral Ridge Mall, one of the main factors that influenced their decision to buy a home at this location was the proximity to undeveloped areas immediately to the south and west. With the creation of the Sycamore Greenway Trail System, there was access on the trail to see wildlife, open fields and the tall grass prairie restorations. The landscape has been dramatically now changed with recent developments and open areas have been replaced with houses. Now with the proposed Sycamore Woods plan here is another development in the area. Barta stated his most pressing concern about the Sycamore Woods development is the destruction of a major portion of the woodland area in the northwest corner. The conservation easements shown on the plan map protect only part of the western portion and the southern portion, but none on the northern areas. Instead there would be new homes immediately adjacent to existing homes on the northern border and more homes along a portion of the Sycamore Greenway including another city street crossing. These affected western bordered woods have some of the largest trees, silver maple, which are some of the best trees in terms of snags to be seen. The tree size is similar to other silver maple trees in the surrounding neighborhoods, one cannot replace 45 year old trees with nursery stock trees in a suburban setting and expect similar environment benefits. Barta said his letter continues on to express his rationale explaining his objection to the plans and would just like to state his hope that the environmental considerations discussed will be given a fair review. Barta questioned Waltz regarding a conversation he had with the NRC person today he was sent a map of Iowa City showing an inventory of the national wetlands along the bike path and wanted to know how much the new development would affect that portion of the wetlands. Waltz could not say exactly how much it will impact the wetlands, the developer is required to mitigate anything that they impact. Walz showed on the map the area where the developer cannot disturb the wetlands and the barrier between the wetlands and the lots. She estimated the barrier would be 80-100 feet. Kyle Dieleman (77 Thistle Court) originally came to the meeting to address comments regarding the zoning, but understands now that is not the issue. He is however concerned about the environmental impacts as other folks have spoken about. He feels it is absurd to remove woodlands and add single trees in yards and state that is not a fair substitution. Dieleman stated his other, more major concern, is the connectivity issue. He drives on Whispering Meadow Drive every day and the sort of housing that is already there is, and he assumes will continue in this new development, are single car garage homes which lends itself heavily to on street parking. Whispering Meadows Drive already has cars on both sides of the road making it difficult as only one car can pass through. Additionally there are lot of children in this neighborhood and therefore traffic issues are very serious. Even extending Whispering Meadow Drive will not solve the issue, especially since the development is adding 115 new homes. The Indigo street cul-de-sac will add another 20 lots and there is no outlet for that. His concern is that the connectivity issues will not be resolved adequately. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 12 of 16 Lon Drake (rural Iowa City) designed the south Sycamore Greenway along with MMS Consultants and stated that in 1998 the City signed an agreement with the Core of Engineers to preserve the wooded area on the west end of this property and questioned if the City has now received a waiver or something that allows this development to now proceed. Walz stated that in 2007 the Army Core of Engineers had approved the development and rezoning. Drake stated the agreement signed in 1998 was an agreement for the watershed and specifically stated those trees would be saved. Walz stated she would submit the agreement Drake has to the City Engineers for their clarification. Drake read from the agreement "referring to that strip of maple trees "this eco system should be preserved and enhanced because it is serving a useful purpose for wildlife and human aesthetics. Enhancement will include planting of shade loving forest floor species like native ferns, common spring wild flowers." For the portion of the younger trees further in the back "the green space plan is to remove the majority of the silver maples preserving only the best in the very open spacing and then planting a more diverse mix of more desirable native tree species." Drake stated the City made a commitment to this area that should still be valid. Eastham stated the Staff will follow up on that agreement. Linda Moss (38 Amber Lane) explained that at the beginning of this conversation she thought it does have to have rezoning if it amends the OPD and questioned if that is correct. Walz stated that if the changes are substantive, change in uses, layout of streets, etc. then that would be correct, however in this situation there have been no substantive changes. Moss stated it was very confusing to receive a letter stating it was a rezoning, and Walz apologized again. Joe Snyder (26 Regal Lane) stated his main concern is with home values, he recently refinanced his home and to his dismay the current home value is now less than the original purchase value. That is understandable with