The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-03-09 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission January 15, 2015 4b(1) Page 1 — MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2015 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: David Davis, Minnetta Gardinier, A. Jacob Odgaard, Chris Ogren Members Absent: Jose Assouline Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Eric Goers Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Melissa Underwood RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Ogren called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ogren asked if everyone had had a chance to review the minutes. Odgaard moved to accept the minutes of the December 15, 2014, meeting as presented. Ogren seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Assouline absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Airport Commerce Park — Tharp stated that the two land sales are progressing. One is due to close by the end of this month, and the other has asked for a 30 -day extension. b. Airport Master Plan — Melissa Underwood gave Members a quick update. She stated that today she sent everyone the draft document of chapters 1 through 3. These sections have also received the FAA's comments. The next meeting will be the first week of February, where the first public open house will be planned, and hopefully held mid- to late -February. Underwood asked that Members send her emails if they have questions or comments they would like to share. Tharp noted that they will get the word out through every means possible so that the public is well aware of the open houses they plan to hold. Ogren suggested they have a Member or two present at these open houses. Gardinier asked if the number of commercial respondents is too low for the survey. Underwood stated that typically they see a 10 to 12% response and she thinks Airport Commission January 15, 2015 Page 2 the response here is good. The conversation turned to the upcoming open house and how it will be laid out. Members also discussed the various departments at the University and what their uses are, or could be, at the Airport. Gardinier suggested they get feedback from these users as well. C. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM (David Hughes) — i. FYI Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that they have been working with the FAA the last few months as to the scoping on the basic EA for the environmental assessment. Ogren asked for some clarification on the 'part 77 surface' noted in the report. Hughes responded, stating that it is the approach surfaces to the Airport and is defined by a federal regulation. Basically it is the `imaginary surfaces off the end of the runway,' according to Hughes. Hughes continued to explain this item and responded to Members' questions. Tharp stated that there will be more discussion regarding the obstructions once they get to that part of the process. The issue of landings and approaches at the Airport was also discussed at some length, with Gardinier recommending that they post clearly what is expected of pilots at this time due to the obstructions they are dealing with. Gardinier asked if they could approach the FAA with the issue of nighttime approaches, which impacts traffic at the Airport, and try to get things moved along faster. Hughes and Tharp both noted that once the environmental assessment is done, they can do just this. Tharp further detailed for Members how they will handle the obstructions on private property and how things have typically been handled in the past. 1. Consider a resolution approving contract with AECOM — Gardinier moved to consider Resolution #A15-01, approving contract with AECOM. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Assouline absent. ii. Runway 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Hughes stated that since the December meeting they have received the necessary paperwork from Metro Pavers. Gardinier asked if there will be checking of the pavement on a regular basis. Tharp stated that he will put a formal plan in place, and that he himself has been out there at least every other month taking a look around. Gardinier asked that they make this something formal. Gardinier asked how long the maintenance bond is for. Hughes and Tharp both thought it was a 10 -year period. Tharp stated that he will find the exact wording for Gardinier, however, before the next meeting. She asked that they summarize this at the next meeting and include this information. 1. Consider a resolution accepting work as complete — Ogren moved to consider Resolution #A15-02, accepting work as complete. Gardinier seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Assouline absent. iii. Taxiway B lighting — Hughes stated that the contractor has ordered some parts for this and once they arrive, this project will be ready for completion, as well. Airport Commission January 15, 2015 Page 3 Gardinier asked if there wasn't a project they were going to be working up bids for, something early in the spring. Hughes stated that early on in the spring they have some state projects, and he briefly described those. d. Airport Operations — i. Strategic Plan- Implementation — 1. Review of Strategic Plan — Tharp began a review of the strategic plan, noting that it is a five-year plan that basically takes the Master Plan, and some of the things that have happened with the Airport before, and creates a more 'digestible chunk of goals and objectives.' He noted that this plan was put together with the help of Jeff Davidson with the Economic Development office at the City. Tharp gave Members a brief history of the plan and how they got to this point. In relation to the first goal of communication with City Hall and the Council, Members spent some time on the topic of having Council Members visit the Airport. Tharp explained that they do invite the Council to various events and make an effort to get them out to the Airport. The second goal of looking at funding and developing adequate funding for the Airport was discussed next. Tharp stated that he often shares this information, that when he first arrived at the Airport the debt was around $3.5 million, and the operating levy was about $170,000, with an operating budget of about $400,000. This past budget cycle, Tharp noted that the operating levy was $29,000, debt is $600,000 before the pending land sale purchase agreements, and the operating budget is still around $400,000. So in terms of about a decade, Tharp noted, operating budget and expenses have been streamlined and have remained flat for 10 years. During this time they have been able to put money back into the buildings with new flooring and new restrooms in the Terminal, and improved maintenance in some of the buildings. Increasing use of the Airport for aviation and other community uses — Tharp noted that one of the big things the Airport did from the last Master Plan was to increase part of the length of the runway, giving better take -off distances. This Master Plan is working on landing distances and trying to reclaim some of that area. The jet fuel 24-hour system was installed, thus eliminating the overnight phone calls, according to Tharp. Continuing, Tharp noted that the Airport still offers use of the conference room to the public. Odgaard asked if the public is aware of this, and Tharp noted that it is on the Library's web site as an alternate site. He added that they have not done any overt marketing of it though. Increasing usefulness of the Airport for economic development — Tharp noted that this addresses things like building hangars, building facilities that people will use. He noted that they have hosted such groups as the Chamber of Commerce with a luncheon. Members also spoke to having a flight tracker screen Airport Commission January 15, 2015 Page 4 put up in the Terminal building. Tharp then spoke to the idea of marketing 'hangar lots' at the Airport, and having a hangar model designed beforehand that they would work from. Upgrading taxiways, runways, Airport infrastructure — Tharp stated that they are working with the state in their pavement condition index program. This occurs every three years and was last done in 2011. Tharp stated that they are working with both the state and the FAA on grant opportunities as they become available. He also noted the HVAC system upgrades, and budgeting for hangar maintenance. Lighting has been increased on the airfield, and there is now 24-hour access to the Terminal building. Odgaard asked how pilots would know this, and Wolford and Tharp responded. This led to a discussion about noise abatement, as well, and how to get this information out to the flying community. Lastly, Tharp covered 'curb appeal, looks of the Airport,' noting that at one time a viewing area was being developed, and a shelter and sidewalk were installed. He stated that he occasionally does see people using the space. Members briefly discussed some of the plans that had been discussed in previous years, such as adding some educational pieces to the viewing area. Odgaard suggested they collaborate with the City's Parks and Recreation department to make the entire area an attractive recreational area. Tharp stated that he will check with Jeff Davidson to see if he can walk the Airport Commission through this process again. He will try to get something set up over the next few months. Gardinier asked Underwood how the strategic plan plays into the Master Plan at this point. She asked if it would be better to have them further along with the Master Plan before they embark on another five-year strategic plan. Underwood responded that actually it would be best to have them both in draft form together, as they can then play off each other. She noted the difference between a strategic plan and a master plan, in terms of the FAA. Gardinier asked how far behind they are in updating the strategic plan, noting that the minutes at the end of the plan are dated December 2009. Tharp noted that they are somewhat behind, but that the plan is referring to fiscal years, not calendar years. Budget - 1. Annual Report — Tharp noted that he did do the budget presentation for the Council recently. He talked about what is happening at the Airport, and he noted that the Council was happy to hear about the land sales in the commerce park and the lowering of the Airport's debt. He noted that there are no anticipated changes to the budget from what was presented. Tharp stated that a draft of the Annual Report was ready for Airport Commission January 15, 2015 Page 5 review. He asked members to review the report for comments by February 12tH iii. Management — Tharp stated that his annual evaluation is due next month. He will need to meet with the Chair to begin this process. e. FBO/Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air — Wolford addressed the Commission next. He shared the monthly reports with Members, noting some of the highlights. One of the bigger projects has been replacing light bulbs in various buildings and hangars. January brought snow removal, with drifting becoming a problem at times. Wolford noted that fuel prices continue to drop. He stated that Jet Air is now an official '145 repair station.' Flight training is up and going well already, according to Wolford. f. Commission Members' Reports — Odgaard asked about the lock issue on the gates, and Tharp noted that he did follow up with the fencing contractor, but has not yet heard back. He also asked about the door to the Terminal building, and Tharp noted that this has been fixed. Gardinier stated that she hasn't flown since November, but hopes to fly this coming Sunday. She also spoke to an email received regarding the Girl Scouts. She stated that she would like to do something to participate in the World Aviation Day for Girls event. Tharp stated that he can respond to this email to let them know of their interest to participate. Gardinier further explained what typically takes place on this particular day at participating airports. Ogren noted the Children's Museum's interest, as well. g. Staff Report — Ogren asked about the status of the new blinds. Tharp stated that he needs to follow up on this, but that it will be happening soon. Another project is a partnership the City has with the University, the Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities. As part of this, the Airport will be part of the class study, and Odgaard is one of the mentors in this project. Tharp further explained how the goal will be to look at the flood mitigation for the south area, and come up with a newer, revised concept plan for this area. Odgaard stated that he will probably bring about five students to the Airport for Tharp to give them an update on where things are and what they are looking at doing. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: Tharp will make sure that there is going to be a quorum for this meeting. If so, the next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, February 19, 2015, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building. ADJOURN: Odgaard made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 P.M. Ogren seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Davis and Assouline absent. Airport Commission January 15, 2015 Page 6 CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission January 15, 2015 Page 7 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014-2015 Key. X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM 0 0 0 0 0 � � 0 Cn 0) v CD CO O -� N NAME EXP. ao rn o cin CA 4h. � 4& � cn Minnetta Gardinier 03/01/19 X O/E X X X O/E X X X Jose Assouline 03/01/16 X X X X X O/E X X O/E Chris Ogren 03/01/18 X X X X X X X X X A. Jacob Odgaard 03/01/17 NM NM X X X X O/E X X David Davis 03/01/17 NM NM NM O/E X X O/E X X Key. X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time 03-09-15 Charter Review Commission 4b(2) February 10, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2015 — 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, 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, Marian Karr 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 01/27/15 — Chappell asked if there were any proposed changes to the minutes. Kubby stated that on page 4, at the bottom, it says 'Chappell explained how the initial number was set.' Kubby stated that she reads this that the original 2,500 was based on the census, which isn't really quite right. It was instead a methodology that was agreed to. She believes they should acknowledge somewhere in the minutes that methodology. Karr suggested `proposal' instead of 'initial' number. Kubby agreed to this wording. Kubby moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. b. Correspondence from: Jo Dickens REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: Kubby stated that she contacted Caroline Dieterle regarding an editorial in the Press -Citizen co- authored by Carol deProsse) concerning `qualified' versus `elector" signatures on initiative and referendum petitions; stating she felt it was a disservice to say it was a 'split vote' without saying anything further about it and it was self-serving of them to do this. REVIEW CHARTER: 1. Language for Changing Qualified to Eligible for Initiative and Referendum * Proposal from Chappell (X2) — Chappell noted that he wanted to explain two examples that they could use to adjust `qualified' to 'eligible.' The first example keeps all the descriptive system that they currently have. Chappell asked if this will be confusing, as it will look like the City Clerk is doing a lot more than she is really doing. He added that the group has not specifically discussed whether they wanted to keep `qualified' for people who sign the initial affidavit, who initiate the change to begin with. Discussion centered on this issue, with Chappell asking if the group believes the Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 2 `petitioner' should be 'qualified.' Sullivan stated that he would be supportive of 'eligible' but that he believes there is a stronger case to be made that this should be `qualified.' Chappell asked Schantz what his view are on this issue. Schantz stated that he does not feel strongly either way. Vanderhoef responded that she would be supportive of 'qualified,' as did most of the rest of the Commission. Kubby stated that she would say `eligible' for consistency in the process. Vanderhoef moved that it is required of the petitioner in 7.02A to be a `qualified' elector. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2, Kubby and Sullivan in the negative. Chappell then spoke to Section 7.03A and how the 3,600 number was reached, and secondly, how to adjust it. Wording to this effect is: "Signatures of eligible electors shall be no fewer than the number equaling 5.33% of the population of the City of Iowa City as determined by the most recent U.S. Census, rounded to the nearest hundred." He added that they can also have an example of this in the wording. Kubby stated that she does not believe the Charter is the place for an example, but that the Citizen's Guide would be a perfect place for this. Chappell asked if the group is okay with leaving the example out, and putting it in the Citizen's Guide instead. Craig stated that she agrees with Kubby, that having the example here is an important extra step in explaining the process. She then asked for some clarification on Chappell's versions, noting that in the first version it says 'no supplementary petition will be permitted,' and in the simplified version it is not addressed. She asked if there is a supplementary petition or not. Members continued to discuss this issue, noting that with the change from 'qualified' to 'eligible,' the supplementary petition will not be needed. Dilkes noted that the City Clerk will basically be making sure there are the required number of signatures with Iowa City addresses, nothing more, if the change is adopted. The previously required supplemental documentation would no longer be needed. Dilkes further clarified the Clerk's handling of this process and responded to Member questions regarding how the change would look. Karr noted that the process will be more front-end, one-on-one, than it is currently. Speaking to timelines, Dilkes pointed Members to Section 7.056 in the simple version. She noted how the time periods have shortened with the proposed changes put in place. Vanderhoef questioned how much time the Clerk has to do her portion once it's submitted, and Karr stated that the impression she got was it would be done ASAP, while the person is waiting, if possible. Dilkes stated that she included five days in the latest draft version, but that she could take this out. The conversation continued on this specific timeframe, and how the clock is ticking once a petitioner comes to the Clerk's office. Kubby asked what if someone just leaves their petitions and does not wait, and the Clerk's office is backlogged. Dilkes noted that the five-day timeframe is not on the front-end of the process. Members continued to discuss this issue, and whether to have the `five-day' time period inhere or not. Kubby then spoke to 7.04A in the simplified version. The second to last sentence , she believes, may cause some confusion: 'If it lacks the required number of signatures, it shall be considered invalid.' She stated that this may be legally true but that when the public reads this, it may appear that none of the signatures are valid any longer. She suggested they use 'insufficient' or some other word to show that the signatures collected are valid, but that more of them are needed. Dilkes attempted to clarify the use of `valid' in 7.04A. Chappell asked Members which version they prefer, and Sullivan stated that he prefers the simplified version. He believes that leaving the language of the old process in is not really conducive to helping the public understand. Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 3 Craig stated that she had some questions about the Objections Committee that is in the simplified version only. Chappell stated that it is called a 'committee' but that it is really in response to the State code saying that you have to have a way to deal with ejections. He further explained how this is covered in the State code and who would serve on this `committee,' should it be needed. Members agreed that the simplified version, minus the example, would be preferable to them. Chappell asked if there was a motion to adopt what has been labeled 'simplified system' for the changes to 'qualified' to 'eligible,' which would specifically be a document in the packet, while changing 7.02A and B back to `qualified,' and removing the example from this section. Atkins moved to adopt the simplified system and noted changes above. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Kubby noted that even though she does disagree with the 'qualified' in 7.02, she still agrees with the motion overall. Sullivan stated that he supports the motion due to the work put into it, but that he does not support the 5.33 % issue. 3. Use of word "citizen" in Citizen's Police Review Board — Chappell stated that he wanted to skip ahead to the third issue to make sure they cover it. Karr noted that the CPRB does meet this evening. Chappell then spoke to the issue, giving some background on where they are currently with this. Given that the group has agreed to remove the word 'citizen' from the Charter, the question now is whether it makes sense to remove the word 'citizen' in this section as well. Chappell noted that this is the one commission actually identified in the Charter. Another name suggested was 'Community Police Review Board' in place of 'Citizen.' Moyers -Stone asked for some clarification of the history of the CPRB and its name change in the past. Dilkes noted that if the name is changed in the Charter, staff will then have it changed in the ordinance and all other documents, thus changing the official name. Chappell asked if there was a motion and a second to change the name of the existing Citizens Police Review Board to Community Police Review Board. Sullivan moved to adopt the proposed name change to `Community Police Review Board.' Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Karr stated that she would report this to the CPRB that evening. Kubby stated that the word `community' is really more open as to who can file a complaint, compared to `citizen,' which is the most restrictive of any of the terms. Kubby asked for further clarification on some of the other sections in this part, such as Section 5.02 Appointment and Removal, and the reference to 30 days' notice of vacancies. Karr clarified that the 30 days is for the initial appointment, and a shorter time is used for re - advertising. 2. Mayoral duties — Chappell then moved to the mayoral duties topic, noting that this is under 2.06B. Current duties are to be a voting member of the council, the official representative of the City, the presiding officer of the council, and its policy spokesperson. He noted that previously they had discussed adding language about having the ability to set the agenda. As to the agenda issue, Schantz noted that he used wording to the effect of 'in consultation with the city manager.' Atkins spoke to the agenda setting process, noting that it is traditionally a responsibility of the mayor and that this will confirm that. Chappell stated that this is true, that by changing the language of the Charter, they are not changing how the practice is handled. Vanderhoef spoke to how this practice could slow things down, noting examples of how this could happen if the mayor has to sign off on each agenda. She noted that the informal method they use now works very well, and that the mayor is involved in the process already. She Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 4 questioned making this a 'formal' process. Chappell noted that this is a good point. Kubby stated that the mayor knows they have to be available for this, and that it does not have to be officially 'signed off' on, that a phone call, for example, saying that something needs to be amended on the agenda should be good enough. She believes this outlines who prevails should there be a disagreement about what's on the agenda. Members continued to discuss the agenda -setting process, with Kubby stating that since they have decided to not change the way the mayor is selected, some of these tussle issues have been reduced. Dilkes then spoke to what she sees as a potential problem should they use the wording, `Mayor shall set the agenda for the City Council.' They currently have a practice where if three members of the council want an item on the agenda, it goes on. If the mayor says, `I don't care. I set the agenda, per the City Charter,' he has a pretty strong case in his favor. Sullivan asked if they should add language to the Charter about having three council members being able to put something on the agenda. Chappell stated that his concern is mucking up something that already works. He believes if they are going to find language to put in here that it needs to not do this. The current system appears to be working, and he spoke briefly to how changing this may not be what they are seeking here. Others agreed that the current system does appear to be working and they questioned why they would change it. Chappell spoke to having the wording such that the mayor has the ability to `add items' to the agenda, but not to take them off — still using the current system for the most part. Vanderhoef spoke to whether this is referring to the formal meeting only, or also to the work session agenda. Kubby noted that it does not specify, so therefore should cover both agendas. Chappell agreed that this would cover both agendas. The language being proposed then is, `The mayor may add items to the city council agenda.' Kubby moved to adopt the proposed change as stated above. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Kubby asked if there was any interest in discussing a 'term limit' for the selected mayor. She stated that she is not generally in favor of term limits, but that this was something that had some up earlier in their conversations. Vanderhoef stated that she would entertain this issue, but there was no further interest. 4. Other parts of the Charter as time allows - None PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF RED -LINE VERSION: Chappell noted that he had one question regarding this version, on page 7, the language on 4.02A. He noted that the language that Karr and Dilkes got from the commission's conversation was to keep the first sentence the same, add 'termination pay shall be as determined by contract,' and delete the existing second sentence. His notes, on the other hand, show that the sentence would read, 'A city manager removed by the Council is entitled to receive termination pay as provided by contract.' He added that they are not materially different, but that he wanted to see what others recall. Dilkes stated that she prefers Chappell's version as it is clearer and others agreed. Chappell then spoke to whether or not they need to keep their Friday meeting (2/13). He added that they are very close to having the document ready to go for the public forum on the 24th Kubby stated that she has a proposal regarding transparency in the mayor selection. Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 5 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: a. Language regarding selection of mayor * Proposal from Kubby She provided three options for Members to review, noting that the idea is to have this process be very transparent. Sullivan stated that he prefers the third selection himself, but that this should have been introduced at one of the earlier forums. He would have liked to have gotten more community input on this issue. Atkins stated that he likes the word transparency, but that it has somewhat of a governmental buzzword feel to it. Members continued to discuss what the concern is here and whether there should be a public process, including input, on what qualities the mayor should have, for example. Chappell gave some examples of what this might look like. Shaw stated that he would like to think about this issue some more and not just dispose of it as not being relevant at this point in the process. Moyers -Stone stated that she appreciates Kubby's work and optimism, and she spoke to Kubby's proposed language here. Schantz stated that he agrees there is no in-between point of council selection and direct election. Chappell noted the late hour of the meeting and their need to wrap things up. He asked how much interest there was from Members to meet on Friday and continue the discussion on transparency in selection of the mayor. Shaw, Kubby, and Atkins were the only three wanting to have this conversation. Therefore, the meeting of Friday, February 13, 2015, was cancelled. Sullivan moved to preliminarily approve the current red -lined version, with a draft watermark on it. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM (tentatively set): * Harvat Hall — February 24 (6:30 P.M.) TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): February 13 — meeting cancelled February 24 February 24 — 6:30 P.M. Public Forum March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried 9-0. Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 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 o j A �Jt t7� M M V co co W W W o o j NAME EXP. oo w -4 o : N N CD m w o co o cr .p, ,{a ,A -N -N -N N 4h A A A 4/1/15 X X O/ X 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 X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X 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 X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X 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 X Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X 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 X Vanderhoef E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission February 10, 2015 Page 7 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 2014/2015 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM s o 0 0 0 0 Nic 0 w w w NAME EXP. O W N w O rn O -4 w N -4 -L� o N e O w j o N 4b. 46 Cn 0 o cn 0 o cn 0 0 411/15 X X X X X X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X O/ X X X Schantz E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X O/ X X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X O X X Vanderhoef Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 00) Morning meeting _ Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2015 — 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins (via phone), Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr 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 0211 011 5 — Chappell asked if there were any proposed changes to the minutes. Kubby stated she had spoken only to Caroline Dieterle, and not Carol deProsse, regarding their editorial and asked that page 1 of the minutes be corrected to reflect that. Craig questioned if the second full paragraph on page 2 should read 3,600 signatures and not 2,500. City Atty. Dilkes stated that she used the 2,500 as an example. Vanderhoef suggested the number be deleted and replaced with "required." Majority agreed with both changes. b. Correspondence from: 1) Margaret and Charles Felling; 2) Martha Hampel Shaw moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Kubby seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. Chappell noted correspondence from Margaret and Charles Felling and Martha Hampel. Kubby responded to questions regarding the Hampel letter requesting reconsideration of the decision to base the increase in initiative and referendum petition signatures on population growth. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. REVIEW OF RED -LINE VERSION CHARTER: Members then began to review the red -line version of the Charter. On page 17, Section 7.05 — Action on Petitions, Craig noted that in the second sentence says, "If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure, and fails to adopt a measure which is similar in substance within 60 days." She asked if this shouldn't be an 'or' instead of an 'and' here. Dilkes noted that this wording has been this way for as long as she can remember, and Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Morning meeting Page 2 she questions making such a change. She added that use of the word 'fails' makes this an `and' situation. Next Craig asked about page 18, Section 7.07. She suggested they consider changing the title of this section as it is no longer a Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions, but instead it should be `Different' Conditions or something similar. Members discussed this briefly, agreeing that the removal of `Stricter' works instead. Kubby noted that there was a guest opinion today in the Press -Citizen and that one of the things it referred to was the removal of the first sentence of the Preamble — "That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the responsibility for it." She added that she needs to think about this and how it could be incorporated into the newly suggested Preamble. Members started to discuss this, with Vanderhoef asking if they haven't captured most of this in the first red -line version. Kubby again stated that she would like to think about this suggested change before making a decision. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: Chappell noted that he truly wants this to be the Commission's report, which he wants to hear corrections and suggestions and any other comments Members may have. Craig stated that she thought it was very well written and that Chappell should take pride in his work. Vanderhoef agreed, stating that she thought it well represented what they have been talking about. Sullivan agreed. Craig noted that she only had one thing — that her name was misspelled in the report. Shaw asked if his middle initial could be added, as there are several Melvin Shaws living in Iowa City. He asked that it be shown as Melvin O. Shaw. Sullivan asked that his middle initial, without the period — B — be added, as well. Kubby suggested that on page 4, under `Selection of the Mayor,' that they remove the word `some' in the fifth line, where it says, '...that the City Council spend some time studying this issue. Then on page 5, # 3, Kubby spoke to the last point about if a district member was elected by and representing only a third of the city that that would be weird if they became mayor. She added that if they had gone with true districts, they would have most likely said that the selected mayor had to be an at -large council member — that she would have promoted this. Chappell asked if Kubby is suggesting they delete the sentence here or if she wants to add a reference here. Discussion continued, with Chappell asking Members if they are comfortable leaving this sentence — the last sentence in paragraph # 3 on page 5. Moyers -Stone stated that she is okay with deleting it, as she believes they captured this in the 'Selection of the Mayor' section. Chappell asked Atkins if he is okay with this and he stated he was. Shaw also agreed to this change. Dilkes reported she sent an email to Chappell, regarding a correction on page 3, second paragraph, eighth line up from the bottom — related to petitions authorized by the City code. She stated that this comes from the State code, and therefore it can be worded such that this is 'by the State code,' removing the reference to `City.' Sullivan stated that he really appreciates the issues that they decided not to take up and that there is clear rationale for why they did this in the report, and believes they are given some voice in the report. The conversation then turned to how the Commission wants these latest changes shown in the next draft version. A majority requested the next draft show the redlined changes. Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Morning meeting Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM: *Harvat Hall — February 24 (6:30 P.M.) Kubby stated that she does not see this meeting as a back -and -forth, but that some clarifications may need to be made. Karr stated that red -line versions will be available for the public, as well as the agenda. Sullivan asked the meeting schedule be available agenda, and Karr stated that they can announce the meeting schedule as well. Chappell asked if he should make any further remarks, and Kubby stated that basically they should say that what is available is the latest red -line version and then explain changes made at today's meeting, and that they are there to hear feedback on this version. They can then make a remark as to the meeting schedule and changes made. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (All meetings are 7:45 AM in the Hellinq Conference Room: February 24 — 6:30 P.M. Public Forum March 3 — Chappell noted that they can discuss the red -line version at this meeting and see if there are any final changes after hearing from the public at the February 24 forum. Karr noted that Craig will not be at this meeting. March 10 — Vanderhoef stated that she will not be at this meeting. Karr asked if the group would like to set a different meeting date, and Kubby suggested skipping the 10th and having the March 24 meeting as ever rone will be present. After a brief discussion, Members agreed to change the March 10t meeting to March 9th. Chappell stated that at the meeting on March 9 they will plan to vote on both the red -line version and the final report. March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Page 4 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 :It M .4 co co m cc cc o o NAME EXP. O W j w N -4 o N N N cM O m N w W o N 00 o N cn 4/1/15 X X O/ X 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 X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X 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 X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X 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 X Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X 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 X Vanderhoef E Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Page 5 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 2014/2015 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NAME EXP. O co N w O o O -4 w N ti o N O w O cc N � A Cn Cn Cn Cn C" Cn Cn Cn Cil 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X O/ X X X Schantz E O/E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X O/ X X X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X O X X X Vanderhoef Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 1 4b(4) MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — COMMUNITY FORUM FEBRUARY 24, 2015 — 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL, HARVAT HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers - Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Steve Atkins, Mark Schantz Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIR: Chappell called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. He welcomed everyone to the Charter Review Commission's third community forum. Chappell gave some brief opening remarks, noting that the Commission has met in excess of 24 times and he thanked those from the public who have attended some of these meetings. He noted that at this point the Commission's recommendations are shown in the red -lined version of the Charter. Chappell noted the `Upcoming Meeting Schedule' portion of the agenda did not include their next meeting will be March 3rd at 7:45 A.M., where the Members will review tonight's discussion as they continue to wrap things up. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chappell then asked Members to introduce themselves. DISCUSSION OF RED LINED VERSION CHARTER AND OPEN DISCUSSION OF CHARTER: Chappell asked that speakers state their name for the record and to limit comments to five minutes or less. Karr noted that there is a sign -in sheet at the podium. Tom Carsner, 1627 College Ct. PI., stated that he began this process with the thought that the biggest problem that the Charter Review Commission can address is the sense of citizens feeling left out of participation in City government. He added that this is very evident when you look at voting numbers in elections. There is a lack of participation in the system because people do not feel their voice is being heard, or if they do raise their voice, that it doesn't matter and isn't being listened to or processed. Carsner stated that he does not believe the red -lined version meets much of this issue. He added that he would advocate for a strong, elected mayor/council form of government. Moving on, Carsner commended the Commission for their choice of reverting back to 'eligible' electors being able to sign initiative and referendum petitions, but at the same time he does not like seeing the required number of signatures raised. He encouraged Members to reconsider this issue. Carsner then addressed the issue of direct district elections. He encouraged Members to consider allowing only the voters in a said district to vote and elect, both in the primary and in the general, three members of the council. He added that he believes the best part of this is that it raises issues that are important to people in Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 2 different areas of the city, directly to the council level, without being taken through the filter of the city manager's office or a committee. Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., asked for an explanation of the absence of two of the Commission Members. Chappell responded that those two Members are presently out of state and unable to attend. Dieterle responded that these two Members must have thought it was okay to be out of state at the time of this most important forum. She then spoke to the red -lined version of the Charter, noting that the current Preamble contains the following: "We the people of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Iowa and the principle of self-determination do hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon it the full Home Rule powers of a Charter City. By this action we adopt the following principles, and it's point three, the conduct of City business and conformity with due process, equal protection under the laws, and those liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States, the State of Iowa, and local ordinances." Continuing, Dieterle noted that the text of the red -lined version ignores Chapter 362.4 of the Code of Iowa regarding `Petitioning.' She read further, noting that nowhere does it say a petition will be checked signature by signature. Dieterle shared a handout of her comments with the Commission; and distributed correspondence from Carol deProsse. Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., stated that he was at an earlier meeting and he remembers hearing people say, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' and he got the impression that people didn't want to make too many changes to the Charter at that time. He questioned why the Preamble was changed so dramatically from the previous Charter. Chappell stated that he can't speak for the entire Commission, but that in general the sense was that the changed Preamble did a better job of capturing what the Commission wanted it to capture. He added that he does not think anyone viewed it as having major substantive changes. Chappell continued, noting that the author of the revamped Preamble is not present today. Gussin asked what it was that the previous Preamble did not capture. Kubby stated that basically the conversation began over wanting to remove the word 'citizen' from the Preamble so that it spoke to a broader constituency of those living under the Charter and how local government affects all of the community. She asked Gussin if there are specific parts he dislikes, and he responded that he likes the part that says the Charter is for all of the citizens and sharing responsibility, but that he did not get this sense from the red -lined version. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., addressed Members stating that she also has a problem with the Preamble. She stated that when you read the old version, it makes sense — things are pretty transparent. However, when she read the new Preamble, she was confused. She believes the Commission needs to make the Preamble clearer, even with the intended changes. Mary Murphy, 890 Park Place, thanked the Members for the time they have spent on the City Charter. She stated that she does not believe that this particular draft goes far enough in reflecting the community's values. She noted that she did submit comments to the Commission and that her comments were not even discussed by them. She stated that it appeared input was restricted to just four issues and that other topics were not addressed. Murphy added that she found this to be very disappointing. She also commented on the input process and that perhaps it did not go far enough. With all of the technology available, Murphy stated that the City could access these other avenues for receiving input. She spoke to the issue of anonymous input / telephone calls about not electing the mayor. Murphy then asked that the City Charter draft contain an ethics and a conflicts of interest provision. She stated that she Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 3 believes there is a huge potential in Iowa City for corruption and she brought up the issue of the City granting TIF's to LLCs with anonymous members. She questioned the gap analyses that the City performs before granting such TIF's, stating that these are no longer available online and are being done by a not-for-profit corporation. Murphy spoke further to the use of TIF's and how she sees an increase in such use, leading to possible corruption where these TIF's would be used as 'slush funds.' A strong ethics or conflicts of interest provision is needed in her opinion. Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., stated that the red -lined version does include one of the changes she would like to see and she then read from a prepared statement. She noted that at an earlier meeting, one of the Members stated that 'citizens who are not registered to vote are not eligible to be chosen for jury duty.' Hampel stated that this is actually incorrect. According to the Iowa Code, Chapter 6.07A, Juries — source lists include voter registration lists, persons with valid driver's license, and customers of public utilities, such as water. Continuing, Hampel noted that she finds this disturbing that the Commission would rely on assumptions and hearsay when making decisions as important as changes to the Charter. Another assumption that the Commission has made, according to Hampel, is that people who have had their signature struck from a petition, for initiative and referendum, are not registered to vote. Hampel noted that she decided to try something for herself — she took the 26 applications that were received for the Charter Review Commission, which were submitted to the City, and she scrutinized the signatures on them, similar to what the City Clerk would do for a petition. Of the nine selected applications, Hampel noted that one did not pass the verification process in that according to the Auditor's office is not registered to vote. Continuing to read from her prepared statement, Hampel proposed that the Commission take a vote on whether or not this one Member, who is not registered to vote, should remain on the Commission. At this point Hampel asked the Commission if they would be interested in taking such a vote at this time. The Commission responded in the negative. Continuing, Hampel spoke to Census population numbers and the increase in signatures necessary in initiative and referendum petitions. She urged the Commission to drop the `qualified elector' requirement and to not increase the number of required signatures. She also urged them to adopt the petition verification process outlined in the Iowa Code. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., again addressed the Commission, speaking first to how the three districts handle their own candidates. She stated that she would like to see a change to this. She stated that she believes the government should be as accessible as possible, to as many people as possible, so that every citizen of Iowa City feels that they are important and that their voice can be heard. Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover St., spoke to what several of the previous speakers have, noting that he is in disagreement with them regarding the change from 'qualified' to `eligible' on initiative and referendum petitions. He spoke to the importance of this type of petition and how it can tie the council's hands on what they must do. He believes that `qualified' voter is better. He then thanked the Commission for their hard work. Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., returned to the podium, stating that she would like a chance to rebut. Chappell asked if she could wait until other's have had a chance to speak at least once and Dieterle responded in the negative. She continued, stating that there is in the Charter a provision that does tie the Council, and that one is to amend the Charter by the citizens. She suggested that perhaps this is what the citizens need to do — amend the Charter themselves. Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 4 Regenia Bailey, 310 Reno St., thanked the Commission for their work. She also expressed her appreciation for the new suggested Preamble, though she stated she does not feel particularly strong about it, that it was more poetic than the original one. Bailey stated that she also appreciates the replacement of the word 'citizen' with 'resident.' She believes this sends a very important message to the community. As to the district election issue, Bailey stated that she has some strong feelings about this, having been a part of it herself. She shared her views on why the current system is so important. Evan Fales, 1215 Oakcrest, stated that he is puzzled by Bob Elliott's comments. He spoke to the point of a petition that it is to either express or discover the will of the people with respect to some matter of concern. He again questioned Elliott's comments on `tying the council's hands' on a matter. He stated that the council should welcome the voice of the people with respect to matters that somebody has taken enough trouble to produce a petition and to obtain the necessary signatures. He added that this is all the more reason, in his opinion, to lower the required number of signatures. Joseph Dobrian, 1015 Second Ave., stated that he believes what Bob Elliott was suggesting is that there are different types of petitions — those that call for action and those that mandate action. He spoke about a teacher from City High who would tell students that petitions were `stupid,' and he added that some people will sign anything. Dobrian stated that he would think they would want a high bar when it comes to petitions that require action, so that not just anybody can create one and not just any signatures on it will suffice. He added that he mistrusts democracy. He believes that petitions need to be a little bit harder to make actionable, and requiring more signatures goes towards this. Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., approached the podium again. Chappell then asked that everyone be allowed to speak first before others return to the podium for a second time. Shelton Stromquist, 316 Myrtle Ave., stated that he appreciates all the time and effort put into this process by the Commission. He then spoke to his main concern, which is a real crisis in terms of democratic governance, particularly at the city level, due to the low levels of participation and engagement. Speaking to district representation, Stromquist stated that this does go to the heart of local representative government. He stated that in his opinion piece in the Press -Citizen he talks about some of the history of how cities have come to use at -large representation. Continuing, Stromquist spoke to representation by district and the possibility of greater access on the part of citizens to the affairs of how they are governed at the local level. With Iowa City's growing diversity, he noted that it is even more important that all residents feel connected to the political process. Stromquist believes that this would be more likely under district representation. In his view at -large elections privilege elites who have the resources and the citywide visibility to run on a citywide basis. This then skews the electoral process away from greater democratic participation and essentially disfranchises voters and candidates who have fewer resources, and whose primary visibility is local. Stromquist continued to speak to the need for increased participation, with less barriers, and how this would happen faster with district representation. He believes all seven council members should be elected from districts. Stromquist noted that he is not a fan of non-partisan elections either. He believes candidates should be able to identify their party lines, if they have one. Stromquist wrapped up his comments by stating that he believes they should have a directly -elected mayor and district- Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 5 elected city councilors who actually govern the city. This would mean getting rid of powerful city manager, who Stromquist believes have too much power. Aleksey Gurtovoy, 4362 E. Court St., spoke to the Commission on the petition signature issue. He stated that there are two petition processes — one to change the Charter and one to change City code. He further explained the differences and how State code plays into these issues. Gurtovoy also spoke to the required number of signatures and how this formula was arrived at. He then asked why the City is keeping the two different petition processes, and if the State code is too permissive. He stated that some of the Commission members have made comments to the effect that they need to have a representative democracy and that this is why they have voted the way they have. He noted that public support is overwhelmingly for making changes here and yet the Commission has opted to not go that route. He stated that this will end up on the ballot if the Commission decides to not recommend this change. Gary Gussin, 316 Lee St., returned to the podium, stating that he believes three issues were raised by the previous speaker, one being illogical. He addressed these issues, noting that making it easier to petition and put the possibility of change before the council or on the ballot is a safeguard against a powerful city government that ignores the wishes of the people. Secondly, in regards to registration. Gussin noted that citizens can now register on the day of an election. He stated that it does not make sense then to say someone who is not registered cannot sign a petition. Evan Fales, 1215 Oakcrest, returned stating that he agrees with a previous speaker about distrust of democracy. He added that there is no guarantee that the electorate will make wise decisions, nor that the council will make wise decisions either. He added that he believes they need to make it as easy as possible for people to express their will and that they need to trust the people of Iowa City. Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., spoke again stating that she wanted to clarify that an initiative and referendum petitions does not tie the hands of city council. She added that if the council disagrees with the initiative or referendum they can simply say they don't like it and then it goes to a vote of the people. Hampel suggested if the commission was going to use population it should reflect residents over 18 years of age. Also, in regards to the increase in required signatures, Hampel stated that she would like the Commission to comment on why they are using population growth to increase this number. Sullivan responded that the Commission did consider tying the increase to the number of people voting in city elections over the past 40 -plus years, but that there wasn't any interest in this. Chappell stated that the Commission will have a final report that will contain some of the reasoning behind their recommendations. Caroline Dieterle, 727 Walnut St., stated that she believes Hampel's suggestion is excellent, and that she believes the Commission should share their opinions, as well. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson St., spoke to the district issue briefly, adding that the more people you have from more backgrounds, the more information that you can gather. She also addressed the directly -elected mayor issue. She asked what large progressive city in the United States has a city manager form of government, adding that if Iowa City wants to be progressive and move forward, they need to decide which path is going to get them there the best. Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Evening forum Page 6 Martha Hampel, 4362 E. Court St., stated that she just wanted to reiterate that there is a room full of people and that many cannot make the 7:45 A.M. meetings to discuss these issues. Therefore, she believes it is very important to hear feedback from the Commission as to how they arrived at their decisions. Chappell responded, stating that he is not going to try to capture a year long process in a five-minute sound bite. He added that meetings are public and minutes are available, and that the Members have spent the time doing their best in making these recommendations. He added that the forum is to gather input from the public, and that he appreciates all of the feedback they have heard. Correspondence was received from: Carol deProsse; Pam Michaud; Caroline Dieterle; and Martha Hampel (revised with illustrations). Sullivan moved to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, Atkins and Schantz absent. Kubby asked if they could have information regarding the ethics and conflict of interest piece that was brought up during tonight's discussion. She would like to have this for the next meeting, such as what the current policy is. The City Attorney will follow-up. UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE (All meetings are 7:45 AM in the Helling Conference Room: March 3 March 9 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 P.M. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, Atkins and Schantz absent. Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Page 7 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Ch. cn cn rn m -4 co co to W m 0 0 NAME EXP. 0 W -4 0 0 co 0 cn 4/1/15 X X O/ X 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 X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X 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 X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X 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 X Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X 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 X Vanderhoef E Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission February 24, 2015 Page 8 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 2014/2015 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM N N 0 0 0 0 0 N> 0 N M (D W 0 W 0 W NAME EXP. O m N w O c) O •i j W N •i j o N ah ic O w O `° N .4 da M to to cn to cn to Cn to 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X O/E Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X O/ X X X O/E Schantz E O/E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X O/ X X X X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 411/15 X X X X O X X X X Vanderhoef Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time CITY OF IOWA CITY 03-09-15- MEMORANDUM 4b(5) Date: February 20, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council From: Tracy Hightshoe, Housing and Community Development Commission Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission At their February 19, 2015 meeting the Housing and Community Development Commission approved the January 15 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council: HCDC recommends the City Council adopt the amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher Administrative Plan as submitted. HCDC recommends the City Council approve the FY16 Aid to Agencies budget as seen below and, if funding is reduced, reduce each allocation over $15,000 proportionally. FY16 Aid to Agencies Budget Recommendation Agency FY15 Actual FY16 Request FY16 Recommendation 4 C's Community Coord. Child Care $5,000 $15,000 Arc of Southeast Iowa $5,000 SS,000 Big Brothers /Big Sisters $30,000 $33,500 $30,000 Community Corrections Imp. Assoc. $0 $0 NA Compeer of Johnson County $0 $7,000 Crisis Center of Johnson County $40,000 $52,973 $40,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program $45,000 $52,000 $45,000 Elder Services Inc. 530,010 $55,000 530,000 Families INC $5,000 Four Oaks - Pal Program SO 50 NA Free Lunch Program $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 Goodwill of the Heartland $60,000 HACAP - Food Reservoir BackPack Program $12,000 $28,000 Hou sing Trust Fund of JC $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 ICCSD Family Resource Centers $15,000 $37,500 $0 IC Free Medical/Dental Clinic $7,500 $15,000 $15,000 Iowa Jobs for American's Graduates (JAG) $0 $10,000 IV Habitat for Humanity - Furniture Project $5,000 $40,000 Johnson County Social Services NA $0 NA Junior Acheivement of Eastern Iowa $0 $4,499 Mayor's Youth Employment Program NA $0 NA MECCA $15,000 520,000 $15,000 Neighborhood Centers of JC $50,000 $75,000 $50,000 Padiways Adult Day Health Center $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 Rape victim Advocacy Program $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 Shelter House $45,000 $47,500 $45,000 Table to Table $0 $25,000 United Action for Youth $49,000 $65,000 $39,700 Total Request: $397,510 $721,972 $378,700 Additional action (check one) _x_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2015 — 6:30 PM IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Jim Jacobson, Dorothy Persson, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Ralston, Angel Taylor STAFF PRESENT: Kristopher Ackerson, Marcia Bollinger, Tracy Hightshoe, Steven Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Vinograde (Iowa City Free Clinic), Jane Drapeaux (HACAP), Albert Persson (Iowa City), Susan Blodgett (Elder Services Inc.), Ron Berry (MECCA), Becci Reedus (Crisis Center), Tracey Achenbach (Housing Trust Fund), Scott Hanson (Big Brothers Big Sisters), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Brian Loring (NCJC) HCDC recommends the City Council adopt the amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher Administrative Plan as submitted. HCDC recommends the City Council approve the FY16 Aid to Agencies budget as seen below and, if funding is reduced, reduce each allocation over $15,000 proportionally. Housing and Community Development Commission January 15, 2015 Page 2 of 6 FY16 Aid to Agencies Budget Recommendation Agency FY15 Actual FY16 Request FY16 Recommendation 4 C's Community (oord. Child (are $5,000 515,000 Arc of southeast lova $5,000 $5,000 Big Brothers / Big Sisters $30,000 $33,500 $30,000 Community Corrections Imp, Assoc. $0 $0 AA Compeer of Johnson County $0 $7,000 Crisis tenter of Johnson County $40,000 $52,973 $40,000 Domestic violence Intervention Program 545,000 SS2,000 $4.5,000 Elder Services Inc. 530,010 $55,000 $30,000 Families INC $5,000 Four Oaks - Pal Program 50 50 NA Free lunch Program $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 Goodvvill of the Heartland 560,000 HA( AP - Food Reservoir BackPack Program 512,000 528,000 Housing Trust Fund of K $24.000 524,000 524,000 I(CSD Fancily Resource Centers 515,000 $37,500 $0' It: Free Medical%Dental Clinic 57,500 515,000 $15,000 lova Jobs for American's Graduates (JAG) 50 510,000 IV Habitat for Humanity - Furniture Project 55,000 540,000 Johnson (OUnty Sodal Servi(es NA $0 NA Junior Acheivement of Eastern lo'%-va 50 54,499 Mayor's Youth E111ployment Program NA 50 NA NIE(CA 515,000 520,000 $15,000 Neighborhood Centers of $50,000 $75,000 $50,000 Pativ..,ays Adult Day Health Center 55,000 515,000 $15,000 Rape Victim Advocacy Program $10,000 515,000 $15,000 Shelter House 545,000 $47,500 $45,000 Table to Table $0 525,000 United Action for Youth $49,000 $65,000 $39,700 Total Request: $397,510 $721,972 $378,700 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 20. 