the economic situations however he does believe this preliminary plat would adversely affect one of the main selling points of his home with 20 lots behind it, specifically three lots adjacent to his. Snyder said the subdivisions they live in are obviously early 70's, homes directly to the west are newer subdivisions and now with this development there will be a lot more newer homes in the area which causes concern on how it will affect his home's value especially with replacing views with homes. He also pointed out on the preliminary plat there are areas for outlots A, B, C with tree reduction in certain areas, with tree ridges preserved on the back side but no considerations for the area adjacent to the existing subdivisions. Snyder also echoed the earlier comments regarding traffic and understands Verbena is similar to Whispering Meadows that it is not a very wide street and doesn't believe adding this many homes with only one through street to Sycamore will alleviate traffic congestion. Lakeside Drive currently sees a lot of traffic and has traffic concerns around Grant Wood Elementary with students crossing. Tom Sorenson (26 Amber Lane) has a public notice from the Coreps of Engineers, Staff stated the Core of Engineers approved this preliminary plat and in the notice it does not state an approval of this subdivision. It is a lot of legal jargon, but nothing saying it's approved. Sorenson also questioned why this subdivision would be allowed to proceed without the access of the connection to Dickenson Lane completed first. It could be a one, five, or ten years before that is completed so all the traffic will go out through Lakeside which Staff has agreed is over utilized already. Secondly Staff pointed out on the map a creek running through the property, it is not a creek, it's a drainage ditch, and it drains off of Regal and Amber Lanes, and floods that whole area during horrendous rains. At times Amber Lane has two foot of water on it with only one drain on the street, which goes into that timber area. Also, why not move the houses away and leave the timber along the back of the current subdivisions. Then the street can cross directly over to Dickenson Lane as well without having to make a turn. That would Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 13 of 16 leave the majority of that timber in place. Sorenson reiterated that the notice from the Corps of Engineers does not state approval. Walz stated the subdivision has not been approved, the Corps approved the plan in 2007, but the developers do need to get approval again from the Corps of Engineers before the final plat can proceed. Hektoen confirmed that before the final plat can be approved the developers will need to demonstrate they have approval from the Corps of Engineers, it does not matter what was approved in the past, new approval will be needed. Sorenson asked Hektoen if it could be insisted that the street connection to Dickenson Lane be completed prior to building any homes in the subdivision. Hektoen stated there are secondary access standards in City code, however the developer has rights only over the land they own, and this developer will be required to build the street to the edge of the property. Wynn Johnson (2061 Sherman Drive) is not within the 300 feet of the development so did not receive notice, however heard about the meeting and wanted to share some concerns. Johnson understands the topic is the sensitive areas ordinance, streets and connectivity and that is his major concern. Adding a more densely populated area than the current subdivisions in the area. They say the lot sizes are comparable, but there are a lot of townhomes and even the single-family homes are much denser. While this is great for diversity, there is a need for diverse housing to attract a diverse population, however there needs to be the infrastructure in place. Need options for traffic for this level of density. Johnson understands that Dickenson Lane will eventually extend out to Sycamore Street, but that has not even yet been designed. Johnson recalled previous meetings discussing the plat for General Quarters and heard from Hall and Hall Engineering, there was a neighborhood meeting with Build to Suit who bought the land from Dolan Homes/Town & Country Development. In that short period of time neighbors were waiting for something to start and nothing happened, instead that land has been resold twice and a farmer has purchased it. Therefore the connectivity and infrastructure from the development to Dickenson Lane or Sherman Drive is undecided and with an unknown timeline. Johnson stated that currently it is difficult to even get a snowplow or garbage truck on Sherman Drive due to vehicles being parked on both sides of the street. He concluded that concerns about streets standards, locations, connectivity needs to be addressed. Johnson asked Walz for confirmation on the cul-de-sac on Sherman Drive will always remain a cul-de-sac. Hektoen stated that cannot be promised for all time. Alan Jones (34 Regal Lane) shared his unhappiness with the late notice, not receiving the letter from the City until Friday, but understands that is now moot because this is not a rezoning. He noted the maps provided, both with the letter and online, are difficult to read. Jones pointed out the easement that runs behind his property is not shown on the map as going all the way to the street as it should. His home at 34 Regal Lane is adjacent to the storm drain which then runs under his property. He questioned if there were any other underground lines that connect to that drain. Walz pointed out the two connections and Jones questioned how much volume that one drain has to collect because he feels it's insufficient as the area floods during heavy rains. Additionally the back yard is a sea of water and that will affect the new development area. He stated the City is supposed to dredge out the drainage ditch periodically but it has not been done. He shared that three houses up Regal Lane there is another easement where another sewer line could be put in to alleviate the neighborhood flooding. This new sewer drainage should be installed before the new development is approved, or be part of the development plan. Jones also stated that the street is broken above the sewer line and snowplows make an awful racket when they hit that spot of the street. In closing he stated the area should be maintained as wildlife area with desirable trees planted similar to a Hickory Hill Park. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 14 of 16 Tammy Smith (30 Regal Lane) disagrees with the letter that was sent regarding the rezoning, received the letter on Friday, October 31, which did not allow for even a full week to prepare, she began right away soliciting the notarized signatures and was not aware that the rezoning was not happening and feels that is unfair to the homeowners. Additionally there has been seven years since the zoning was approved and there has been a lot of development in the area in that time and new homeowners who don't have a voice. Her purpose tonight is to stress the need to save the woods, the wildlife there, and all of that will be destroyed. Additionally she disagrees with the high density housing directly behind her house and it will decrease her property value. The backyards do have significant flooding issues as well. Smith has collected letters and notarized signatures from the neighbors and pointed out that the turnout at tonight's meeting shows the community interest in this project. Adam Yack (3 Thistle Court) is concerned about Whispering Prairie Drive and the width of the road. Currently Whispering Prairie allows for parking on both sides of the street and that congests traffic flow. Eastham closed public hearing. Theobald stated that in light of the information shared at tonight's meeting, as well as the question regarding the 1998 agreement with the Army Core of Engineers, moved to defer this application to the November 20th meeting. Thomas seconded the motion. Swygard stated the deferral will give the Commission time to review all the materials submitted this evening. Thomas stated that perhaps some of the issues related to the flooding in the adjacent streets, and the connectivity issue of when the street will be built can be addressed by Staff as well. Eastham said he did not hear from the earlier Staff report any concern about the amount of traffic this development will add to the area, but if that is a concern it should be addressed. He believed the Commission had heard about the adjacent street flooding issues before so requested Staff comment if the new development will exasperate or not affect those issues. Walz will discuss the flood and traffic issues with the City Engineer and asked that the developer also bring their engineer to the next meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 16, 2014 Dyer moved to defer the approval of the meeting minutes as they were not included in the packets sent to the Commission. Swygard seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 15 of 16 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Eastham proposed a discussion in subsequent meetings regarding the public input process and questions on the format of long range planning meetings. Hektoen stated Staff can provide the Commission with materials on how they go about notifying citizens of meetings. Eastham stated he is not particularly concerned about notices but rather how the meeting itself is structured. Howard asked for clarification that the Commission is interested in discussing in general how long range planning and public outreach meetings are conducted. Charlie agreed that that is what is he requesting. Thomas questioned the planning meeting on the near -east side and how people were notified of the meeting, believes it was not on the City's calendar on the website. He thought that probably there was not a very high turn -out for the meeting. Howard stated there were over 80 people at the meeting. Hektoen stated standard protocol was followed on the notification of that meeting. The Commission agreed that this should be discussed at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn the meeting. Dyer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. z O to p OV 0 LU ? V r O Q N Np °6w c� F - z za Z J CL z p w w J oc O LL �xx0xxxx XXXXXxx T N x x x x x x x oXXxxxxx T oXxxxxx0 T oo ; xxxxxxx 0) co ccwtiLoWLo 04XXXXXXD NXXXXXXX co coXXxXXOX LU_ JwZ JLu ti ;XXXXXXX �=z0a�= co r - a= CD �XxOXXxx U ao Q Y Z Q m a U)xXXXXXX -ui Q O2 �xxxxxxx w�= ;xxxxxxx Re XXxXXXO 0 M x x x x O x x �wc�coaor��ao�n wa0LOM00U)0 �X0000000 w w wJ0 z }QZWa0Z J2Qz0CL on a�C6 �=�zama 4Ci � iaWa xx a w w 2 0 P P CD w LU 0 Z � XXXXXxx O" N x x x x x x x N NXxxxxxx coxxx0xxx T C4XxxxxXX fn 2w co ccwtiLoWLo �X0000000 LU LU_ JwZ JLu �=z0a�= co a= U ao Q Y Z Q m a .� -ui Q O2 zaWLL w�=