2014 MINUTES: Persson moved to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2014 meeting. Jacobson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none. Housing and Community Development Commission January 15, 2015 Page 3 of 6 STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe introduced Kris Ackerson as the new staff contact for HCDC. Hightshoe also reminded the Commission that the Housing and Public Facility applications are due tomorrow, January 16, 2015. CONSIDER THE ALLOCATION OF $200,000 IN UNCOMMITTED FYI HOME FUNDS: Hightshoe explained that in FY15 the Housing Fellowship was awarded $200,000 in HOME funds to acquire the land for a LITHTC project of 28 units, 10 to be HOME assisted. THF was unable to secure land so the project did not proceed. No funds were disbursed. Hightshoe explained that these funds are subject to the Uncommitted Funds policy. The policy allows for three options for HCDC consideration. 1. Existing projects that did not receive full funding will be considered. 2. Projects that had submitted applications but did not receive any CDBG or HOME funding will be considered. 3. New proposals will be considered. Hightshoe and Ackerson reviewed the FY15 applications and did not recommend funding or partially funding any of the existing allocations. Staff recommended placing the $200,000 in the pool of FY16 funds available for allocation. HCDC will be reviewing applications and making a funding recommendation on March 12. This issue had been discussed with THF earlier and they were encouraged to submit an application for a revised project by the CDBG/HOME application deadline. Bacon Curry moved to accept the staff recommendation to combine the returned FYI funds into the FYI funding pool to be considered for allocation by HCDC on March 12, 2015. Chappell seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. CONSIDER UPDATES & AMENDMENTS TO THE ICHA'S HOUSING CHOICE VENDOR (HCV) ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN: Zimmermann Smith asked Hightshoe what the Commission's role was in this process. Hightshoe explained that the Commission reviews housing policy and amendments and makes a recommendation to City Council concerning proposed changes or new policies.. Rackis explained that there were two proposals for HCDC consideration. While voucher participation is almost 99% there are some households who have difficulty finding an acceptable unit and their voucher expires after 180 days. The household is given 180 days to locate a unit; however time extensions may be granted. Rackis stated this proposal would allow the tenant 365 days to find an acceptable unit and submit a request for tenancy approval. He noted that even at the cap of 365 days, they can give an extension for reasonable accommodations. Rackis noted that in the 2013 Cook Rental Survey the vacancy rate was 0.067% in our community for a one bedroom unit. Rackis feels that the vacancy rate today is still less than 1 %. Housing and Community Development Commission January 15, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Due to a limited number of one -bedroom units, the new proposal would allow additional households to qualify for a two-bedroom unit, as opposed to a one -bedroom unit. Zimmermann Smith asked if the proposal was to change one bedroom eligible families to receive two bedroom vouchers, or just increase the payment standard for the one bedroom. Rackis answered they are proposing changing the subsidy standard. Under the current policy, a single adult with one child under the age of 4 would receive a one bedroom voucher, the proposal would allow a single adult with one child under the age of 1 to be issued a one bedroom voucher, so any single adult with one child over the age of 1 would be issued a two bedroom voucher. Zimmermann Smith asked if Rackis had data on how many applicants needed more than 180 days to find an acceptable unit and how long a tenant is on the waiting list. Rackis explained that the wait time is about seven months, and that 60-70% of the people that get a letter don't even respond or complete the appropriate paperwork. The extension of the voucher timeline is for people who already have received a voucher and are looking for an appropriate housing option. Zimmermann Smith asked how many of the people who use the vouchers end up staying in the area for a long period of time. Rackis stated the majority of people stay. There are only 19 families that have transferred their assistance out of the jurisdiction. Rackis also stated that about 88% of people who respond and initiate a search utilize their voucher. Chappell asked if under the current standards, if a single adult with a three year old child is issued a one bedroom voucher, do they then have to move to a two bedroom unit once the child is over the age of 4? Rackis answered that at the annual reviews the housing authority will look at the family's situation. If the child is over age 4, they can be issued a two bedroom, but it does not require that the family move, it is at the family's discretion if they want to find a two bedroom unit. Chappell was concerned that if the policy is changed would it cause current families with children ages 2 and 3 to move, and Rackis said no, they have that option, but they don't have to. Chappell moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher Administrative Plan as submitted. Bacon Curry seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. REVIEW OF THE FYI ALLOCATION PROCESS & HOUSING PROFORMA: Hightshoe stated that tomorrow, January 16, 2015, is the deadline for the Housing and Public Facility applications, On Feb. 19 the commission will have the question/answer session with the applicants and then on March 12, HCDC will make a budget recommendation to City Council. City Council will review this recommendation at their May 5 meeting. Each year the housing pro forma is reviewed to aid in decisions when rental housing applications are reviewed. Once the applications are received they will be sent to Commission members. Staff reviews the sources and uses of funds. These two amounts should be the same. Sources of funds include how the organization will pay for the project costs, such as HOME funds, State funds, private loan, etc. The uses of funds includes how the money will be spent. This includes the cost of the land, construction, soft costs, etc. Additionally staff will look at the 20 year proforma that outlines the projected revenues and costs for the project based on City Housing and Community Development Commission January 15, 2015 Page 5 of 6 underwriting guidelines. If anything appears inaccurate, unreasonable or not in line with our guidelines, it will be noted in the project's staff report. Staff's goal is to ensure that the project receives enough income to cover expenses throughout the compliance period. If sufficient revenue exists, the City will require repayment if possible. Hightshoe included an example of a pro forma report in the packet for the Commission to review. DISCUSSION REGARDING FY16 AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS: Zimmermann Smith acknowledged that staff recommended a minimum allocation of $15,000 that was also stated in the Council approved 2016-2020 CITY STEPS plan. Hightshoe stated when agencies applied the guide encouraged agencies to apply for at least $15,000, but it was not a requirement. Zimmermann Smith suggested reviewing all the agencies that applied for at least $15,000 first. After that discussion, the commission would discuss those application under $15,OOO.Her next suggestion was to look at the applications that were fully funded in the last fiscal year as the starting point for discussion. The Commission members revealed how they individually made their determinations on funding. The Commission discussed and debated where to make adjustments in their tentative funding numbers. Persson voiced her concern that DVIP and Shelter House should receive equal funding as both are homeless shelters in this county. She stressed both need to cooperate and coordinate with each other and would be concerned if one were funded at a different level than the other. Jacobson asked if last year there was a situation where the Commission recommended no funding to an agency and the City Council changed it. Hightshoe stated that Elder Services was allocated a substantially lower amount than in previous years as the prior CITY STEPS plan had elder services as a medium priority. HCDC funded high priorities first and had limited funding for medium or low priorities. When Council reviewed, they restored some lost funding to Elder Services with additional general fund revenues. They did not reduce any other recommended allocation. Bacon Curry stated her support of IJAG because the program impacts a lot of kids who if not intervened upon at that point may end up needing some of these other services a few years down the road. Jacobson asked what the other potential funding streams for IJAG might be, and Bacon Curry believes the State of Iowa but was unsure of other sources. Byler questioned the funding of 4C's, and wondered why the Commission was not funding it. Zimmermann Smith stated that 4C's has an income stream due to licensing fees, etc. Hightshoe reminded the Commission that the numbers they are working with are estimates. The City budget has not been approved by the Council yet, nor has HUD finalized our entitlement amounts yet. Adjustments may need to be made after we have final numbers. Jacobson moved to recommend to the City Council approve the FY16 Aid to Agencies budget as seen below. If funding is reduced, then staff shall reduce each allocation over $15,000 proportionally. Persson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission January 15, 2015 Page 6 of 6 MONITORING REPORTS: • FY15 The Housing Fellowship— CHDO — Hightshoe stated they spend their money on their finance manager and have six full-time employees. • FY15 Crisis Center — Aid to Agencies — Reedus said Crisis Center is using their Aid to Agencies money on their emergency assistance program. • FY15 Shelter House — Aid to Agencies — Hightshoe stated that Shelter House received money from Aid to Agencies and use the funds on operations/salaries. ADJOURNMENT Bacon Curry moved to adjourn. Byler seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. MINUTES =PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2015 — 5:30 PM — WORK SESSION E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: S ra Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Mikl , Kent Ralston OTHERS PRESENT: Freerks called the meeting to order at 530 PM. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM Discussion of proposed amendments to bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Str, North Clinton 1 Dubuque Street District). Yapp explained that this district is generally and Dubuque Street, and showed the area (bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson St t, North Clinton 1 Dubuque Street District) t the t of institutional buildings (churches and a Un buildings. A question arose during C missil Use. In the context of the Central Dis ict Plan, ,Frehensive Plan for the blocks generally ington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the th of Jefferson Street, between Clinton Street map. Staff is proposing to add the blocks oomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the entral District Plan. The area is made up largely rsity of Iowa) and multi -family mixed use discussion regarding the definition of Mixed Axed Use is defined as: low to medium density residential uA townhouses, and multi -f ily; and small s services, and other us that serve resid( can be mixed-use or s ngle- use buildings. in nature or may berimarily residential d is intended to be De estrian-oriented with i including single family, duplexes, commercial uses, offices, personal > and visitors to the area. Buildings n area may be primarily commercial drug on the market. Development chnas oriented to the street ... With regards to historic pr perty, the Central District Plan Map does not specifically identify Historic properties, but t plan does contain polices fort preservation of historic properties. These policies are a ba don the adopted and periodicall updated Historic Preservation Plan, which is also an eleme t of the Comprehensive Plan. A g I of the Preservation Plan is to identify historic propert s. Staff conducted research of the ar a, searching for identification of historic properties: Iowa Site Inventory Forms, which document the historic and architectural values of individual buildings, were reviewed for each property in the N. North Clinton/Dubuque Street District. Historic properties at 30 N. Clinton, 130 Jefferson Street and 115 N. Dubuque Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 —Work Session Page 2 of 8 Street are included in the Jefferson Street Historic District and are therefore already protected by the Historic Preservation Commission. The only other property that is identified as being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is the Sanxay-Gilmore House_ at 109 E. Market Street. A copy of that Iowa Site Inventory Form is available upon request. Although four other properties in the distri have some historic merit, he forms indicate that they are not individually significant enough o be listed on the National Register and there is not a sufficient grouping to form a historic distri . Eastham questioned the exact area of the dis rict, as it appears to different on various maps and asked for clarification on which map repr ented what the sta was recommending. Yapp clarified that there were some discrepancies o how the "gap" ar as were identified on the Comprehensive Plan maps and the actual Cen ral District map. Eastham also asked about the historic preserva ion review a d if the Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the two areas. Miklo a swered t t they had not had it as an agenda item, but they are aware of the areas. Eastham sked th for confirmation that staff is recommending that the Commission act on tl s two a endments to the Comprehensive Plan before the Historic Preservation Commission mas a y decisions on the historic designation of the buildings in these areas. Miklo stated that the e re already historic designated houses in the Central District so those will remain regardless fthis decision, and also that Commission can make recommendations to Council at any i for historic designations. Eastham noted that he was uncomfortable with making a decisi bout the amendment before the Historical Preservation Commission discussed the areas an Freerks agreed it seemed as if they were moving too fast and perhaps not with all the cess ry information needed. Hektoen stated it was precedent that P&Z has made recomm ndation and then HPC has made designations after. Freerks just noted that the P&Z Co ission i trying to be more careful about changing overlays and moving areas around witho having all oncerns addressed. Eastham again stated he felt P&Z could defer these am ndments unt after the HPC had an opportunity to discuss the areas. Miklo feels that is t necessary b ause the Central District has policies regarding historic buildings already t se will cover an new areas added into the Central District. Eastham said that if staff OE in conducted hi torical research of the areas, as stated in the staff memo, then that shows ome concern. Hekt en clarified what Miklo was saying that this amendment to the Comprehe sive Plan does not ch nge any kind of analysis with regards to their historic value or if they should be preserved or de ignated doesn't have an implication on this. Miklo stated that as wi the Downtown District P n, where the historic buildings are identified on the map, they ha done the same with this entral District by identifying the one property that is already identi ed as historic on the map. eerks stated that there has been lots of conversation and input fr the community requesting cl rification regarding timelines of changes and to look at hist ric possibilities before changes appen and therefore need to look at situations where there ay be historic structures and not ake changes without having given time to HPC to review a well. Although the two Commission are separate and their decisions do not have to have a rect impact on the other, Freerks belie es decisions should be conscious of each oth r. Miklo said he feels the amendment d cument does take the historic properties and the po sible historic properties into consideration Eastham stated he feels the HPC should still issue an opinion of the areas, and the possible historic buildings in the area, before decisions on changes to the district are made. Thomas stated he felt that any area that falls into the University Impact zone is an area that falls into pressures where time may be a Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 3 of 8 factor. Additionally due to the recent conversations regarding the South Dubuque Street area, it seems like this is an opportunity now to address the historic preservation aspects to avoid having to deal with it in the future, when it might be too late. Hektoen asked what the Commission is asking staff for with regards to this amendment. Eastham answered that if in the future a rezoning application comes forward, t Commission is required to look to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance, and if the r zoning were to affect a historic property, the Commission would like that noted in the Comp ehensive Plan if that prope y is designated as historic. Freerks and Eastham both noted that hey would like to see the PC give an opinion on the property at 109 E. Market Street. Miklo tated it is clearly eligible or historic designation as indicated in the Iowa Site Inventory Form. F Berks asked Miklo for nfirmation that making this amendment does nothing more to increase evelopment in this a a, and he confirmed that was correct. Hektoen stated the amendment ac ually brings this ar into the goals and policies of the area, which includes protection of historic reservation. Yap also stated the specific goals that staff are recommending in the amend ent would be a ed to the Central District Plan: A. Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Fa the goal of an attractive streetscapes in c redevelopment. B. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the str to highlight their function as gateways to d Iowa east campus. C. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque redesigned I reconstructed incorporate design. Yapp asked if it would be helpful to forward Commission, and Freerks agreed it would, better informed their decisions can be. T Preservation Commission's thoughts re r( could identify or make reference to as ei Plan. ` Design tandards to ensure they meet ray co/ridors without overly discouraging pes of Dubuque Stand Clinton St vn Iowa City and the University of nton St and other area streets are )te streets principals into their t�e sectios of the Historic Preservation Plan to the e more,, orei formation the Commission can have the mas said would be interested in the Historic ling the se uencing, if there was anything more they idments if t is area goes into the Central District Thomas also raised a general cong6rn regarding review g the multi -family design standards and his assumption is that housin will go towards stud_ t housing given the location. He asked if the City has hada ny co versations with the Uni ersity with respect to developing design standards with that in 'nd, knowing there will be very specific user here. Yapp said there have been general conv rsations with University st regarding general design standards. Thomas asked for more spe ific standards, knowing these buildings will be housing students the lifestyles of the tenants ill be different. Yapp said the have discussed with the University a concept of a living learn' tenants/ community for students in a b ilding that might be privately owned but to be designed to fu tion as a living learning communit . Thomas stated his ofr concern was regarding the transport tion goal, which Thomas supports, however t44 may want to add an addition to that a ecially thinking about Dubuque Street and what the/possible options might be for more open s ace in that area and to emphasis the connectivity of the area. Eastham asked about the design standards that could be includd` in the code, if provisions Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 4 of 8 specifically for student housing can be added. Miklo stated that the area already has planned designed standards to reflect green space and parking issues, but the staffs intent, assuming the proposed goal is adopted, is to follow up with more specific recommendations on additional design standards. % / Discussion of proposed amendments to bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Sti Civic District). Comprehensive Plan fort blocks generally Van Buren Street, and lovA Avenue (AKA the Martin stated she sits on the Board of Direct rs of The United Acti n for Youth that is housed on Iowa Avenue and questioned if she could articipate in the c vervation. Hektoen stated Martin can participate as long as she feels sh can be impartia . Martin stated she can be impartial, but just wanted it stated for the reco d. Yapp began by showing a map of the area to elp explai hat staff is proposing to take the Civic District and put the three municipal block south o owa Avenue and west of Van Buren Street and make those part of the Downtown D strict s ction of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. And then the areas no h of wa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street become part of the Central Planning District an id tify those as mixed-use. Currently this area is part of the old Downtown Planning Distri t rom the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. For the area proposed as the Central Planning District, t ose areas are currently used as mixed-use areas and are currently zoned CB -2 and CB -5 ich is central business support zones. Mixed- use allows for commercial, residential, and o ce land use on those properties, and that is how they are used now. The three municipal blo ks p oposed to be added to the Downtown District, the rationale behind that recommendation ' the i tensity of the uses on those blocks is primarily municipal functions, City Hall, P lice Sta 'on, Fire Station, Recreation Building, Chauncey Swan parking facility, Chaun ey Swan ark. These are sites that hold many different events and functions includin Farmer's arket, athletic events at the rec center, meetings in City Hall, so it seems m e appropriate as a downtown type designation. Those municipal blocks also front onto Gil ert Street, a fo -lane arterial street, to the south end which is Burlington Street, also Highway . Given the inp staff received from the Commission at the last meeting, staff wanted to arti late more clearly hat is recommended for building heights similar to how the Downtown D' trict and Riverfront rossings Plan identifies building height scenarios in that plan, staff h done the same for th se blocks. The Downtown District Plan recommends taller buildings n corners with shorter b ildings along the block face, so this plan show taller buildings on cc r ers of College Street and ilbert Street and also the corners of Burlington Street and Gilb rt Street to be 7-15 stories hich is consistent with the Downtown District and River Crossi gs Plan. Staff recognizes the eed for the height transition and show the east side of the mu icipal blocks as 4-6 stories. Tra slating that to future zoning, that could be either a CB -5 zone r a CB -10 zone with a height lima which can be done through a conditional zoning a eement. Miklo pointed out the no rt area, along the Iowa Avenue frontage, noting tha importance of the Iowa Avenue corri or as it is the view path of the Old Capital, and sVhaidentified commends 2-4 stories height limits for uildings that front onto Iowa Avenue. Staff the Unitarian Church property as a key historic building, and again the Riverfrontings Plan does identify key historic buil ings in that plan, the Unitarian Church propelearly eligible for historic designation, s it is appropriate to show that on the map. Yapp pointed out the two asterisks on the map, st ff looked at the policies in the Riverfront Crossings Plan, which includes policies for prese tion of historic property and as incentives would offer density bonuses and parking reduction . One way the City could potentially participate in that would be to allow a more signific t structure on the Iowa Avenue frontage, which is now a surface parking lot, in exchange for pr servation of the church Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 5 of 8 property. Yapp handed the Commission a memo prior to the meeting starting with a revision to provide more detail about the historic policies. The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan contains polices which are intended to promote the preservation of historic buildings. The plan states that incentives and policy options that encourage preservation should be implemented. The current zoning code allows for a density bonus for adaptive reuse of historic structures, and Yapp pointed out the church property is currently zoned CB -5. The CB -5 and CB -2 zones allows for additional square footage in (dings developed in the vacant portions of the property. Yapp pointed out that in thi particular case the vacant portions of is block face are owned by the City as parking. The cu ent zoning however does not allow f this bonus in the CB -10 zone nor does it allow for the t e of historic preservation density tr nsfer to a separate development project which is part of th form -based code in the Riverfro t Crossings Zone. It would be consistent with the Comprehe sive Plan to amend the zonin code for the central business zones to allow for this type of t ansfer of development right or historic buildings similar to the Riverfront Crossings Zones Given that the City contr s the surface parking lots in the Civic Districts, the City may have a ole in providing locatio for this transfer. Yapp next showed the Commission a build handed out prior to the start of this evening packet the Unitarian Church property was id was based on the current zoning, but after r Comprehensive Plan amendment they propo of going taller if the church is preserved. g height transitio map, a corrected map was meetings beca a on the map included in the ntified as a 2- story in potential height and that Viewing that roperty, staff realized as part of their e a 2-4 st ry height limit, again with a possibility Regarding more specifically historic properties Inventory Forms, and based on the available fi Gilbert Street is clearly identified as being eligi 410 and 422 Iowa Avenue may be eligible bas United Action for Youth properties. For propo Iowa Avenue has potential for National Staff's opinion, have been altered to suc Miklo added that a professional architect staff opinion. Miklo added that everyth' Avenue has a Site Inventory. h Civic District, staff reviewed the Iowa Site only the Unitarian Church at 10 South for the national registry. The properties at )n architectural elements, those are the (that do not have Site Inventory Forms, 505 ibility. The other properties in this district, in they do not meet the criteria for eligibility. a prepared the reports, so it was not just e south side of the 500 block of Iowa Reg' try eli h n exten ral histori g except th Martin asked about the United Acti for Youth buildin , stating that they have been extensively remodeled, but becau a the fronts have ret 'ned the original architecture they may still be eligible. Miklo confirmed at was correct. Freerks stated that making a ange in this area may hav an impact on the future of the area in a way that the other comp ehensive plan amendment m not. She questioned about the properties along College S eet, there are blocks that have a certain distinction and with the current zoning in that are Freerks needs clarification how thi amendment works with regards to transition from the mi d -use properties to the historic prop rties or the homes in that area. Homes are setback fu er from the street than any of the com ercial properties. Yapp replied that he had not revie ed all the setbacks for that area, and woul need time to review. Freerks believes that the set acks are as important as the height limitatio and perhaps the Commission needs look at the zoning in these areas to help with he transitions in these areas. Thomas added that especially in the area where they are dis ussing central business zones abutting residential zones there needs to be a side yard transitional edge. Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 6 of 8 Eastham agrees that the "feel" of walking down College, Washington, or Iowa there is a distinct difference once east of Gilbert Street. Thomas asked for confirmation on his understanding of the history of discussi ns of planning in the Downtown District, his recollection is that densities higher than CB -5, me ping CB -10, east of Gilbert Street were first introduce the College/Gilbert RFP and this di ussion today is a follow up to that. Yapp confirmed at is generally correct, in the past the ity and the public have always seen those three mu icipal blocks as City Campus, then a r the City went through a facilities study and reali ed it did not need all that property t e part of the City Campus, and introduced allowing ixed-use development on those ree blocks. After that discussion, then there was the issu nce of the RFP for the College ilbert property. Thomas stated he could not discover any di s ussions regarding buildings ast of Gilbert being larger than 6 stories and asked if staff reca of any such discussions. app could not recall any specific discussions. Yapp added that the three blocks west of Van Buren Stree , the City blocks, they are already part of the Downtown Riverfront Crossi s Parking Distri and that was a zoning code change implemented after the Riverfront Crossi s Plan was a opted and that parking district does allow for a reduction in required parking f r things lik istoric preservation of buildings and for properties that meet other public goals. Swygard asked Yapp what some of those her blic goals might be. Yapp replied an example would be affordable housing. In this context hi oric preservation and affordable housing are the two main allowances for a reduction in re ired parking. Eastham asked with regards to historic pre a ation, the Riverfront Crossings Plan states "protecting historic character and key his ric s uctures" is an overriding goal to consider. Eastham feels the phrase historic char ter is n t the same as a specific building. Eastham also pointed out on the map, the two ocks betw en College/Burlington and Gilbert/Van Buren there are two parts identified for hig r building h 'ghts and those do appear as corner areas of the blocks but the one on the sout side of College and Gilbert seems to be larger than just the corner but seems to be more of a uarter of the blo k and questioned why that area was larger than just the corner. Yapp answ red that since it's ectly adjacent to the Chauncey Swan parking ramp is one factor and is also adjacent to C auncey Swan Park, a designated open space. Eastham also pointed out i the Staff memo, there was ationale for providing more density in this part of the Civic Distri and a need for more Class A office space in the Downtown District but there is not much an lysis as to what the yield is for t additional Class A office space. Miklo replied that muc of the "older" downtown has older uildings and in those buildings they are not designed for ass A office space. The Downtown iverfront Crossings Plan suggests is for preservation f much of the older downtown as oppos d to redevelopment to provide for that Class A office pace. In the Riverfront Crossings form -b ed code there are provisions for height bonuses if developer creates Class A office space but hat does not apply to downtown yet. Hektoen st ted that in the CB -10 zoning there is a provisio for height bonuses for Class A office space. Yapp pointed out that all the properties currently zoned public will ha,e to be rezoned to be developed and at that time the Commission and the Council can impose height limitations or Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 7 of 8 other limitations or setback discussions at the time they are actually zoned and what is embodied in the zoning for the area is what regulates the area. Hektoen p inted out the Comprehensive Plan is meant to guide the rezoning process not define it. Eastham asked a question about the height limitations, Yapp explained at east of Van Buren Street the height limitations ar' based on -the existing zoning. The hei t limitations can be changed if the zoning is changed. Mikla stated the height legends o the maps gives guidance to the Commission and Council for future decisions of the areas. Freerks reiterated that her concern is not only height limitations, t also setback requirements and transitions from commercial to esidential areas. Yapp agr d to provide the Commission with the setbacks for the areas befo Thursday's meeting. Y pp explained that there is a provision in the zoning code for setba k averaging and he lHook at that and see how it might function in this area. Freerks also sug sted perhaps div' ing the Civic District amendment into two separate items due to the areas thate more resid tial and have possible historic properties and how the transition from the reas is ma' tained. The Commission agreed they would like St to motion for Thursday's meeting. Yapp recapped what the Commission is reque from the historic preservation plan and how th existing setbacks and building placements in relate to each other, they will provide langu `e the area as two separate items for a ��for Thursday's meeting; pertinent policies would affect these two areas, provide the different zones in this area and how those how a comprehensive plan functions, what it covers, how it relates to a zoning code, an finally ividing the agenda up into potentially three different motions. Freerks reminded that at Thursday's m dting they wi hold public hearing on these agenda items. , , OTHER AGENDA ITEMS None , s ADJOURNMENT J Martin moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. Motion carried. �xxxIXXXX T 00 N IlIx X T N x X x X X T �xXoxX> x T oxxxxxx� cv,-XxxXxXa Z �XxXXXXX XXXXX O0 T 4xxxxxx O CD NXxxxxxx N �LU XXXXXX0 w 0 20 z w ti LO o 0 25 O L) ��o w �xXXXxXx d� 0 a a w w 0 0000000 ZwN w �Q� Q �xxXXX0X w z w z N 00 m J O p Z zOa- f �W Ow Z x x x X x X X z Z ~ =NZam4 wow - DOOM a>-aw 24 Q LXX - XXXX _= zaWLL. NHI- J a LOXXXXxxx LnXXX'XXxx XXXXXXx cn w0LOLOLn0Ln I..K0000000 W z w J in >-QzwQ0Z J 2 z O d 0 0 4 X -0 Q a J a P Lu 1-- 0 >- Q w Q x 2 0Ww2c)�-H- NX XXXXX O0 T 4xxxxxx CD NXxxxxxx N NXxxxxxx w 0 0 w ti LO o 0 25 d� 0 a a w C) 0 0000000 w w z w z m W J O p Z zOa- w - IL J =NZam4 wow DOOM a>-aw _= zaWLL. NHI- c U_a '0 Ec X� LU aQaz� n ii n n n XOO w Y MINUTES RELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: folyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anneerks Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John 7iklo,Jann s MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: ra Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Ream OTHERS PRESENT: Ji Mondanaro, Rockne Cole, th Stence, Laura Bergus, Con ie Champion, Ritu Jain, ncy Quellhorst, Marc McCullum, Al Ra mond, Joe Tiefenthale , Jon Fogarty, Pam Michaud, Andre Sherburne, Helen rford, John Hieronymus, Duane Musser, Angela Villhauer, eth Hieronymus, Joe Hughes, John Wyler, B 'an Boelk, Nan Bird Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 la:w6vilITIN7i, Me-. i Eli The Commission moved by a vote of 1-5 (F96ks affirmative) that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks E n rally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (A the Civic District) be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings andjDownto n Master Plan. Additionally under the Comprehensive Plan text and map be emended fdf consistency with the proposed addendum to the Downtown District of the Riverfrgnt Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recomm nd approval of SUB15-00001, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17 -lot, 39.9$' acre commercial ubdivision located north of Northgate Drive subject to resolution of deficiencies and discr pancies noted below. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommen pproval of amending Portable Sign requirements in City Code Section 14-5B 'Sign Regulation ;' Table 5B-4 'Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB -2, OB -5 and CB -10 Zones' as sh n in Table 1. PUBLIC DISCUSSIOP None. CONSIDERATION Eastham moved to a0prove the minutes. Thomas seconded. ON THE Motion carried 6-0 with corrections noted. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 23 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the locks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington St re and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton I DgWque Street District). Yapp presented a map of the are4. Hektoen asked if anyone on theCom ssion needed to disclose any conversations they h ve had regarding this item. There wer none. Staff is recommending adding the North linton/Dubuque Street District to the entral District Plan including the addition of three goa to the Central District Plan: A. Housing Goal #1(h): Revi w the Multi Family Design st dards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive stre tscapes in gateway corridor B. Transportation Goal #3(k): I vest in the streetscape of Dubuque St and Clinton St to highlight their function as ateways to downtow Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. C. Transportation Goal #3(h): As ubuque St, 9�ton St and other area streets are redesigned /reconstructed incor rate complete streets principals into their design Yapp explained that at the previous Commi sion there was discussion regarding his prop rtie specifically identify potential historic propertie , tI preservation of historic properties. These polic updated Historic Preservation Plan, which is alp' goal of the Preservation Plan is to identify histor Iowa Site Inventory Forms, which document the I buildings, were reviewed for each property the re 'ting, as well as the work session held, Nhile the Central District Plan Map does not Ie plan does contain polices for the are based on the adopted and periodically an element of the Comprehensive Plan. A properties. Identification of historic properties: storic and architectural values of individual North Clinton/Dubuque Street District. Historic properties at 30 N. Clinton, 130 J9 erson reet and 115 N. Dubuque Street are included in the Jefferson Street Historic istrict and re therefore already protected by the Historic Preservation Commission. Thnly other pr perty that is identified as being individually eligible for the National Register of His oric Places is t e Sanxay-Gilmore House at 109 E. Market Street. A copy of that Iowa e Inventory For is available upon request. Eastham asked what would be ad d to the Comprehen 've Plan if this were approved. Yapp answered that the map showing t e Central District Plan uld be updated, showing the addition of the new area, along th the three goals Staff h recommended. The impact of adding this area to the Central istrict Plan is that the area t en become subject to all the policies and goals within the C ntral District Plan. Eastham a ked then if that would include the language regarding the possi le historic eligibility of 109 E. Maket Street. Yapp said it would not include the language reg rding that specific property becau a the Central District Plan refers to the Historic Prese ation Plan for specifics. The HistoriPreservation Plan does not currently include that speci is property (109 E. Market Street) but does identify that larger area as one that has had a hist6ric survey for which Site Inventory Form have been documented. Freerks asked if the Historic Preservation Commission would be lookVg at these properties, and Yapp confirmed the Historic Preservation Commission would be cussing this at their meeting next week. Freerks opened public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 23 Jim Mondanaro spoke to support Staff's recommendations for the new P&Z. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham stated he was interested in the Historic Preservation Com fission's opportunity to give their advice on this issue, and therefore moves to defer un9l the next meeting. Thomas seconded the motion. Eastham reiterated his motion to defe is to give the Historic Pres ation Commission the opportunity to give their advice on the ssible historic value of t properties in this area. Hektoen informed the Commission that tk designate propertiepr as historic is a rezoning action, and this issue is just discussing acompre ensive plan actio Freerks understands, and is not saying hearing from the Historic Preservati n Commission ill have any impact on the decision, but adding a few weeks to allow making su all the perti nt information is gathered is the right thing to do. A vote was taken, motion to defer carried 6-0 Discussion of proposed amendments tot C mprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlino Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). Yapp began by showing a map of the larger C nt I District Plan, and showing that the Civic District in respect to that. Yapp stated the fir tfoc s would be the three blocks, south of Iowa Avenue, west of Van Buren Street, and Sta is rec mending those three blocks be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Cr sings a Downtown Master Plan. At this time, that area is largely occupied by municipal fun tions, the itarian Church property is at the northwest corner of this area. Next Yap showed a p of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan indicating suggested b ilding heights 'thin that area, as well as for the three municipal blocks. The Downtown Pla recommends tall r buildings on corner locations with mid -rise buildings along the block fa e. Staff is showing aller building 7-14 stories at the corners of College and Gilbert Strets, and Burlington an Gilbert Streets. Along the east half of the majority of the blocks would a building heights of 4 6 stories, and 2-4 story heights along the Iowa Avenue frontage. The fference for the Iowa Av ue frontage is due to looking at the Iowa Avenue Corridor, the majo ity of the buildings in thata a are 2-4 stories in height. Staff has also noted a key historic b ilding in that area, the Unitari n Church at 10 S. Gilbert Street has had an Iowa Site Invento Form prepared and it is clearl eligible as a historic landmark. Consistent with the Downto Riverfront Crossings Master PI there are policies, including the use of transfer of develop nt rights, bonus incentives and th reduction of parking requirements, which are i ended to promote the preservation historic buildings. Given that the City controls app/Ind ately 2.5 acres of surface parking lots ithin the Civic District, it may have role in providing for development transfer if the parking is are to be developed. Yapp next showed thuse map for the Downtown Riverfront ossings Plan and stated that Staff is recommethose three municipal blocks be shown mixed-use designations. This would encourag the municipal civic activities that currentl exist and allow for mixed- use designation in the future. Dyer asked about the property along Iowa Avenue, heights being limited 1p 2-4 stories, but there Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 23 could be a bonus granted for preserving the Unitarian Church? And therefore if a development preserved the church, it could then be higher in that location. Yapp confirm d that the intention was to allow additional height along the Iowa Avenue frontage if the church as preserved. That would all of course have to be reviewed and approved by the City Co ncil, including a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dyer state that then would defeat the purpose of keeping buildin along Iowa Avenue low. Yapp eplied that the scale of the buildings would still be in line for a area, the intent was for a pos ible additional stories in the context of preservation. Hektoen stated that the code currently a ows for certain density nuses designation of an Iowa City landmark at a ratio of 3 square foot ea to 1 square foot air a reused. So there is a defined ratio that is allowed in the CB -2 a d CB -5 zones. It is of the same as the density transfer that is allowed in the Riverfront Cr ssings form base zones. This area will still be zoned CB designations, not the Riverfront rossings desig tions. Eastham asked if the Unitarian Church prop rty is curre ly zoned CB -5, and is about 8000 square feet, so what would the maximum hei ht be all ed under the current CB -5 zone. Yapp replied 75 feet with bonuses. Eastham then asked about the proposed heig t li limit building height in any of those areas, the nl zone, and changes to the underlying zone coul that is correct. He stated that comprehensive I; the regulations would come into play if and w e time the Commission would review the rezo ng planning document. So for example, if a re oninc indicated 4-6 stories in height as appropri e, the rezone that to a zoning the allowed 4-6 s ories in example, the Commission could apply conditior consistent with whatever the adopted an is for t nd shown on the map, asking if it doesn't limitation on the building height is whatever ;hange the building heights. Yapp confirmed ins are not regulatory, they function as plans, zoning requests for these properties at which equest in the context of comprehensive request was received for a location that ommission could either recommending h fight or if a CB -10 zone was requested for is zoning agreement to limit the height to be fiat area. Hektoen reiterated by adding this ar a to the Downn to Riverfront Crossings Plan that does not mean these properties will be adde to the zoning for a Riverfront Crossings area or be rezoned to a Riverfront Crossings oning designation. his is just the master plan, not the zoning code. Thomas asked at this phase if t e impacts of the propose from an environmental impact osition such as traffic and IN 14 story buildings could dem d quite a bit of traffic and pa Yapp stated the appropriatelime to evaluate those types of rezoning request with an ac ual project to evaluate. Freerks opened public heoring on the inclusion of the three Riverfront Crossings Dist ict. heights of the buildings looked at arking. For example, a cluster of 7 - king needs for that particular area. emands is when there is a icipal blocks into the Downtown Rockne Cole (1607 Eas{_Court Street), chair of the Iowa Collation gainst the Shadow, stated that at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting there w a lengthy discussion of the transition zones and Ralston Creek being a natural barrier of a train 'tional zone and encourages the Commission to address that issue. Cole also noted hat in the Staff report, exhibit C, outlines the possibility of 3 15 -story buildings within a block and a half. He Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 23 encourages the Commission to explore, especially how it pertains to Robert .Lee, and if Staff is aware of any plans for the City to sell the Robert E. Lee Recreation Cen r to allow that sort of development. That would be a major departure in that particular area, eople can differ on beliefs of what are appropriate building heights, but his group is particul rly against such tall buildings and feels that height is a deal and should be taken into c nsideration and if there are three tall buildings in a block an a half, especially within such a roximity to Iowa Avenue, and the view of the Old Capital, eve a 75 foot building is a major parture of what is there now and a change to the sight line. C le requests the Commissi defer decision on this until the Staff can answer what they are goi g to do with the Robert . Lee center, and the public has adequate input. Cole did commend the taff, Commission an previous City Councils for adopting the Riverfront Crossings Plan, lot of it made sens ,that to the south of Burlington you would have more dense vertical deve opment to take p ss re off the neighborhoods. That was a good plan and feels this Commissio should stick t it. However he feels that same theory is now being used to put pressure b ck on the ne' hborhoods and if there are 3 15 -story buildings within a block and a half next to a istoric dis ict, that is a major departure and this Commission should allow adequate public c mment that and delay decision on that, and the Staff should publicize that because this is the first ti a the public has seen a concept of possible 15 story development at the Robert . Le Center. Beth Stence (310 Golfview Avenue), is repre College and Gilbert Streets and is urging the amendment Staff has recommended for the on behalf of Trinity because they believe the Comprehensive Plan will significantly harm spaces that promote public dis if right outside the space they sunlight becomes scarce, maki areas and the exteriors of exist parking as these large building a barrier to events at surroundi community that are not young community can congregate an if this becomes part of the Co would come before this Comm argued against CB -10 type de decision. Changes to zoning t faith, cultural, and community community life so she asks t this potential change and v e ng Trinity Episcopal Church at the corner of emission to vote against the proposed District. She stands before the Commission i es that will follow from the revised a institutions like churches and infringe on Comm to take a moment to imagine were tall buildings, up to 15 stories, to thrive, making outside public magi the increased pressure on public rking of their tenants. This becomes nstitutions, especially for those in the continuing to be an area where our to simply "get through". In the future, ate specific zoning change requests ning Commission has previously Church agrees with that previous evelopment over the impacts to c s will harm the quality of th impacts that could derive from course. S asks th Com E meetin in tonight here ng it har er for green aces ing buil Ings gloomy. mag s do n supply adequa pa ng bu inesses and cultu al i or a e -bodied. Rather th n J th ve, it becomes an ar Cory hensive Plan, we antic is ion. The Planning and Z v lopment in this area and t at favor revenue generating acilities and public greenspa e Commission to consider all against the planned amendn Laura Bergus (2231 Calif nia Avenue) and has lived in Iowa Ci y for 34 years. She expressed she is really excited abo the potential for downtown Iowa City t grow up, as so many parts of town continue to grow o t. She used to live in the lot that is at th east of the very eastern edge of this district, and othe locations in the downtown area. Where s e is currently living there are developments with lot of cookie -cutter buildings and not a lot of ar hitectural differences or types of uses, so wha really excites her about the proposed amend ent to the Comprehensive Plan is it would allow igher intensity, and higher density uses. She es agree that taller buildings do need to be considered with respect to the environmental i pact, but when discussing places where people can gather, or people can congregate, eople can live and participate in all kinds of community activities and higher intensity, higher ensity, mixed-use Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 23 areas actually gives those type of opportunities. She hopes the Commission will consider that as this amendment is not talking about buildings with one type of. use, a no one probably wants downtown to just be a whole bunch more bars or more apartments, the hole point is mixing up the uses. Bergus reiterated she supports the staff recommendations d appreciates the opportunity to speak tonight. Connie Champion (430 S. Summ t) totally supports the amendme s to the Civic District and thinks it is exciting and has been Ialt with for several years now She likes the mixed-use, the density, the lack of urban sprawl it rings, and people like to liv close to the core of the city. Ritu Jain (829 Kirkwood Avenue) is s eaking on behalf of th CBC and is also a downtown business owner and feels developmen s like this would ac ally enhance the city. There have already been some high-rises downtow and it has chan d the face of downtown and the community building for the downtown ha been great. a hears a lot of people want to be living downtown and mixed -uses like this re bringing ose people from what they call the suburbs to the core of the city, so she is d finitely in Jbvor of this plan. Nancy Quellhorst, representing the Iowa Citi the Staff's recommendation for the Civic Dist District remain in the Downtown Planning Di Crossings Plan and the Downtown Master P because they are struggling with obtaining tz projects downtown are critical to attracting t businesses. These workers have a great Ie 'ha ber of Commerce. The Chamber supports at Ian, they feel it is important that the Civic t and to be added to the Downtown Riverfront Employers are losing opportunities to expand ;n acquisitions. It has been noted that mixed-use w kers that are so important to the success of re f high density housing in an urban environment. It is also attractive to retire s who ar increasingly attracted to walking ability and access to downtown amenities. The Ci c District P n fosters smart growth, yields affordable infrastructure and the highest revenue otential for t city which is very important to funding our social services and community ne ds. Quellhorst uggests that both Plaza Towers and 201 Washington, which are both high ris structures, have of created a gloomy environment at all and on the contrary have increased he vibrancy of the owntown area and that is very critical to attracting the workers needed to s stain the community. Marc McCullum (113 South Joh on Street) commented t t at the last meeting Nancy Bird spoke about diversity in the do ntown area, the blend of of and new, and the concern he has about this proposal is we are j st going to get new. There is of anything being put in place to preserve the diversity in the n ighborhood. He would encour a the Commission to think about why they would up -zone an rea next to a historic neighbor h_ . He agrees with the ideas of walkable neighborhoods, bo also need for small businesses an for density but doesn't feel it always has to be in a high- ise. McCullum does think the City sh uld be looking at the Robert E. Lee area, and was sur rised when the RFP for College & Gilb they didn't look at that block as a bundle. He feels th t area should be visioned like the East ,i age in Des Moines, with low- rise structures replicatin areas of the downtown area, such as the 00 block of Dubuque Street where there are small r tail outlets. The question is really how this d velopment will play out next to a 150 year old istoric park and historic neighborhood. His co cern is losing all the historic structures in t is area, seems like every church is being looke at as a lot development and it is a challenge t know how to allow some things to go forward wit out taking out the whole neighborhood. Al Raymond (1045 Westside Drive) wished to echo the sentiments of Marc McCullum, and that the folks opposed to this are not necessarily opposed to what it might bring t6 Iowa City. He Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 23 was a little hesitant about the high-rises that went up in downtown bu they have not become part of the skyline and they do add something to that part of the city. His concern with this amendment is it will stick out like a sore thumb. This area already f Is like it's fading out of downtown and into residential and this would create a disjoint that oesn't make sense. Additionally to say we need densitylo encourage people to come ere and work, he would like to see that data backed up. Raym nd encourages this decision o be deferred until there is more clarification on these issues. eyond that, this all feels Ii a retroactive justification for the Chauncey Building. The City ch e a project that didn't ake sense to a lot of the community, that didn't even make sen to some of City Co cil, and now after the fact we are seeing adjustment to the Master Plan to ind of shoe horn t is project in. He also feels some of the area in the Riverfront Crossings area outh of Burlingt n would be excellent for these types of projects. Joe Tiefenthaler (222 Washington Street),E ecutive rector at Iowa City FilmScene and one of the Co -Executive Directors of the Mission Cr k Fill Festival, said that is seems at the last meeting and this one there is discussion abouklosiq6cultural centers. Tiefenthaler has worked in literary non -profits since graduating colleged as headed to New York but was called back to Iowa City for the rarest of opportunities, a full a arts job opening in Iowa City. Those type of positions aren't open or created very frequen and therefore Iowa City has lost a lot of talent to the coasts over the years. He chose to retu Iowa City for a chance to hone and build on a home grown not-for-profit cinema wing to t vis on and commitment the Moen Group has shown for this community and for its growth. rowt in population, in opportunities, employment and business, and the art entertainment sc ne and ixed purpose and opportunities all imperial. In their first year, FilmScene has een mor than 30,000 movie goers through their doors. That is over 600 people per week citizens a families that are seeing movies on critical topics, issues, kid's programming, speci I appearanc s and discussions, focusing on filmmakers, musicians, UI professors, mmunity lead rs and national experts. These are films from Palestine and Japan, from Polan and Chile, and ilms made right here in Iowa City. There are films and events that would not o erwise be possib a without FilmScene. One possible benefit of the rezoning would be the hauncey project a d FilmScene, to see what they can do with two downtown locations and t o screens, helping to edesign downtown not just in north and south terms, but in the vibran of east and west, hel ing to redesign Iowa City as an arts employer. Tiefenthaler has lived n or around College Gr n Park for 15 years, those are beautiful homes and they desery preservation, but if those homes another block away are such a dissent for mixed-use zoning at is a different meeting an a different motion and he is fully in support of this recommendatio for this rezoning. Jon Fogarty (708 Whiting Av nue) recalled the discussion last ?nth to consider the daily impacts of these decisions. he truth is, you have to do this, w have no options, there are no other plays in the playbook/it is this or nothing. The proposed de elopments and the ideas in the three blocks are going o be magic and far better than anythin else that is happening in Iowa City and it will save s. If you believe that, you might as well\tha Iowa City's downtown surrounded b a wall placed on a great mountain that ishorseshoe shape. The mighty Ralston Cre k was discussed the last time as a buffer d if you through in that 20 foot wide street at is Van Buren, you can't see that CB -5 ment on Washington Street because of that magnificent buffer, transition zone, and thatwe need to be speaking about, the transition zone. There needs to be a transitionom the larger developments and the historic neighborhood. The CB -5 developms on Washington Street did not change the fabricof the neighborhood one bit, and those houses that were taken down, the houses next to it, and the houses up the block and around the corner are all Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 23 replaceable and that is why we have no options. Fogarty stated that was a big mistake and they did lose some of the fabric of the neighborhood, and it was preventable. These buildings aren't magic and they don't have to go there, and everyone that shares his view oint would be in favor of finding alternate locations. The title for the option is on the slide, that i what Riverfront Crossing is supposed to be about, or is that to be talked about and othe ise ignored. There are some great things goingon in Riv ont Crossings and that area nee it, it is an area of downtown that has long been n lected, and presents a great oppo nity for us to make this Central Business District probabl three times as large as it is toda . Growth, commercial, residential, you can put it there, it i a huge opportunity, and we n ed to seize it. The focus on these three blocks here, like they a the real estate messiah is affling. Fogarty stated it has been seen over the past two years at happens if these opti s aren't explored, and the consequences to the day to day neig borhood. Washington treet is now radically different and all the things people love about downt wn Iowa City and to place in this Civic District will be directly impacted. Just to imagine 4-6 tory buildings on V n Buren where the Co-op and radio station currently are and to see a 6 sto building rather an the Victorian houses. Ultimately what is being asked for is to consider the options and c nsider the impacts. The Victorian homes are not replaceable, and the fabric of a neigh b rhood is not redeemable. Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson) stated tIQ` an insensitive block, the east wall of that buil no buffer zone. The website of Neumann Mo enhancements to the surrounding neighboncc neighborhood". That did not happen. The pi over of the title of this amendment which is people will say "that was always Riverfront i let's just call it correctly and say i story building 45 feet tall. If you historic district and that is what y is not a sensitive transition zone historic district, and abide by the things, and should get some res Commission to defer this item b gallop south of Burlington. The and now it's going to be change work that went into the Compr story apartment building that was built in 18 feet from her home's west wall. There is says very politically "It is to build architectural not to fight or be distracting from the cannot trust that sentiment or the glossing *ont Crossings Plan. Two years from now gs, you just misunderstood". Michaud says t. What is next to her home is a 4 to that. That is monstrous next to a A, and Washington Street. That ses. Michaud is happy to live in a e to ask for permission for a lot of or that. Michaud is asking the nd the galloping development can just updated six or seven months ago nsistent and is not respecting all the It's a laissez-faire movement. t will be B-5 and hat's i want 7 feet, just a d 30 ou'd b adding by to a A to tw -story Victorian hou gui elines, and they v pe and transition zon f as d on the public input mprehensive Plan wa dramatically. That is inc ensive Plan for Iowa City. Andrew Sherburne (1204 Sh ridan Avenue) is one of the co ounders of FilmScene and has lived in Iowa City for 11 yea s, having come here for his wife go to school and never really planned to stay but rather ove back to St. Paul where the a\that portunities are plentiful and lots of mixed-use areas, ere we thought we could raise ouren and experience the best of what a city has to offe . But something changed, and thera certain gravitational pull in Iowa City and that Iowa ity does have those cultural opport, you can find the same things you can find in 'big city, but you can find it in a commhat is tighter -knit and closer together. When we d cided to stay in Iowa City and raise a fhere, we knew we wanted to live near downtown. a wanted to be as close as we could ose cultural opportunities and that is how we elected our home, and why we live withii g distance to downtown Iowa City. Foundin ilmScene for him, and for this entire coni there was no other place an art house cinema could go but into the downtown. It's theral eart of the city and a place where the art can deliver 32,000 people the opportunitit F mScene has delivered over the past year. And it's a placewhere the community caer j st as much to them. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 23 Sherburne stated they were proud to be in downtown and this rezoning opportunity will allow them to strengthen what they've built over the course of the last few years. And not only have that, but to strengthen the gravitational pulled of Iowa City that draws us all closer, that brings us all in from far away, a signature development like the Chauncey will b a calling card for Iowa City and will provide that cultural home for FilmScene and allow the to expand and provide common spaces and housing so people will be able to live closer to ese opportunities. Sherburne encouraged the Com on to follow the Staff recomm ndations, and he supports the rezoning. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to defer this discu sion and decision u til the Commission can hear from the Historic Preservation Com ission. Eastham seconded. Yapp confirmed that the Unitarian Church roperty ' the only property identified as historic in that three block area. Hektoen asked if the Historic Preservation C ission is looking at that property of if it has already been designated. Yapp replied that t Commission has requested to look at the entire area to see if any properties should be identiYeN and will be doing so at their next meeting. Thomas also wants the Historic Preservati n Co mission to look at the amendment and see if they have any concerns about addicting Oese thr a blocks to the Downtown District. Eastham stated that the Master Plan the historic character of the Downtovi as the businesses and people locate on College Street could be taller in would like to ask the Historic Pres those questions. �f the Downt wn District does have language that says District is an portant asset for the community as well there. There s also been a lot of discussion if buildings ght and if it wo d affect historic character. Eastham tion Commissio to give some advice or guidance on Freerks stated that this area isally about some parking lots, civic buildings, parking ramps, a park, and it is pretty clear ther is a historic structure here\ Yapp stated that in the conteAt of the Comprehensive Plan entifying the Unitarian Church property as a key historicst cture is about the most signific nt thing we can do for a comprehensive plan. Hektoen reminded the C mission that what they can do with Comprehensive Plan amendment, again this i not a rezoning. The language in the omprehensive Plan is already as strongly worded as i can be regarding this historic parcel. Freerks agreed, but wanted to make sure that if they defer they wd�ld be receiving additional information in the fut a to help formulate a decision. Miklo added that the h1storic Preservation Commission's role is focus n historic buildings and district and it seems like what you are asking for is them to evaluate, ich is the Planning and Zoning Commission's role. Eastham clarified he is asking for the HistorN Preservation Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 23 Commission have an opportunity to inform the Planning and Zoning Commission about the historic aspects of these proposed plans. Miklo stated that is a valid question for the area to around these three blocks, and the area east of it, but for these three bl cks it is not necessary. Hektoen stated the Historic Preservation Commission with regards to th s particular application to amend the Comprehensive Plan; it is not their role to consider the i act of surrounding development on even further away historic buildings. Their expertise i to evaluate the historic significance of a particular property. This is the reason the Compreh sive Plan amendments come to P&Z first not Historic Preservation Commission. Freerks is concerned that with reards to this three block area, t ere is not any more information the Historic Preservati n Commission can/ow sist with the decision. Thomas asked if Trinity Church was identifi d as a historic strFreerks answered yes however the real issue is the underlying zoni g of the area andwhat the Historic Preservation Commission can give as added info ation. Theobald is in agreement with Freerk and doesn't seHistoric Preservation Commission can assist with this partic ar area. A vote for deferral was taken failed 3-3. Swygard moved that the proposed ame do blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Str Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District) be a c Riverfront Crossings and Downtown M It Comprehensive Plan text and map be en addendum to the Downtown District the Plan. Eastham seconded the motion. ants to the Comprehensive Plan for the Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and ;d to the Downtown District of the Plan. Additionally under the led for consistency with the proposed Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Eastham wanted to state for the r ord he struggles with why these three blocks need to be changed in the Comprehensive P an to something di erent and especially for higher density and commercial uses. There just d sn't seem to be a reI rationale why the three blocks need to change from their present nee and use. He also note that the character of walking down College, Washington or Iowa ' very different east of Gi ert Street. Thomas stated his concern s with transition, and that is s mething the Commission has discussed many times no . He understands that the polic has been for some 20 years that if the downtown is to expa beyond its current boundaries t t should preserve and reflect the o n character of the downtitself. That character is essential a 2-6 story building and that is why the CB -10, CB -5 a d C13-2 series was developed. As th downtown expanded the CB -5 and C13-2 would provi for a quality for that expansion that w uld be very reminiscent of what is seen in the downto n itself. Overall he likes densities, but c ain densities are suited for certain areas. Eastham added th t the Riverfront Crossings District provides a h e opportunity to accomplish the goals that peo le have said they want for the Downtown Distric including higher residential density and improv access to office space. Those needs are also d et by the current Downtown District plan. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 23 Freerks stated there have been comments from people that it is a goo thing though to add more density in areas where there are amenities, such as the Robert Ere Recreation Center or the Chauncey Swan Park. Thomas added that CB -5 density lows for up to 75 feet, that is a 6 s)6ry building. A vote was taken and the motion Discussion of proposed amend the Civic District, north of Iowa, District Plan Land Use Map as Exhibit B. Additionally staff reci be amended for consistency w Plan iled by a vote of 1-5 (Freerks its to the Comprehensi a Plan that the remainder of and east of Van Bure St, be added to the Central addendum and sho as 'Mixed Use' as shown on nends IC2030 Com rehensive Plan text and map this proposed ad endum to the Central District Yapp showed a map (exhibit B) which as the area rth of Iowa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street. The Comprehensive Pla identifies t is larger area and the North Clinton/Dubuque Street area as areas t at shoul a examined more closely and amended into the Central District Plan. This area Hort of low Avenue and east of Van Buren Street, staff does recommend it be added to the Cen Plan policies. Staff recommends identify already largely mixed-use, containing resi the area is currently zoned both CB -2 and building heights within the larger area angl Green Park. Di rict Plan making it subject to the Central District rea as mixed-use in the land use map; the area is tial, office and commercial development. Much of B-5. Yapp showed a map showing potential ie historic districts around and north of College Swygard questioned if there were any single not believe so, it is all zoned multi -f mily. Freerks pointed out that the area s actually not the neighboring historic areas. he believes the transition as one walks down Vollege Street or Ic commercial rather than buildi g new CB -5 buildir This would include setback from the street, ares we can't call them historic tructures in this area, in the area and CB -5 doe not do that. ily housing zoned in these areas. Yapp does apresentative of the underlying zone, due to whole area needs more reflection on the a Avenue and reusing the homes as i therefore maintaining the feel of the area. is between structures, green space and so if find a way to maintain that sense and feel Eastham asked why dehignate these areas as mixed use and Yapp replied because that is how they are being used. Yreerks added that mixed-use n eds more limitations for this area due to what might go there Oiven the opportunity. This is the pportunity for the Commission to set as part of the goals to I ok at setbacks, greenspace, and hatever might replace these mid -block sections stay in ch racter with the area. Freerks opened j ublic hearing on this portion of the currtt Civic District. Marc McCullu stated he proposed some time ago a villa type overlay, because of the rampant rede elopment the community is losing a lot of the 'ttle boutique stores and things like that and anyt in to encourage that would be good. Another hing to consider is the bundling of parcels in th areas to assure the development of scale. A perhaps if there is a restriction to do that, perhaps through special exception, that would thenjive the City a little bit more Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 23 control over what happens there. Helen Burford (528 East College Street) the historic district and supports what Ar consideration of what it means to recogr and in order to maximize the value of sp considerations are needed to make ther iteration of the plan does not address th Wed she often feels her n just said because there ize the historic areas, the ace you have to bundle p' � economical viable. Bu Pam Michaud stated they truly are the buff r z folks that come and go in downtown from r ck lives and there is room for all. Michaud shake brown. Some height restrictions are 2-5 sto e why there would be a 6 story building on the established, and same with Washington. Wh The other point she would like to clarify is the are RM -12 and the RSN-20 is Washington an 12 (a very small one-story house). While that concern, those houses are really small heights developed. Michaud mentioned that the street often lament with Project Green and these wo Dutch Elms, well there is a beautiful tree can community is thinking of landscaping and c need to keep the tree we have, with the se a and it contains about four mental health c mer beautiful 1880 brick house that has bee kept adjacent to it. So that whole 500 block f Coll buildings setbacks and gardens and at she 500 block are the gardens, not the Vi torian ho important and when you put in a blo k long bu density, you lose the human scale. So that is Washington Streets are anything ver four sto Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that this scheduled meeting. Swygard seconded the io a is in the buffer zone of i s not been a significant tbacks that are needed, -cels and then other rd stated she believes this one and are a osed to a lot of different types of et scientists t people that are struggling with their d her confu 'on on the map and the areas shaded s and oth s are 4-6. It is hard to understand 00 block f Iowa Avenue, how did that line get is that umped up more than Burlington Street. ree uses that she and her neighbors occupy Joh son, just that one corner lot next to her RM- ig t not be the Commission's purview or t cannot be replaced even if they are ape is extremely important, we know how we d rful green organizations and how we lost the py n the 500 block of College right now. And if a opie you can't replace an 80 year old tree. We ac n emphasized. It is a beautiful 500 block, buil ings that are very functional, there is a up an is a multi -family building and another ege on the south side is intact with original misses the most about her Washington Street uses. he space between the buildings is ilding it i so depersonalized, so upscale in why she ould question why the Iowa and ries. cussion and decision be n. rred until the next regularly Freerks stated she feel the Commission needs another info item. Freerks believes he three block municipal area will be already in motion for t at area, however the Commission can surrounding area is otected and maintained. That even if bui replaced, to replace hem in a fashion where they are not so jai Staff time to come p with ideas to make sure we can maintain community. work session meeting on this it it is, and the wheels are rk to help assure the ings in that area need to be ng. Freerks would like to give tis beautiful part of the Eastham made an amendment to the motion to defer this item til the March 5, 2015 meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 23 Miklo pointed out what happened on Washington Street in the CB -2 zone was the cause for the concern for the future of this area and Freerks is requesting Staff look at fo m -based codes or some other way to allow for redevelopment for non -historic properties in a ay that protects the integrity of the neighborhood. Swygard seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carriled 6-0. DEVE Discussion of an application submitted y Hieronymus amily Partnership for a rezoning of 1.36 acres from Low Density Single Fami (RS -5) zone o High Density Single Family (RS -12) zone and for a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a -lot, 17.85 acre residential subdivision located north of Muscatine Avenue and we of Scott oulevard. Miklo began by showing a map of thearea, poti and the remainder is zoned RS -5, the propos I i to reflect the change in the design of the preli n Zoning Commission reviewed and recomme d in June 2014. In that plan a cul-de-sac was I grove of trees and three residential lots o us is vacant, and the third has the Hierony s fam consideration of the plat, the applicant r queste on hold. Now the applicant has redes' ned the p the cul-de-sac, but no longer include Outlot B or this was reviewed last summer, the ommission i terms of a cul-de-sac not connecti g to adjacent applicant wanted to preserve the open space and with the previous version of the lat. is zoned RM -12 Low Density Multi -family to rezone a small area that is RS -5 to RS -12 ary plat. Miklo said that the Planning and approval of a preliminary plat for Silver Slope ned as well as a Outlot B for preservation of a atine Avenue, one has a small house on it, one I home on it. Prior to City Council that the plat and associated rezoning be put t, it includes the same design for Silver Lane, he three lots on Muscatine Avenue. When ued a waiver to the subdivision standards in pr perties. The rationale for that was the tr es on Outlot B so that was accomplished Miklo said that the applicant ' no longer perusing tha plan, so now that Outlot B and adjacent lots have been removed fro the subdivision, there is o longer a reason that Silver Lane can't be curved and extended t the south property line. T 's would provide the future development of the 3+ acres of land to ted between Silver Lane an Muscatine Avenue. Although the applicant may have no ans to further develop his prop rty and sees no need to provide for future street connectivi , Staff believes that overtime as roperty ownership changes, there will likely be demand for f rther development. It is best that i be planned for to avoid another non - connected street. Ot erwise the property that has been re oved from the plat could be subdivided in the fu re resulting in a cul-de-sac street that would run parallel to Juniper Drive. This as well as the currently proposed design for Silver Slo a would be counter to the Subdivision Stan ards that call for street and pedestrian co ectivity and discourage cul-de- sacs except wh a there is a reason, such as the preservatio of open space. If the subdivision included the pr perty shown as Outlot B on the previous vers n of the plat as open space, there would b a rationale to approve a cul-de-sac on Silver L ne. Based on non-compliance with the Subdivision Code's standa ds, staff recommends that this version of Silver Slope preliminary plat be denied. Staff also sees , o reason to amend the zoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 14 of 23 boundary until there is an acceptable subdivision design. Staff recommends denial of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family residential (RS -5) to multi -family (RM -12) and SUB14-000081 a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 19 -lot, approximately 12.48 -acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenugartd Scott Boulevard. Hektoen stated that typically a zoning boundary follows the lot line so staff r commendation is that if the Commission does no recommend this plat you should also deny the rezoning because there is no lot line. Eastham asked with the proposed lat, what would the access be tot area zoned RM -12. Miklo replied that it would likely be o _' Silver Lane, the site plans s ndards state that if there is an alternative to an arterial street t alternative street wouYneto be used. Miklo stated there is a concept plan for townhouse pe housing on propehat would have to be amended and approved by staff if this s bdivision is approveiveway would likely be off Silver Lane. Freeks opened public hearing. John Hieronymus is representing the Hieron development. That partnership consists of fiv property. He pointed out the large number of p the Village Green area that are single road acc showing the variety of housing in the area with Legacy Point Senior Housing, currently right us Fa y Partnership that is proposing this siblin s and they are all equal partners in the area, then there is a big farm lot and then th Adirlt upscale larger homes and the Village Gre neigh] neighborhoods of Court Hill that are mor normal s Park area, a large green space with th cott Trail, Kies across the street from his property in properties. Hieronymus also showed a map mobile home park down Scott Boulevard, the Muscatine is a higher density residence Iton Heights neighborhood with some more orhood across the street and the i ed, modest homes. And there is the Scott d there will also be the new school at the end of Muscatine down by Taft. YThathows this is a area that needs some development and development is continuing. Thisular area wouldave 22 townhomes on a 3 acre lot on Muscatine, and yes the access e off of Silver SI pe for those units. Then the 19 single family lots that would make up thainder of the sub 'vision. Hieronymus said that the dev opment would have a bene't to the City as the developer has been asked and have agree to put a sidewalk along the a ire area of Muscatine Avenue from Scott all the way to Juniper treet. That is not property of th developer but has been expected of us, and the cost to thefamily will be approximately $70,000 ecause in addition to removing all the trees and shrubs ere also has to be a change of gradi , a retaining wall put in along part of the area, and a)t>o moving utilities that are in the area. H ronymus pointed out on the map the section that as already been developed, there are thre properties there. The property on the rig is about two acres, the property in the middle is his home, and then there is a one acre lot as ell. Those lots were developed in 1950 and hav a lot of mature trees and the biggest reas not to put the street through this area was becau a these were his family home and the r a has become an arboretum over the past 60 years. Originally it was bare farm ground _now has over 200 variety of trees and shrubs and pr vides a habitat for lots of small animals n is especially rich in birds. It has been home to over a last two years to two great horn owls and lots and lots of song birds. The family has approac d the heritage commission to put this area into a heritage trust, they took it to their board nd because the area Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 15 of 23 is not native plants and not native trees it didn't fit their mission and they didn't approve it. However, that is still a goal, to preserve the area as an arboretum, to live on it and to improve it. As a representative for the Hieronymus Family Partnership they believ that this proposal fits the requirements of the code specifically because in order to put this s bdivision in, it has to go in as a cul-de-sac because with all of the surrounding areas already ve been developed, there is no way to put in this subdivision without interfering with exis ' g neighborhoods. Duane Musser, MMS Consulta ts, has been involved with this pr perty since approximately 2011. Since then they have go a through several different de i ns, two separate construction plans and concepts with the Hie nymus family and City Sta .Musser believes this current design is the best fit for this prop y for many reasons. O being the location of the street off of Scott Boulevard that is critical fo the grading. The gra ng on this site is very challenging, there is well over a 50 foot of fall in north/south directi So that is very challenging for an engineering firm for trying to build se able lotsand ke the costs down and the dirt moving down and try to make the site balanc . To make thi ite balance now with the current design, they are not tying the street to any adj cent prope owners which gives them the freedom to not only grade the site to make as man walk-ou ots as possible (as everybody knows, those are very popular) but also gives them th freed m to not tie the street to any other adjacent property and be able to balance the site nd ove the contours up and down. Some of the other advantages of that is the ability to control water on the site and get the swales and water as required to the stormwater basin. Another dvantage of not connecting the street is they are able to keep the street grades flatter, on o the challenges of running the street through is they were getting into excess of 8% street g de to try to get back in and tie into that south boundary. Now there are street grad of 50 or less. To connect the streets would have required quite a bit of dirt removal a that w uld have increased the cost of the development. Another factor with this design is t ability to et the same number of lots with a variety of lots and lot sizes. Hieronymus stated that City St ff is not recomm riding approval of the subdivision, and gave the family two alternatives. O e was to put in a t rough street. He had MMS draw a quick sketch of what that would to like which shows t addition of little lots that couldn't be built on. There are many problems hen you try to put in a rough street, first the partnership that owns the 12 acres does not ow any of those properties t e through street would need to tie to, and the owners of those pro rties are not willing to sell to the partnership. To try to curve that street, it eliminates thr lots in the subdivision, and Iso it would provide a cut -through street that travelers could u to avoid the Scott Blvd/Musca ine Avenue intersection which is very busy. Hieronymus s ted the next issue is that this is a wooded lot and only 50% of a wooded lot can be develop . He indicated on the map the tre that are grove trees (more than 12 feet in diameter) and t ey are all 40 — 60 years old. This tre grove provides a wind break for all the area around it, a pecially the Juniper Street area. If that treet were to go through, and with all the grading an dirt removal and removal of trees obviou y that wind break would no longer be there. Hieron mus said it is possible, so they've been tol that they can dead end a street right at the end of he property but that doesn't change any of th se ultimate outcomes. If someone were event ally to develop the property, they would need to o ahead and put this street through, ich would cause all these problems discussed an in the meantime it's a dead end street. Hieronymus provided the Commission with additional materials, one shows the exception and modification requirements, with the estimates of the costs if the t rough street went through. The exception also shows it does not hinder public safety in any ay. Hieronymus doesn't think Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 16 of 23 the proposal needs an exception, however if that is what the Commission needs to move, it along to City Council he had, provided the justification. Hieronymus continued with discussion of the detention basin, showing where it would be required to go. That area was': riginally a pond, it was filled with Orous material when College Street was changed into a ped trian mall and a lot of that fill wat hauled out to this property and dumped out here. So it act\na atural sink, what happe s is the water that does drain from the ridge down into the baright into the ground. At one point, to appease City Staff, Hieronymus was going to up his lot, but then w told he could not do that, and he could not phase this project in ae it a second phas it has to be a final plat. Additionally when this plat came before the ssion on June5, 2 14, he was informed by Staff on that day it wasn't sufficient to put in tion pond witha ormal pipe that would take it away as stormwater that the property woe to be graded ward Muscatine Avenue so that if that pipe got filled, and the detentionverflowed, th water would naturally flow to Muscatine Avenue. After that plat was appHieronymus alked the land again the next day and called Staff and said it could notre the City Council because it would not work. Hieronymus showed photos of the area, n the homes already in the area. Staff has 11 driveway between two of the lots, and tha a large bank. He showed another photo o are trying to preserve. Hieronymus stated previously approved are unworkable, an I conclusion he would like to go back to at They are trying to put in a 12 acre dev opn ex lained how the grading would adversely affect 4� commended that Hieronymus put a shared red driveway would go right where trees are and ie trees in the proposed subdivision area that they I the changes, even the ones from the plat that was �y destroy the value of both the existing lots. So in e Hieronymus Family Partnership is trying to do. t, which includes 3 acres of multi -family housing, townhouse style, and 19 single family ots. It nkes full use of the 12 acres, it best fits the contour of the land, it provides for di erent type of housing, it meets the requirements of the code, seeing how the existing area round it, co pletely surrounds it with existing development. It doesn't have a negative impact n the existing eighborhood and they have considered all the alternatives they or the staff coul come up with a d none of the alternatives are workable. Freerks asked Miklo to bring u the plat that was ap roved in June to see the area where the detention pond was to go. M)to pointed out the alre y plotted lots and the area in question regarding the drainage issu but was unsure of whey the detention basin was for that portion of the property. Miklo also ddressed the question of th shared driveway and he was unsure if the location of the shared riveway was ever identified. Miklo asked Musser to ow the detention pond area. Mu ser explained that they are talking about a second storm ater detention basin that would be eded if John Hieronymus' personal property was also de eloped. Freerks stated she is still stru gling with what the Commission approved before wit the requirements now for the additional etention basin and shared driveway. Hektoer explained that those requirements would o ly need to take effect if the property was dev oped, it was not necessary for final plat Hier nymus stated however that if they followed thr ugh with that plat that was approved in June, it ould devalue the one acre lot and he would n be able to sell that one acre lot if desired. He d s expect sometime in the future to sell o that one acre lot. Freerks did state that the Commi sion has to follow the subdivision po icies however and use those as guidance and adhere o them. Miklo stated that the individual is that already are plotted can be sold tomorrow, they re not contingent on the subdivision design. The importance is to get Outlot B protected, so on solution is to plat that area to establish the Outlot B. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 17 of 23 Angela Villhauer (912 Juniper Drive) stated that her husband and her have followed this discussion from the very get -go and it keeps bringing up a few concerns. They were concerned when the proposal was a dead end street, with the idea of putting a through street should it be further developed, and does see the likelihood that people will cut through there from Scott Blvd to get to Muscatine to avoid the high traffic areas. Villhauer stated she is not against subdivisions or developments as new homes in her development ill help stabilize values, it will attract new families to the neighb rhood, but she does think it is i portant that those subdivisions dovetail what is alrea y there. And by totally changi g the whole landscape and adding a through street doesn't re ly dovetail it. Miklo stated th t the through street is not on the table at this point. Villhauer reit rated that her husband an she support the subdivision, and they don't want the through stret and as the discussion as been brought up about grading, they live on the downside of hat area and even wit a water retention and piping it changes the way the water flows to th se homes and they urrently already have a sump pump that runs year round because it is a to area and water r ns that way. So in looking at this, putting in a cul-de-sac is the best plan, aving that wh a entire property to the Hieronymus family without having to do additional gr ding or addit' nal water detentions, really supports everyone. It provides green space and so tax doll rs, they have to pay property tax, they have to maintain it, and they do keep tha property p. Beth Hieronymus (3322 Muscatine Avem question and would support a motion to d property that has nothing to do with the di that property if it were set aside, because part of the property they pay property to she has her home, and she has prope y. they have devalued that lot as a who . The enjoy all the lovely trees, animals, e c and kr maintained. And if someone dow the road right to say no. Miklo asserted t t if the sut If Freerks closed public hearing Eastham moved that this gem be deferred Theobald seconded theifnotion. Z6a owns the property that is the overriding Her question is as the homeowner of the private opment, would be Outlot B. Who would maintain it now the Hieronymus family maintains it and it is n. When she looks at the value of her property ,he were to take two acres out of her property then family purchased this property to maintain and w the obligation of keeping that property nts to subdivide that property the City has the 'vision meets the zoning, the City cannot deny. the next formal meeting. Eastham asked Miklo t summarize exactly what i at issue for this item. The staff recommendation is for the development of single f ily homes in a multi -family area with streets connecting w' Muscatine and Scott. Miklo orrected that the staff recommendation is the plat that was ap roved last summer which hast a cul-de-sac with single family homes on it, it preserves the wo de area as Outlot B, and then t e three lots that the Hieronymus family owns be included Miklo feels that they can look at th property and explore not including the existing lot on M scatine that the Hieronymus family o ns as part of the subdivision, provided the grove of tre s is set aside an outlot. If the wooded ea is not set aside as an outlot then the plat does not eet the exception for the subdivision cod s. Eastham askeV if he recalls correctly that when this plat s recommended for approval in June, there was discussion of public safety concerns regar ing the subdivision being connect to Scott Blvd rather than Muscatine Avenue as they are both a erial streets. Freerks confirmed Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 18 of 23 that was discussed a length at that time. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB15-00001) Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies fo a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17 -lot 9.98 acre commercial subd' ision located north of Northgate Drive. Miklo explained that the rezoning oft 's property was approv d at the last meeting of the Commission. It had been zoned Interi Development-Offic Research Park (ID -ORP) and in January the Planning and Zoning Com ission reviewed d recommend approval of a rezoning to Commercial Office (CO -1). The rezon' g is currently ending before the City Council. The applicant is now requesting approval of a reliminary 915t to subdivide the property into 17 lots. Initially street access to this property will be via No gate Drive, which intersects with Dodge Street (Highway 1) Northgate will be exten ed the north side of this subdivision where it will end in a temporary turn around. In the long -t Oakdale Boulevard is planned to cross the northern portion of this property to provide ad ional access to Highway 1. This subdivision will provide for the dedication of the right- - ay for Oakdale Boulevard, but rather than install the street at this time, the develope wi pay the cost of the construction of a 28 foot wide street (the City pays the oversize c t for collector and arterial streets). Construction of Oakdale Boulevard will be delayed u it plans for the street to the west are solidified. A temporary turn around will be provide at the en of Northgate Drive and Century Drive until such time Oakdale Boulevard is built. The subdivision complies with the ity's subdivisi polices. Outlot A located on the south side of the subdivision contains storm ater manageme t facilities that were installed with previous phases of the Highlander devel pment. These basi s will be enlarged to provide stormwater management for the larger su division. Prelimina stormwater management calculations should be submitted to the C' y Engineer for review. The sensitive areas map i dicates potential wetlands n Outlot A. In 2002 the when the Highlander Development rd Addition was reviewed, i was determined that this area does not contain jurisdictional we ands and is not subject to th sensitive areas provisions of the zoning code. The applicants uld verify that a Section 404 p mit is not required prior to development activity. A water main exte s on fees of $415 per acre and sani ry sewer tap -on -fee of $895 per acre apply to this subdi ision. Payment of these fees will need to address the legal papers at the time of final plat appr al. There are aco ple of issues that have not been resolved, Of east/west str t. It is thought that it will eventually connect t intersect wit Moss Ridge Road. So following the City's nam named Mos Ridge Road rather than Clear Ridge Road and be resolved nd also there are a few technical items that no: Engineer, they have not finalized their review of the plat. At d that is the naming of the Highway 1 and then would g conventions, it should be t at is a deficiency that will need to e to be correct for the City his oint Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 19 of 23 approval that SUB15-00001, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17 -lot, 39.98 acre commercial subdivision located north of Northgate Drive subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted in the staff report. Freerks asked about the minutes and discussion from the J/a5, 015 meeting because there was a lot of discussion about ffer and that the specia incorporated in the platting stage and yet it is not menti ned in the staff report. ied that the buffering conversation would be better to hav at the development stlandscaping is reviewed for each individual lot. Freerks belie sit should still be methis stage as well, and it should be noted at all stages that they was a great deal of ion regarding buffering around this property. Hektoen statedt at it was referencedoning ordinance that will be reviewed by Council Eastham mentioned receiving another e i regarding the need for secondary access, concerns. Miklo replied that the transporta secondary access for emergency vehicles secondary access for all will happen eventu is built. Freerks opened public hearing. I from people hat have offices out in this area nd asked M' to if there is a way to address those on plann s did look at this and there is a point of t the St ' dler Clinic and the adjacent hotel and Ily w46n Moss Ridge Road and Oakdale Boulevard Joe Hushes, Southgate Development Co a 'es, as the applicant and the developer. There is a need for this subdivision because they red n to only one available lot so it's time to build some more so we can have more busin sses c me into Iowa City. A few things to specifically address, they purposely submitted the lat with a road that is going to eventually, if the neighboring property develops, meet p with Mo s Ridge Road, we purposely named it something different, similar but diff ent, becaus they don't feel it is appropriate for a street named after an adjoining develop ent to come th ough another development. It is on the other side of Highway 1 and in the Ga tte this past mo th the owner of that development, Steve Moss, said that development wi be called Moss R ge Campus so that street is the gateway into that development and Hu es feels it would be confusing for people to be looking for Moss Ridge Development but to to a Moss Ridge Road in o a different development. Therefore they are in favor of the road bein named something othe than being named after the development across Highway 1. Hughe stated they are still in su ort of screening for the farmhouse but prefer not to get into too any details at this level but nderstand that both sides want and need screening. Hughes ask that the Commission vote in vor of this item. Freerks asked Miklo a out the street name issue. Mikl noted that in the long run people are not going to know th area as Moss Ridge Development f Moss Ridge Office Park, they are going to refer to str t addresses just like where there arkother developments where the street was first laid out th re were other developments that hoo d onto them and the street continued. There re places where street names do chap , for example Mormon Trek Blvd becomes McColl' ter Blvd and those become confusing an that is why as a convention the City tries to keep str ets that connect the same name. Hektoen entioned that it is helpful for the fire departmen to have consistency on street names John Wyler is lhi !_owner of the property that is to the west of th development. He mentioned that he was not aware of this subdivision proposal until two day ago and was not given a chance to discuss if this is the best way for the road to go throug their property. He knows Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 20 of 23 similar conversations were had years ago, and again wants to state that he does not want the road to go through his house. Therefore he asks that the Commission defer the decision until he has time to review this item and the new road placement. Also h had looked at purchasing this property some time ago and chose not to because there are a co ple of lagoons on the property and was very concerned about the hazardous waste that wa left on the property. Miklo said that letters were sent to roperty owners within 300 feet. yler said they only got the letter two days ago and never got letter in January regarding the ezoning. Hektoen stated that the plat at this time is just a co cept for the property, it is not inal and could change a bit where the road is placed. Brian Boelk, HBK Engineering, worke on the preliminary pl that is being viewed this evening. He noted that Mrs. Wyler was at the go d neighbor meetin that was held, however as Hektoen noted this proposal is not dependent on those roads goin through, or requiring them at any specific point in time. They did align Cle r Ridge/Moss idge Road to the west thinking it would better develop and get that lined up with a inti once on the property, that is where you s the jeopardy for buildings. Freerks closed public hearing. at Highway 1. With regards to lagoons :er management so there is no Thomas asked Miklo his concerns regarAtherhmeisters adjacent property owner and his request to defer. Miklo stated that the Wylers and will have options to develop when the road is put through, but the pattern shopreliminary plat shows for a reasonable development in the future, it's a logical stern but the timing of it will be up to the individual property owners. Freerks mentioned that it is always g96d for the some type of agreement for wherei rastructure feuding. Miklo checked his files and the V/yler's were not may have happened to the mai but the records bors of developing properties come to ;es and that it not become some type of f the rezoning on January 7 so something it was mailed. Eastham asked if the subdivion ordinance provides t City with any kind of options for Moss Ridge/Clear Ridge Road wo Id be located. Miklo state that the intersection with Highway 1 is already established. The T would not want another a cess point onto Highway 1 so that location is set. In terms of the house, as long as the hous is there Moss Ridge/Clear Ridge Road will not be running rough this property. It may be y ars from now when the property is sold and those owners oose to develop and that is when hat road will also be developed. Eastham moved to r commend approval that SUB15-000 by Southgate Com anies for a preliminary plat of Hig 17 -lot, 39.98 acre commercial subdivision located nort to resolution of eficiencies and discrepancies prior to Swygard seconded the motion. 1, an application submitted I Fourth Addition, a of Northgate Drive subject ouncil consideration. Freerks commented that the application is a pretty good outline for Nture development and does not have any concerns about how the streets are stubbed right ow. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 21 of 23 Eastman shared his uncertainty of what options the Commission has regarding the future development of Moss Ridge Road. Freerks stated that they can always ask City Council to change the name. Eastham agreed that the need for the same name to aid emergency vehicles is valid. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. DE AM Discussion of a proposeIm endment to City Code Section 14-513 'Sigegulations' regarding placement, size, and condifi s related to portable signs Ream stated that her memo ex ained the issues that have occurr over the years. What she can add to the memo is 16 years f enforcement of the code an the difficulties it has presented and the frustrations it ha presented both on staff si and business owners downtown. Ream stated that every a has travelled to other ities and see portable signs used with no problems and customer appreciate them an ith regulation and control it is something that Iowa City should move rward with. It is robably one of the most divisive issues staff has had with business own s downtown, s' nage is very important to them, and to their businesses. They really do see it a an unfair si ation when one business is allowed to have that sort of portable sign because of a co ration of their entrance allows them to put it on private property and if they have a sto front at goes completely across the front of their property they aren't' afforded that luxury. R m ated that the Downtown District has tasked staff with looking at some overall design stan ds for downtown facades of which all signage, not just portable signs, will be a part of a revi staff will be doing hopefully with a third party consultant. So there may be some tweakin th t may come back to this at a future date, but that is really months away and this is a go d thi to move forward with now. Freerks asked about the memo stating at the endments were discussed with the legislative committee and Nancy Bird, ho is the I islative committee? Ream explained that was the legislative committee of the owntown Dis ict. Swygard asked, knowing they will ork on the desig standards, but it does say they can't be directly illuminated can peopled other decorative thi gs like hang balloons on them? Ream said that balloons are specificalh prohibited. Eastham asked if portable si s sit on the ground it can e impairments. Ream said th veryfirst meeting they had i brought in two representati es of people with disabilities t and they did not have an concerns about it. What they m, present themselves in p blic walkways, because that is soi they were fine with it a long as they could consistently knc there is an eight foot dewalk, people are likely to walk in t against the buildings and the visually impaired are not diffe Freerks opened pyblic hearing. a hazard to people with visual :h the legislative committee they specifically address that question de clear was not that hazards ething they deal with all the time, where those hazards may be. If ie middle of the sidewalk, not up Nancy Bird, the Vxecutive Director of the Iowa City Downtown Dis ict, began by thanking the Commission for (lowing comment on this issue. She also wantedcommend Staff for taking the time to talk with the legislative group of the Downtown District, a there are a number of committees that work on policy issues or regulatory issues that they think they can help support or find a better solution for. The signage boards out on the streets are one of those Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 22 of 23 issues, and City Staff works really hard to enforce the rules that are on the books right now, and what happens is because its complaint based, some of tho'e signs are left out because no one is complaining about them, and others are complained abo so which leads to infighting within the business district. So, if this is something that cannot a enforced, what else can be done. Additionally Bird wanted to addr ss the issue of signage in neral and some of the things they have been researching with thei retail strategy. Bird state hat the Downtown District's goals are the same as the City's goals ut in the process of un rstanding what our business community needs to thrive they a seeing some patter that are challenging and hope to be able to support businesses that ar complimentary. In egards to signage the retail strategy that they have developed with the c nsultant support owntown Works, one suggestion was to hire a retail recruiting expert to go ut and prospe t and not be commissioned based, they just want to place the right business f r the comm ity and also that design matters. In larger cities you'll see great examples andth y spend of of time on design and those layers are therefor predictability for the communit . With t that predictability of what type of process someone will go through, if there are pol ies d tools in place to help support the right thing then at least they will know. The Downto n istrict cares about that predictability and wants to work with some kind of design guidelines will support that. The portable signage is the first step towards better design guidelines. Bir also wanted to state that she feels they need more City financial support for the design guid in s it can alleviate so much of the community conversation. To have design guideline pe ple can see and understand. Freerks remembers signage discussi s a Ion time ago and it's important to remember there is a reason for the tables and the gu' elines Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend approval of am riding Portable Sign requirements in City Code Section 14-5113'Sign Re lations;' Table 5 -4 'Sign Specifications and Provisions in the C113-2, CB -5 and CB -10 Z es' as shown in T ble 1. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the nXotion carried 6-0. \ NG & ZONINO INFORMATION Hektoen pointed out th the Commission's recommendeV denial of the comprehensive plan amendments will go oqto Council but unlike a rezoning th y do not have to provide an opportunity to consult/With the Commission, but it does re ire a super majority vote if they are not going to follow tho recommendation. Miklo reminded the ommission that Monday they had a join meeting with the Council and they do have a meeting ith another committee at 5:00 with the g I of that meeting being done at 5:30 so if the Co missioners could be here by 5:30 that woul be good. This meeting is the discussion of the andmark designation of the cottages on Dub ue Street. Eastham moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. Motion carried 6-0. NXXX'OIXXX �XIXIXXXXX "-Ixlxlxlxlxlxlx co 2W O(Owr--LOoO , R 5 - - - - z-- WMLOOOOOOM �X0000000 W w 4 LU z ce W J 0 WZ O v a 0 a O 0 don V Q Y CL Z a m Q 2 w H >- Q IX Q x x 0 W Ii 2 U) - F- C7 z H W W M N Go XXXXX °r°XXXXXXX NXXXXXXx a) N x x X N�XXXXXX x X X N N X _ — x x ca �X>CK>< x � w 0 co XXX r,- LO M LO m w 0XXXX XX LU w Z - z N oxxxxx J a0 z LU O „j0 a=Q2aceavj=Y? N XXXXXXX � QmQ 20 c7 W 00mF-w OL) z wc W zwLL2ni-= LU �Xxxxxxp L W z W N zz� J NXXXX XX NDQ 206 z L ° L00 XOX z~ z a a nX XXxxx J a acxoxxXX "-Ixlxlxlxlxlxlx co 2W O(Owr--LOoO , R 5 - - - - z-- WMLOOOOOOM �X0000000 W w 4 LU z ce W J 0 WZ O v a 0 a O 0 don V Q Y CL Z a m Q 2 w H >- Q IX Q x x 0 W Ii 2 U) - F- C7 z H W W M N XXXXX °r°XXXXXXX a) N x x X X x X X N N X X x x x x x � w 0 co w r,- LO M LO F..X0000000 w LU w Z - a=Q J a0 z z0a"''= „j0 a=Q2aceavj=Y? QmQ W 00mF-w zwLL2ni-= x E a)N gU) (D aQaz3: n ii n n ii XOw O w Y 4b(6) NEW IOWA CITY IiiCYiPUBLIC LIBRARY 123 S. Linn St. • Iowa City, IA 52240 .. i S.—C.19— 319-356-5206 • — 319 156-5494 • www.kpl orq BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes of the Regular Meeting FINAL APPROVED January 22, 2015 Members Present: Tom Dean, David Hamilton, Thomas Martin, Robin Paetzold, Meredith Rich - Chappell. Members Absent: Diane Baker, Janet Freeman, Linzee McCray, Jay Semel. Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Kara Logsden, Anne Mangano, Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller, Brent Palmer. Guests Present: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator/Equity Director, City of Iowa City, Doyle Landry. Call Meeting to Order. President Paetzold called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Public Discussion. Reverend Landry expressed gratitude to Susan Craig and library staff for summer reading program planning in 2015. He mentioned the "Free Speech or Fighting Words" piece in a December issue of the Gazette, apologized, and felt the issue was misrepresented and wanted library staff and the Board to know this. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the December 18, 2014 Regular Meeting of Library Board of Trustees were reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Rich -Chappell and seconded by Hamilton. Motion carried 5/0. Unfinished Business. None. New Business. Board Recruitment and Diversity. Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator/Equity Director for the City of Iowa City facilitated a discussion on recruitment and diversity. Paetzold asked if other boards have the same challenges as the Library Board. Bowers said others do have these same challenges and improving board diversity is included in the City Council's strategic plan. Paetzold asked if the City is also working on recruitment for boards and commissions, in addition to the individual board's responsibility to recruit. Bowers said the City is in the planning process right now and recruitment is a shared responsibility. Hamilton asked how many boards and commissions there are in the City. There are 19 boards/commissions. Hamilton asked if Bowers knew the diversity of each board. People have to voluntarily self -identify so it is hard to know for sure, Bowers said. Paetzold asked if there was much interest in serving on boards in general. Bowers said interest has changed and reappointment of board members and restrictions on gender are current considerations. Dean asked if the length of term of the Library Board might be a disincentive to serving. Dean believes it takes two years to get up to speed on the Library Board. Craig believes an election would be needed with a vote of the citizens to change the Library ordinance which sets term length. Paetzold wondered if there are other structural characteristics about our meeting that might prevent someone from serving, for example, the time of our meeting. Bowers believes the City application is not as friendly as it could be and is more like a job application. All of these issues are being considered. 5:37 Landry and Bowers depart. FY15 Strategic Plan. Staff have completed a six month report on the current strategic planning goals. This is the second to the last report of the "old" strategic plan. Martin asked about classes. Clark said we offer classes about technology, particularly devices, classes on resources, etc. plus drop in tech help offerings. Director Evaluation Process. Board members discussed the director evaluation process. Craig does not think the Board has ever used a printed evaluation form in absentia as some of the other libraries have done as reported in the packet. Craig said the Board can use whatever format it wishes. Paetzold said this conversation is a result of last year's Evaluating Committee seeking a more strategic way of approaching evaluating the director. Paetzold asked if it was possible that this could be discussed by a committee. Dean said his experience with forms is that they have value or they don't and is concerned about consistency; he likes the interview process but maybe a template could help with directing the conversation without it being the entirety of the evaluation. Another advantage of the interview process is things come up that may not be on a form so perhaps a short list of categories/criteria could be considered. Paetzold said last year's Committee was concerned about having external input which takes a lot of time. Martin has trouble with word definitions and numbers in evaluations, "needs development" means different things to different people. He believes the interview process gets to specifics, although it is time consuming. Martin feels staff have buy -in when they are included in the process and sometimes you get even more information because a staff member offers an opinion about the library in general rather than just of the Library Director. Members noted it is sometimes difficult to restate what has been said last year and the year before, but this is a good problem. Members discussed changing the month in which the Evaluation Committee is appointed. Craig noted by having the Committee appointed in March enables the Committee to build into the process identifying the format for the evaluation they will use and reporting on that in April. In this way, there would be room for change after discussion, if necessary. Paetzold said appointment of the Evaluating Committee will take place in March, the Committee will report back to the Board at the April the mode they intend to use during the evaluation process in April, and then use this process for the evaluation of the Library Director in June. Hamilton asked for a description of the evaluation process we use. The Board will revisit in February. Staff Reports. Director's Report. Craig went before City Council on Saturday, 1/8/15 and gave a brief presentation about the Library and where we are going. She reminded Council the Library has a couple of capital improvement projects; the bookmobile and HVAC controls. Craig said Kingsley Botchway 2 commented appreciatively about the Library and Michelle Payne asked about RFID tags. Craig believes Council will likely approve something close to what the City Manager approved for departments. Formal budget approval takes place in early March. There is still much concern about tax changes at the state level. Craig said we are hanging in there for next year. We will begin highlighting the many ways the Friends Foundation directly supports the library in a "Thanks a Million" campaign. This will kick off soon and will educate everyone about the many ways the Friends Foundation supports us. There was a meeting today for an RFP for upgrades to the meeting room equipment; four vendors participated. Departmental Reports. Adult Services. No comments. Community & Access Services. No comments. Inservice Day. No comments. Development Office. McCarthy said we are preparing for Family Fun(d) night on February 8, 2015. The school district has agreed the flyer for this event can go in the virtual backpack next week. Nola Naughton's honor garnered $1300. The May event is coming together, it is called the "Looking Ahead Lecture" for now until it has a real name. Dan Reed and Brooks Landon were invited to participate. The Foundation Board's Wes Berry is a potential narrator. The event is scheduled for May 17, 2015 from 6-8 pm. The lecture will be from 6-7; hors d'oeuvres and drinks from 7-8 pm. Martin asked about the "Love your Library!" and "Honor your Valentine," campaign and how to participate. McCarthy said this will be shared shortly. Miscellaneous. No comments. Spotlight on the Collection. No comments. President's Report. Paetzold and Craig went to the County Board of Supervisors meeting this morning and shared our new strategic plan. Paetzold discussed the State Library Commission which Martin raised at the end of the December meeting. This is a four-year term, there will be three vacancies; one trustee, one academic librarian, one public librarian. Martin was asked to describe his experience as a Commissioner. The Commission usually meets in Des Moines from 10-2, every other month. The Governor makes this appointment so political and gender equity are required. Martin said he learned a lot about how libraries work in Iowa. The system was changed while Martin served. A Finance Committee was established after the budget cuts. This resulted in reorganized library services in Iowa. The Commission was responsible for hiring a new State Librarian this year. Another special situation occurred when a library director was hired who did not have an MLS, a requirement for library accreditation. This person hired an attorney to request an exception be granted, but the Commission did not make that exception. Martin said there is a lot of interaction with state government. Announcements from Members. None. Committee Reports. None. 3 Communications. None. Quarterly Financial Reports. Craig said fines and lost and damaged are down in the six month report. Fines are down because overall circulation is down and the percentage of circulating items that can be fined is also down. This is a result of more electronic materials circulation. Also, the fine structure was just lowered on DVDs and raised on children's materials. Lost and damaged is down because circulation is down and electronic materials don't get lost or damaged. Paetzold asked about repercussions from changing the fine structure and wondered if there has been any feedback from the public. Logsden said there are many more people who have improved access because fines are not preventing them from checking materials out. Quarterly Use Reports. Circulation is going down but not at the same rate as last year. Craig hopes for a leveling off by the end of the year. Reserves are up 10%; we changed the policy last year and people are still just discovering increased number of holds service. More people in the building is up partly because of the new people counters which were installed in the fall, 2013. Craig believes there are more people in the building, just anecdotally. But, between Christmas and first week in January there were definitely fewer people in the building. It was also colder. Disbursements. The MasterCard expenditures for December, 2014 were reviewed. A motion to approve the disbursements for December 2014 was made by Dean and seconded by Martin. Motion carried 5/0. Set Agenda Order for February Meeting. Policy reviews. State accreditation report. Director evaluation. Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Rich -Chappell and seconded by Martin. Motion carried 5/0. President Paetzold closed the meeting at 6:25pm. Respectfully submitted, Elyse Miller 4 Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD 12 Month KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting Meetin , Date Name Term 3/27/14 4/24/14 5/22/14 6/26/14 7/24/14 8/28/14 9/25/14 10/16/14 11/20/14 ;12/18/14 1/22/15 2/26/15 ,Expiration Diane Baker 6/30/19 X X O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E X Thomas Dean 6/30/15 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X Janet Freeman 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X David Hamilton 6/30/15 Not on X X X X X X X X X X X Board Tom Martin 6/30/17 X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X Linzee Kull 6/30/15 X O/E X X X X X X X X O O/E McCra Robin Paetzold 6/30/17 O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X X Meredith 6/30/17 X X X X O/E X X O/E X X X O/E Rich -Chappell Semel, Jay 6/30/19 1 X X X X X X X X X X I O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting 03:073 - Approved Minutes 4b(7) January 22, 2014 wmm�� MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION January 22, 2015 ROOM 209, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Chuck Felling, Kathy Mitchell, Mark Holbrook, Margaret Reese, Cheryl Clamon Members Absent: Jack Hobbs Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman Others Present: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 20. 2014 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the November 20, 2014 meeting as amended. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Reese/Mitchell PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will attend a February City Council meeting. FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION TO CHANGES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEW HORIZONS BAND AND THE CENTER: Kopping reported that it was acceptable for The Friends of the Iowa City New Horizons Band (FNHB) to become the independent contractor for the NHB and enter into an agreement with the Senior Center. Kopping further explained that Approved Minutes January 22, 2014 the Senior Center does work with other non-profit organizations and that the Senior Center does not charge them a fee for using space. Kopping distributed two different Independent Contractor Agreements (attached). The first is the independent contractor agreement that the Senior Center uses for all other independent contractors. A member of the Board of FNHB had taken the standard form and crossed out segments of the agreement that members of the board felt did not apply to them as independent contractors. The document was signed by Suzanne Smith, president of the NHB, and sent to The Center. Kopping sent it to the city attorney's office for review. Goers felt that the FNHB agreement needed further modifications to clarify the separation between the Senior Center and the NHB and strengthen language limiting City liability. Kopping wanted to include language that would clearly define several aspects of the new relationship to avoid ongoing debates. The second Independent Contractor Agreement distributed is the one that was produced by the City. This agreement indicates that the City owns all music and equipment purchased with city funds or donated to the band since its inception in 1995. It also includes information about copying charges and how they would be paid, and the proposed music and equipment check out system. The second independent contractor agreement was forwarded to the Friends of the NHB. Chuck Felling arrived at meeting. In response Jean Hill, chair of the NHB steering committee, sent an email expressing dissatisfaction with the City's proposed Independent Contractor agreement. She contested claims of ownership and stated that the City's attempt to control these items has created a hostile environment for band members and the director. She recommended that the original Independent Contractor Agreement produced by FNHB be signed. Subsequently Kopping met with Goers and Assistant City Manager, Geoff Fruin about this situation. At this point, she is looking for guidance from the Commission In response to a question, Kopping reported that in the past she has been told by the legal department that all music and equipment purchased with city funds or brought in for the band are city property. Following lengthy discussion the Commission made the following recommendations: Also the balance would be returned to the NHB. They would need to agree to prepay for copies for a set period of time. Items that are not City property would either need to be removed from the Senior Center. For any items that the band wishes to remain on site they would need to provide proof of insurance. 2 Approved Minutes January 22, 2014 1. Give the balance remaining in the NHB account to FNHB. 2. Pay $0.07/copy. Set-up a system that is paid in advanced and reconciled every 6 months. 3. Any items—music or equipment—owned by the NHB that is left on site needs to have proof of insurance or it will not be insured. 4. Going forward with the Independent Contractor agreement that was produced by FNHB with the stipulation that this needs to be modified with attachments outlining ownership of music and equipment, copying, use of equipment and music, etc. 5. Return original compositions to composers. 6. Return UI equipment to university Clamon expressed concern that the majority of the band still does not know or understand the current situation. Felling agreed and suggested a general meeting for the band who are interested in the situation and see what they would like to see done. Felling also expressed concern that we have never met the president of the Friends of the NHB, or many of its members. He suggested that any meeting that is arranged should be with their availability. Holbrook left the meeting. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT: Kopping reported that her report to the Board of Supervisors went very well. FY16 BUDGET REPORT: Kopping reported that she presented the FY16 budget proposal to the City Council. She said she highlighted the increasing membership. She also talked about the challenges that the Senior Center had in FY14. In FY16 the focus will be on lessening the reliance on the general funds and diversifying funding. She discussed that she is considering hiring a fundraising consultant to plan, train and implement a fundraising campaign. Kopping indicated that the report was well received. REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE Honohan reported that the City Council's reaction the Ad Hoc Committee report was favorable to the Senior Center. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: 3 Approved Minutes January 22, 2014 Kopping reported that the garbage disposal in the kitchen was not working correctly. Craig Buhman is concerned that Elder Services staff and volunteers are not properly trained on how to use this piece of equipment. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Holbrook, Mitchell 4 Approved Minutes January 22, 2014 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2015 Name Term Expires 1/16 1/30 2/6 2/20 3/3 3/20 5/15 6/19 7/17 10/23 11/20 1/22/15 X Chuck Felling 12/31/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Rose Hanson 12/31/14 O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E Jack Hobbs 12/31/16 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Mark Holbrook 12/31/14 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X Jay Honohan 12/31/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X Kathy Mitchell 12/31/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X Margaret Reese 12/31/15 X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X Key: X= Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM= No meeting -- = Not a member IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER. Independent Contractor Space and Equipment Agreement This agreement is made and entered Into between the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center (hereafter the "Center"), and Friends of Iowa City New Horj ns Band. Inc501(C)i31 nonprofit (hereinafter the "Instructor") in Iowa City, Iowa. The parties agree as follows: 1. The Center shall provide the Instructor with rooms for the purpose of teaching. the class Identified In paragraph six (6). The Center will also provide the instructional equipment Identified in paragraph six (6) for each class session. 2. The Instructor of the class identified in paragraph six (6) Is not an employee of the Center, but an independent contractor. He or she shall not be subject to direction byths Center in the conduct or management of the course. Furthermore, any assistants shall be employees or subcontractors of Instructor, not employees or contractors of The Center. 3. The independent contractor will collect all �c}�llass participation fees ftom the participants. ican1I'IAF1R�nnA%rthd i C fftCY�allonAarei.l m. �f_�aLYan#i._,i._.La_�.... Arenu Vw,.. w sot a In i c s s) ��. iyr_ ss clry ue t fin as - 4. - Unless otherwise required by law, the Center does not intend and shall have no obligation for the Instructor's federal and state Income employment taxes, and the Instructor retains all obligations and liability relating to withholding said taxes and shall hbid the'Center harmless from any failure on the instructor's part to meet his or her obligations to do so. S. Participants will occasionally pay a material fee to fund items (e.g. copying cpsts) used during the Instruction of a class. When the instructor provides materials and wishes to be reimbursed for the cost of these materials, the participant shall pay the matefial fee directly to the instructor. When the Center Is seeking reimbursement for material costs associated with a class, the.fee Is paid to the Center. In all circumstances involving material fees, the course description will Identify the material fee per participant, note that this fee is In addition to the class fee, and Indicate the payee. The material fee, if applicable, Is identified in Paragraph 7 below. 6. Course Specifics: Title: IOWA City New Horizons Qand ensembles and Concert bgpd fehearsgls Scheduled Date(s) and Time(s): Every Tuesday d Thursday mornings from :15 AM to 10:30 AM beginning the week following Martin Luther King Day and extending through the end of July. 2015, Instructional Equipment Provided by the Center: All music and eguioment purchas9d from the band acFount from 1995 through December 2014 Minimum Number of Enrollees Required Before Course WIII Be Held: 31Q Maximum Number of Enrollees Allowed: 80 Participant Class fees: (will be set and collected by the Instructor.l las ee a Ip 't t s In ru r ( c g to of sts 4 r St a 1 L , Al P v d..a PI# hen v• (v a ri Co s! P Ic an vl d a Pa to t o n o C c n 8. The Center will facilitate promotion and enrollment in the class through all or some of the following: local press releases, publication in the Center's newsletter and program guide, and signage In the public areas of the building. The level of promotional support provided Is dependent upon the timeliness of class Information provided by the instructor. All promotional Information must be approved by the S Center before being released or posted. 9. While every effort will be made to provide continuity in class location, the Center does not guarantee the same room will be available for all classes taught during the'course, 10. In the event the Instructor Is not able to teach a class, due to for example Illness, on any of the agreed upon class dates and tlmos, the Instructor shall be solely responsible for notifying class participants and rescheduling the classes) with the Center at a mutually convenieAt date(s) and times(s). 11. The Instructor shall supervise all courses participants and shall ensure that all participants in the course at all times conduct themselves in a safe and proper manner, protecting other participants In the course and the physical facilities of the Senior Center. 12.with a list of elass, Updated -9 r'y+ (Instructor will maintain a list of registered course participants.) 13. Upon reasonable cause} either party may terminate this agreement effective immediately upon the giving of written notice. Reasonable cause shall Include but not be limited to: a. Material violation of this agreerfient; b. Any act exposing the other -party to liability for personal Injury or property damage; c. Impossibility of performance; or d. Total class enrollment Is less than the minimum number stipulated in Paragraph six (6) two (2) business days prior to the first day of class. 14, The Instructor shall not deny services to any person on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, gender Identity, or disability. 15. This Agreement may not be assigned by the instructor without prior written consent of the Center. 16. There are no oral agreements that have not been reduced to writing in this Instrument, and this writing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. 17. instructor agrees to Indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, Its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities or damages, of whatever nature, including payment of reasonable attorney fees arising from occurrences or accidents wlthin the Center from the Instructor's use of the Center arising from this agreement, or which may be caused In whole or In part bony act or omission of the Instructor Including their agents or employees.11 iZ--11-;wll- Date Center•Isroxram Specialist Date IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Independent Contractor Space and Equipment Agreement This agreement (hereinafter, "Agreement") is made and entered into between the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center (hereafter the "Center"), and Friends of Iowa City New Horizons Band, Inc. a 501(c)(3) nonprofit (hereinafter the "FNHB") in Iowa City, Iowa. The parties agree as follows: 1. Term: The Term of this Agreement shall be for the calendar year 2015. This Agreement shall automatically renew on an annual basis unless either party provides written notification to the other party of termination. In order to be effective, said termination must be served no later than December V� Notice to the Center must be mailed to the Senior Center Coordinator. Notice to the FNHB shall be mailed to 2. The Center shall provide the FNHB with space for the purpose of teaching the class identified in paragraph 7. The Center will also provide the instructional equipment identified in paragraph 7 for each class session. 3. The instructor(s) of the class identified In paragraph 7 is not an employee of the Center or the City of Iowa City. He, she, or they shall not be subject to direction by the Center in the conduct or management of the course. Furthermore, any assistants of the Instructor(s) shall be employees or subcontractors of the Instructor(s) or the FNHB, not employees, contractors, or subcontractors of the Center or the City of Iowa City. The FNHB, and not the Center or the City of Iowa City, will be responsible for the actions or omissions of the instructor(s). 4. The instructor(s) will collect all class participation fees from the participants. The FNHB shall be responsible for all financial affairs of the FNHB and this class, as well as providing compensation, If any, to anyone providing instruction for FNHB. In no way shall the Center be responsible for the financial affairs of either the FNHB or the instructor(s), or the direction of this class. 5. Unless otherwise required by law, the Center does not intend and shall have no obligation for the instructor(s)' federal, state, or local income taxes, and the instructor(s) retains all obligations and liability relating to withholding said taxes. 6. Independent Contractor Fee for Services: Copying costs at the Senior Center will be $0.07/each one-sided copy and $0.14/ each two-sided copy. In January 2015, the balance from the City's New Horizons Band Account will be transferred to the Senior Center operational budget. However, the FNHB will be given a credit toward copying costs in the transferred amount until September 14, 2015, after which the credit will expire. If the FNHB wishes to continue to have copying privileges at the Center after September 14, 2015, the FNHB shall deposit an advance with the Center in an amount needed to cover expected use over the course of the following six (6) months. Expected use will be based on usage during the previous year and the copy rates to be in effect during the following period. Said deposit is due within 30 days. At the end of each six (6) month period, the deposit shall be reconciled against actual usage. If the deposit exceeded actual usage, the difference will be refunded to the FNHB, or credited to the deposit for the following six (6) months if the FNHB wishes to continue with copying privileges. If actual usage exceeded the deposit, the FNHB will pay the Center the difference. 7. Course Specifics: Titie: Iowa City New Horizons Band ensembles and concert band rehearsals. Scheduled Date(s) and Time(s): Every Tuesday and Thursday morning from 8:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. throughout the University of Iowa's academic year. Instructional Equipment Provided by the Center: All music and equipment donated to or purchased by the City of Iowa City for the New Horizons Band (hereinafter, "NHB") will be made available to the FNHB for use in this class. All music and equipment donated to or purchased by the City of Iowa City for the NHB shall be stored at the Senior Center. Access Is limited to the Instructor(s) and the designated NHB librarians. All music must be signed out using the traditional system, as set by the Center. Special permission from the Senior Center Coordinator or designee is required to take musical equipment out of the Center. All said music and equipment shall remain the property of the Center, and must be returned to the Center by December 15 each year. Any music or equipment not returned, In as good or better condition save normal wear and tear, shall be replaced by the FNHB at its cost. The Center's music and equipment is available for use ONLY by the full FNHB and all ensembles that meet and practice at the Senior Center: Jazzy Flutes and Friends, Old Post Office Brass, Polka Dots, Post Horns, Tempered Brass, and Three for All, It is NOT available for use by any other musical groups, even those affiliated with the NHB, that meet or practice in other locations, absent express written permission from the Senior Center Coordinator or designee. Furthermore, neither the FNHB, instructor(s), librarians, nor members shall have access to any music purchased for use by any other current or future Senior Center band or chorus. Minimum Number of Enrollees Required Before Course Will Be Held: 10 Maximum Number of Enrollees Allowed: 80 The Center will facilitate promotion and enrollment in the class through all or some of the following: local press releases, publication in the Center's newsletter and program guide, and signage in public areas of the building. The level of promotional support provided is dependent upon the timeliness of class information provided by the Instructor. All promotional information must be approved by the Center before being released or posted. The ICNHB agrees to perform a minimum of two (2) full length concerts each year at the Senior Center; one holiday concert in December and one celebrating Older American's Month in May. 9. While every effort will be made to provide continuity in class location, the Center does not guarantee the same room will be available for all classes taught during the course. 10. In the event the instructor(s) are not able to teach a class (e.g. illness), on any of the agreed upon class dates and times, the Instructor(s) shall be solely responsible for notifying class participants and rescheduling the class(es) with the Center at a mutually convenient date(s) and time(s). 11. The Instructor(s) shall supervise all course participants and shall ensure that all participants in the course conduct themselves in a safe and proper manner, and protect band participants and the physical facilities, music, and instruments of the Center at all times. 12. Upon reasonable cause, either party may terminate this agreement effective immediately upon the giving of written notice. Reasonable cause shall include but not be limited to: a. Material violation of this agreement; b. Any act exposing the other party to liability for personal Injury or property damage; C. Impossibility of performance; or d. Total class enrollment is less than the minimum number stipulated in Paragraph 7 two (2) business days prior to the first day of class. 13. The instructor(s) shall not deny services to any person on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. 14. This Agreement may not be assigned by the FNHB without prior written consent of the Center. 15. There are no oral agreements that have not been reduced to writing in this instrument, and this writing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. 16. The FNHB agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities or damages, of whatever nature, including payment of reasonable attorney fees, arising from occurrences or accidents within the Center, from the Instructor's use of the Center arising from this agreement, or which may be caused in whole or in part by any act or omission of the FNHB, including the FNHB's instructors, employees, contractors or subcontractors, volunteers, officers, or agents. President, The Friends of the Iowa City New Horizons Band Date Senior Center Program Specialist Date Approved Minutes 4� February 13, 2015 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION WITH FRIENDS OF THE IOWA CITY NEW HORIZONS BAND AND SENIOR CENTER STEERING COUNCIL February 13, 2015 Assembly Room, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Chuck Felling, Kathy Mitchell, Mark Holbrook, Jack Hobbs Members Absent: Margaret Reese Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman, Eric Goers Others Present: Jean Hill, Steve West, Jim Hall, Gene Spazini, Lorraine Dorfman, John Schmidt, Ed Rolenc, Lynne Cannon, Martha Lubaroff, Erin Wehr, David Christ, Sheila Stevenson, Tom Wehr, Janet Rawley INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION, FRIENDS OF THE IOWA CITY NEW HORIZON'S BAND, AND SENIOR CENTER COUNCIL: Honohan stated that this is a joint meeting between the Senior Center Commission, Friends of the Iowa City New Horizon's Band and the Senior Center Steering Council. He asked that all from these groups introduce themselves. Commissioners: Jay Honohan, Chuck Felling, Kathy Mitchell, Mark Holbrook, Jack Hobbs Friends of the New Horizons Band: Jean Hill, Steve West, Jim Hall, Gene Spaziani Senior Center Steering Council: Kathy Mitchell, Lorraine Dorfman, John Schmidt, Ed Rolenc, Lynne Cannon PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Honohan indicated that this would be a time for anyone to comment on items not on the agenda. No comments. Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 REPORT: Honohan reported that he has been researching the history of the New Horizons Band (NHB) by looking at old documents and speaking with people. He noted the band was started by Don Coffman in 1995. Since that time the Senior Center has never charged the NHB for use of space or any of the accounting and administration of the program, because it was a Senior Center group. Anything that was donated to the NHB while it was a Senior Center group became the property of the City of Iowa City. He noted that there has been an ongoing partnership between the NHB and the Senior Center as noted in the NHB Bylaws. Honohan noted that the Senior Center does not want to get rid of the NHB, but hopes to continue a long term partnership. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH FRIENDS OF THE IOWA CITY NEW HORIZONS BAND: Honohan reported when the NHB wanted to financially become a separate group from the Senior Center that an agreement between the Senior Center and the NHB needed to occur. At that time Linda Kopping sent an independent contractor agreement to the Friends of the Iowa City New Horizon's Band (FNHB). Honohan indicated that there have been two different independent contractor agreements disseminated but that he would be working off of the first agreement that had been reworked (to his knowledge) by Nancy Wombacher and signed by the President of FNHB. Honohan indicated that this agreement should be used as a framework because there is wording and items in the current document that need to be clarified. One example being the use of the words "contractor' and "instructor'. Jean Hill wanted clarification on this point. Honohan indicated that FNHB would be the independent contractor and that the instructor would be whomever the FNHB wanted to be the director of the band, including any student instructors of small groups. The director and any others would no longer be employed by the City of Iowa City and would be directly employed by the Friends of the NHB. Also, FNHB would set the band fees. Honohan indicated that use of The Center for band practice and small groups would continue as it has been. In addition any concerts would continue to be included in the Senior Center's program guide. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS IN THE CITY'S NHB ACCOUNT: Honohan reported that there is about $500 held in the City of Iowa City's New Horizon's band account. This amount of money could be transferred to the Friends of the New Horizon's Band. Steve West indicated that one option that had been presented in the past was that this money be held in the same account 2 Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 and that any copying fees come out of this money until it ran out. Hill also was concerned that the money in the band account would need to be used by September 2015, as indicated in an earlier version of the independent contractor proposal. Kopping noted that band spends approximately $1000 a year on copying charges and that the $500 would very likely used by that date. Although, as a new organization, FNHB may need the money for immediate expenses. Regardless she said, the band would not lose this money. Hill wanted to know how much the copying charge would be, 15 cents like it is for outside individuals or 7 cents. Kopping reported that the band would be charged 7 cents a copy, making no money on the copies, just covering the machine upkeep, toner and paper. Honohan noted that he is only looking at the independent contractor agreement that was already signed by the FNHB, not any other proposed agreement. Kopping indicated that the Friends of the NHB could decide if they would like to keep the $500 as a credit or have it be distributed to them in a lump sum. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF INSTRUMENTS: Honohan stated that there are instruments that were paid through the City of Iowa City New Horizon's band account. There are also instruments that may have been donated by individuals or businesses that used the donation for a tax deduction and by the University of Iowa. Honohan proposed putting a committee together of a few people to sort through which items belong to the University of Iowa and The Center. Some items have City of Iowa City New Horizon's Band tags on them. Steve West noted that he believed that he was the only person present at the onset of the NHB over 20 years ago. West noted that the Iowa City NHB was the 3`d NHB formed in the country and there are now over 160 worldwide. He also noted that there have been various partnerships with the NHB including West Music and the University of Iowa. West said that West Music had donated a timpani, bass drum and music to the NHB when it first started. He said that he never filed any tax write offs for any of these items. He indicated that he believes fees for the band have paid for the University of Iowa instructors, the director and music and that the City of Iowa City account was just a "pass through" account. He said that while he understands that the money went through a City of Iowa City account, and therefore the city believes they own the instruments and music paid for from this account that he believes that no tax payer dollars have been spent on the NHB. West noted that there is a rumor that the band wants to leave the Senior Center. West said that this is not true. He noted the band likes the Senior Center and wants to stay. Lastly, he said that it is not important who owns the music and instruments, but only important who has access to these items. West raised a concern that if there were instruments that did not belong to the City that those instruments would not be allowed to stay in the building. Jean Hill stated that she believes there are a number of instruments that belong to the University of Iowa and have tags on them indicating as such. Martha Luboroff, a percussionist in the band, stated that she has never picked up 3 Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 an instrument that has a University of Iowa tag on it. West questioned if instruments owned by the City of Iowa City would be allowed to be borrowed for concerts. Kopping stated that instruments could leave the building but just to let the Senior Center know when it was needed. Erin Wehr, director of the NHB, stated that some of the equipment did come from the University of Iowa. Hill wanted to know if Kopping meant they needed permission, or if the NHB could just let the Senior Center know. Kopping clarified, just let the Senior Center know. Honohan noted that regardless of ownership the equipment and music will be made available. David Christ asked if an item belonging to the City would be made available to other groups or only available for the NHB and if those items are available to others, who would have priority. Kopping replied that if there were two musical groups that wanted to use the equipment or music that efforts would be made to not overlap the use of the equipment or music. Lastly Christ wanted to know who would be responsible for maintenance of the equipment. Kopping answered that the City would be responsible for normal wear and tear but that if it were a situation of negligence there may be repair costs incurred. Gene Spaziani questioned Honohan in his previous statement that if an item or money was donated to the NHB and a tax write off was taken that it belongs to the City of Iowa City. He noted that he would have thought it belonged to the NHB. Honohan noted that is only an example. Spaziani wanted to know why the City of Iowa City would assume that items donated to the NHB belong to the City. Eric Goers answered that prior to January 17, 2014 that the Friends of the NHB did not exist and was not a legal entity. The NHB was a group of the Senior Center, a division of the City of Iowa City, and that it was the only legal entity available that could accept donations. Spaziani stated that he agrees that he does not care who owns the music but in the current situation staff feels free to open music that was addressed to the director of the band because they consider it City property. Honohan noted that this was a small issue. David Christ stated that he would like to see this situation healed so that everyone can move forward. He questioned if now that FNHB exists and can buy new equipment would the NHB be able to store it at the Senior Center. Kopping noted that storage continues to be an issue at the Senior Center and that there is not much more space in the Assembly Room closet as it currently is. She also noted that any item that is not owned by the City of Iowa City would no longer be insured by the City, so that is something to consider. Christ clarified by stating that there is no objection that the NHB store items at the Senior Center given space and insurance coverage. Kopping stated that that is correct. West stated that while a number of issues have been discussed that the NHB does not want to be held hostage. He hopes the goal is to have these items 4 Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 available for the NHB for generations to come. Hononhan noted that is exactly what the commission and staff are hoping for. Gene Spaziani brought up the issue that there are items in the music collection that have been composed or arranged by the band members. He wondered if those items could be removed. Kopping stated that yes items owned by an individual should be taken out of the music collection. Kopping stated that there is a responsibility of the Senior Center to keep the collection intact outside of items owned/arranged/composed by individuals. She said that the NHB has been doing a good job of keeping track of the music and that she would like to see that system stay in place. She does not want to police the music, but that she wants to maintain the music. Shelia Stevenson, a music librarian, noted that she and one other librarian, file, sort and keep track of music that is checked out. She inquired on how this would work in the future. She said she does not want to be responsible for what other groups take out. Kopping said this had not been decided but that a system would be developed. Honohan noted it could be something that goes into the final agreement. Erin Wehr noted that she was still concerned about the priority given to the music. She noted that the band performs at many other venues and that she did not plan on having that schedule approved by the Senior Center. Kopping noted that this is an issue of communicating what the NHB needs. Wehr stated that it is an issue to get dates to the Senior Center so early on when she often does not know dates and times of items needed and that this interferes with the bands ability to perform in the community. She also stated that she donated music when she was a student at the University of Iowa to the NHB and that she did not receive a receipt for this music and that at the time it was stored in Don Coffman's office at the University of Iowa and that she had no knowledge that that music was property of the City of Iowa City. She wanted to know if it was acceptable to remove those personally owned items. Kopping replied, yes, she should remove personally owned items. Honohan reiterated that the music would still be available for the NHB to use even if the City of Iowa City does own it and that he understands that Wehr may not have understood that at the time she donated the music. Wehr stated that she did not donate it to the City that she donated it to the University of Iowa into a music cabinet in Don Coffman's office. Honohan stated that the bylaws of the NHB state otherwise. Wehr stated that at the time the bylaws did not exist. Wehr stated that the music was stored there until 4 years ago when it was moved to the Senior Center when Coffman retired. Honohan stated that the bylaws indicate that there is a partnership with the City of Iowa City and the NHB. Honohan stated that a lot of time could be spent arguing about who owns the music but the bottom line is that the music will continue to be available for the NHB to use. Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 Tom Wehr, stated that he had bought some music for a group to play and now is concerned to bring that music into the Senior Center. He is also concerned that someone would damage the drums. Hill wanted to know if the City would sell the equipment and music to the NHB for $1. Honohan stated that he could not speak for the City of Iowa City. West asked if the City even wants to own this equipment and music. Kopping answered yes, the equipment and music are used for programming so that when this group of Iowa City NHB members are no longer here, it will be available for use by a future group of NHB members. West responded that a remark like that brought up issues of trust. He went on to note that it is odd for a NHB to be housed in a Senior Center and that other NHB are generally more aligned with a University setting. For various reasons a NHB doesn't need to be located at a Senior Center. He questioned whether The Center was holding the band hostage by maintaining ownership of the equipment and music. He stated that that is not want anyone one wants, but if it came down to it community members would step up to outfit the NHB outside of the Senior Center. He wants the NHB to continue well into the future and he will do anything possible to ensure that there is always a NHB. Kopping said she thinks they have the same goal. To continue the NHB into the future just as it has successfully operated for the past 20 years. She noted that there is only one band member that was part of the original band. The band evolves and grows, members are constantly changing. The Center's role is to maintain the equipment for ongoing use and to support music programming. Gene Spaziani wants the Senior Center to stop stamping the music "property of the City of Iowa City". Buhman noted that there are other music groups at the Senior Center who currently use the band equipment and music. If another group wanted to start a different kind of music program at the Senior Center that that would be considered as well to expand the music program offerings. The Senior Center vets new instructors and groups to make sure they know how to use the equipment. She also noted that if there was a new music group at the Senior Center she would make sure to not schedule those at the same time as the NHB and communicate everyone's needs to ensure everyone has what they need. Janet Rawley wanted to know if there was a contract 20 years ago. Honohan stated that no, not to his knowledge. Rawley stated that is why there is so much confusion. Honohan stated that he would like to take the independent contractor agreement that was signed by the FNHB and expand upon it to address all of the concerns. n. Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 Honohan stated that a draft would be made. The draft will be sent to Jean Hill and distributed. Kopping noted that the draft will be open to changes. Martha Lubaroff stated that she would like the whole band to receive the draft as she often feels that the band is out of the loop with what is going on with the Friends of the NHB and she would like the opportunity to comment. Hill stated that she would distribute the draft to the NHB. Tom Wehr questioned the bylaws Jay had read from before and that he believes the bylaws read that the Iowa City New Horizon's band own the music and equipment as opposed to the The City of Iowa City and the NHB. Honohan stated that he did read it to mean a partnership between the City of Iowa City and the NHB. Felling stated that people in the band operated with the assumption that the equipment and the music was the NHB's but a judge might say that these items were owned by the City of Iowa City. West then stated that that is why documentation is needed now. Felling agreed. Felling stated that everyone wants the NHB to continue on for a long time. Hill wanted to know if the document is already signed by the Friends of the New Horizons band will be accepted by the City with an attached memorandum of items discussed. Honohan stated he would like it to be all in one document, but that he believed that either way, a short document with many memorandums or one longer document, it would be a legal document. COPYING COSTS AND PAYMENTS: No additional comments. SCHEUDLE OF CONCERTS: No additional comments. ACTION BY COMMISSION: Motion: To enter into an independence contractor agreement with the Friends of the New Horizons Band that addresses terms and items that have been discussed at the meeting. Holbrook/Mitchell 5/0 PUBLIC COMMENT CONTINUED: None. 7 Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Mitchel, Hobbs Approved Minutes February 13, 2015 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Year 2015 Name Term Expires 1/30 2/6 2/20 3/3 3/20 5/15 6/19 7/17 10/23 11/20 1/22/15 2/13/15 Cheryll Clamon 12/31/18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E Chuck Felling 12/31/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X Rose Hanson 12/31/14 X X X X X X X X X X -- -- Jack Hobbs 12/31/16 X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X Mark Holbrook 12/31/18 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Jay Honohan 12/31/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X Kathy Mitchell 12/31/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X Margaret Reese 12/31/15 X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X O/E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM= No meeting -- = Not a member 03-09-15 4b(9) IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPROVED -� MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2015--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexa Homewood, Nick Kilburg, Bram Elias, Laura Bergus MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Butler STAFF PRESENT: Ty Coleman, Geoff Fruin, Mike Brau SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Homewood noted the City Cable TV Office FY 2016 budget structure has changed by moving into the general fund. Elias said the Telecommunications Commission was made fully aware in advance that the Cable TV Office would be moving into the Communications Office but not that the enterprise fund would be moved into the general fund. Fruin said that decision was made when preparing the FY 2016 budget. Bergus said it is important for the city to understand the operational functions of the city Cable TV Office, which includes a regulatory function and the evolving communications landscape. The Commission spends time discussing broadband and broadband infrastructure and has insights that can be helpful to the city in making its communications effort more effective. Bergus said she is responsible for putting forward the idea that the reserve fund could be used to fund PATV. Bergus said that PATV serves a valuable community communications function. The revenue that funds PATV comes from cable TV subscribers and functionally serves them. PATV has strong support in the community. There may be something the city could do to assist them. There is precedent in the city for funding outside community organizations that enhance the cultural quality of life such as the Englert, FilmScene, and Riverside Theater. Fruin said the city is actively working with Metronet to help them make a determination if they wish to provide a competitive service. Bergus said that it is important the city protect all citizens by ensuring a competitive provider offers service to all areas of the community and not cherry -pick service areas. Fruin said he is not interested in having a company provide service that would engage in such a practice. Bergus said that any competitive provider should have the same obligations and burdens of the incumbent provider. Fruin said the city would need to strike a balance. One of the reasons Metronet is interested in Iowa City is the potential incentives the city might offer. Fruin said that when Mediacom went to a state franchise the funding for PATV became uncertain. The city legal department analysis determined it was unclear if the language in the Iowa Code would require Mediacom to continue PATV's operating subsidy. At one point Mediacom indicated they would discontinue payment but changed their mind after the city sent them a letter stating its belief that Mediacom was required to continue payment. The city does not think it would be on solid ground if the issue were forced. While the city could petition the Iowa Utility Board to revert to a municipal franchise, this could motivate Mediacom to not pay the PATV fee. In addition, the city is close to having a competitive provider in which case Mediacom could again seek a state franchise. Bergus said the city should stand up for consumers and not permit companies to acquire franchises all over the state and then not serve those communities. Its difficult to make the case that a community wants competition when the community is not willing to flag the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) that the community has an alleged provider who has failed to provide service under the statute. Bergus said that if a competitive provider comes to Iowa City and the city were to do something contractually with that competitor that creates an unequal playing field, Mediacom could have claim against the city. Kilburg said the Commission is suggesting that all that should be done is flag the IUB. That should not be a motivation for Mediacom's lawyers to suddenly decide to fight about something else. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bergus moved and Kilburg seconded a motion to approve the amended January 26, 2015 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. CABLE TV OFFICE BUDGET Homewood noted the City Cable TV Office FY 2016 budget structure has changed by moving into the general fund. Fruin said that the budget process starts in September when the budgets are developed by the departments and him. In December the budget is forwarded to the city council. The city council then spends about two weeks reviewing them in January. The Cable TV and Communications Office have both been reviewed by the city council. The city council will hold a public hearing and adopt the budget in time to file it with the state before March 15. If the Telecommunications Commission wishes to communicate with the city council, it should do so before March. In FY 2015 the operational organization of the Cable TV Office shifted to the Communications Office. The FY 2016 budget formalizes the process by moving funding from an enterprise fund to the general fund. The FY 2016 budget no longer contains a fee for overhead charges such as payroll and legal. The fund balance has been rolled into the general fund. The equipment reserve fund of $250,000 is proposed to be retained. The equipment reserve fund is generous based on the level of expenses. Due to changes in state property tax law that changes the assessment on commercial and rental properties, of which Iowa City has a large proportion, the city's budget will face stress in 2018 and 2019 when the state government will no longer backfill the decline in property tax revenue. The city is trying to build stronger reserves to sustain operations and avoid drastic cuts. Enterprise funds generally strive for a reserve of 30% of annual expenditures. The cable TV reserve fund is quite large by that measure. Maintaining the cable TV operations after 2018 using the $1.5 million reserve fund is unsustainable. Given declining franchise fees, the long term sustainability of cable TV operations as an enterprise might not be possible. Fruin said he was unaware that the Telecommunications Commission had discussed using the reserve fund to fund PATV after 2018. City administration had extensive discussion with staff regarding strategies to fund PATV. Hardy had recommended that PATV set aside about $130,000 per year for five years until 2018 to give PATV time to become self-sustaining. PATV was not interested in that plan. Homewood asked if the $250,000 equipment reserve fund is available to other entities besides the city. Coleman said it has only been available to the city, but there has been a set aside of about $18,000 from the community programming fund to make funds available to other access providers. Fruin said the equipment reserve fund has generally saved more than has been expended. Elias asked when the discussions to move the enterprise fund into the general fund fist took place and who had those discussions. Fruin said the decision was made in the City Manager's office. Hardy did not suggest making the change. The city believes there was an opportunity for more collaboration in the city's communications strategies by bringing the Cable TV Office into the Communications Office. Elias said the Telecommunications Commission was made fully aware in advance that the Cable TV Office would be moving into the Communications Office but not that the enterprise fund would be moved into the general fund. Fruin said that decision was made when preparing the FY 2016 budget. Bergus said she is pleased that the city is making a stronger effort in communications. Bergus noted the Commission has a regulatory role and has worked to maintain the revenue stream of the franchise fee. Fruin said that it is rare for a community to dedicate their entire franchise fee towards cable operations. The majority of communities use at least part for improvements to the public right-of-way. Bergus said that North Liberty allocates more funds than just the franchise fee to communications. Bergus said it is important for the city to understand the operational functions of the city Cable TV Office, which includes a regulatory function and the evolving communications landscape. The Commission spends time discussing broadband and broadband infrastructure and has insights that can be helpful to the city in making its communications effort more effective. Elias said that unlike the change in organizational structure in which the Commission was informed well before it actually took place, the more important decision—the moving of the enterprise fund into the general fund—came as a surprise. While the Commission is not in a position to be setting priorities for the city, it is the Commission's role to look out for the interests of those providing services within the Commission's area of responsibility. The Commission was unaware that the enterprise was to be moved to the general fund and would have liked to be part of that conversation. Elias asked who was involved in the conversation when transit moved from the general fund to an enterprise fund. Fruin said the process was much the same. The city manager sets budget policy and the departments are more focused on operations. Fruin said he did not anticipate the Telecommunications Commission would be interested in the budget. Bergus said she is responsible for putting forward the idea that the reserve fund could be used to fund PATV. Bergus said that PATV serves a valuable community communications function. The revenue that funds PATV comes from cable TV subscribers and functionally serves them. It is important to discuss functional changes in terms of the changing communications landscape. PATV has strong support in the community. There may be something the city could do to assist them. There is precedent in the city for funding outside community organizations that enhance the cultural quality of life such as the Englert, FilmScene, and Riverside Theater. That conversation is worth having. Fruin said there have been lost opportunities in the past to put PATV on a more sustainable funding model. PATV needs to develop a plan for sustainable funding. Fruin said he never thought the reserve fund would be used for PATV. PATV has not approached the city and requested any of those funds. Homewood said that PATV's current funding source expires just as the city will be facing a budget pinch in 2018. Homewood and Kilburg said that the Commission had considered that those funds might help PATV transition at that time. Homewood said that is the reason it was shocking for the Commission to learn that the reserve fund was being absorbed into the general fund. Fruin asked Coleman about the state of the PATV contract negotiations. Coleman said PATV has expressed a desire to keep the contract much as it is now. There has been some discussion about fundraising and creating an endowment. There hasn't been any discussion of including language in the contract for creating a fund reserve. Elias said the Commission realizes that there will need to be changes in light of the state franchise. The Commission has not seen any plans for PATV. The Commission does not know what the city's plan will be for cable TV or broadband past 2018. Fruin said that the revenue trend for the Cable TV Office is declining. Hardy's position was eliminated when he retired. Nixon will not be replaced when he retires. With those changes the Cable TV Office budget should be sustainable, but that could change. The city is working with some potential competitive providers. If they provide service it could provide more opportunities or it might constrict opportunities. Bergus said the Commission has experience with the regulatory aspects cable TV providers and communications infrastructure. Historically, Iowa City has done a poor job in tracking infrastructure, particularly in regard to University of Iowa infrastructure. The city could make use of the Commission in their economic development efforts with regard to companies wishing to utilize the public right-of-way. Fruin said the city is actively working with Metronet to help them make a determination if they wish to provide a competitive service. Bergus said that it is important the city protect all citizens by ensuring a competitive provider offers service to all areas of the community and not cherry -pick service areas. Fruin said he is not interested in having a company provide service that would engage in such a practice. Bergus said that any competitive provider should have the same obligations and burdens of the incumbent provider. Fruin said the city would need to strike a balance. One of the reasons Metronet is interested in Iowa City is the potential incentives the city might offer. ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES FRANCHISE Fruin said that when Mediacom went to a state franchise the funding for PATV became uncertain. The city legal department analysis determined it was unclear if the language in the Iowa Code would require Mediacom to continue PATV's operating subsidy. At one point Mediacom indicated they would discontinue payment but changed their mind after the city sent them a letter stating its belief that Mediacom was required to continue payment. The city does not think it would be on solid ground if the issue were forced. The city feels fortunate that Mediacom decided to pay the fee. While the city could petition the Iowa Utility Board to revert to a municipal franchise, this could motivate Mediacom to not pay the PATV fee. In addition, the city is close to having a competitive provider in which case Mediacom could again seek a state franchise. The city has decided to hold off until the situation with a competitive provider is clearer. If the Commission doe not feel the same degree of risk as the city that discussion could take place and the city will listen to those views. Bergus said the city is several steps removed from the franchise being converted to a municipal franchise. Bergus said the city should stand up for consumers and not permit companies to acquire franchises all over the state and then not serve those communities. Its difficult to make the case that a community wants competition when the community is not willing to flag the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) that the community has an alleged provider who has failed to provide service under the statute. What the IUB does with that or how Mediacom reacts is far removed from the interest that would be protected. Fruin said the city's concern is with the possibility of Mediacom withdrawing funding for PATV. Bergus said that if a competitive provider comes to Iowa City and the city were to do something contractually with that competitor that creates an unequal playing field, Mediacom could have claim against the city. It is a mistake to conflate the PATV funding issue with the enforceability of the statute regarding competitive providers. Kilburg said the city is jumping twice. The city seems to be saying if it were to flag the IUB, you could incentivize someone else and then this other outcome might happen. The Commission is suggesting that all that should be done is flag the IUB. That should not be a motivation for Mediacom's lawyers to suddenly decide to fight about something else. Bergus said it is the job of the city to protect consumers. It is the IUB that is the agency that is responsible and should be most concerned. The city is merely informing them of a provider who is abusing the system. The IUB may choose not to act. Elias said informing the IUB also changes the tenor of conversation with other providers by demonstrating that the city is vigilant. Bergus said that in the past city staff has been a conduit for addressing problems and consumer complaints. That is good for both the city and the providers. ADJOURNMENT Kilburg moved and Bergus seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r Michael Brau Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused Elias Ber us Kilburg Butler Homewood 1/27/14 X X X X X 2/24/14 X X X 0 0 3/24/14 X X X X X 6/2/14 0 X X X X 6/23/14 0 X X X X 7/28/14 0 x x x 0/c 8/25/14 X X X X X 9/22/14 X X X X o/c 10/27/14 X X o/c o/c X 11/24/14 O/C O/C X X X 1/26/15 X X X X x 2/10/15 X X X o/c X 2/23/15 x x x x x (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused I _,--®oar CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 5, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Michael Moran, Director of Parks and Recreation Re: Consider a resolution establishing a revised schedule of fees and charges for Parks and Recreation services and programs Introduction: Upon recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission the Parks and Recreation Department has drafted its annual schedule of fees and charges for approval by the city council. History/Background: The Parks and Recreation Commission annually reviews, make suggestions and approves fees and charges for all Parks and Recreation Department services and programs. The matrix presented shows historical rates and increases over the years for comparisons. Discussion of Solution: Review and approve the matrix with any suggested changes, recommendations and/or improvements. Recommendation: Approve the fees and charges schedule as submitted and endorsed by the Park and Recreation Commission. It should be noted that some of the proposed fees will take effect in FY15 because the summer season begins in FY15 but continues into FY16. Fiscal Impact: This schedule will allow the department to plan its cost recovery mission for the next several years and make us more cost effective and efficient. 4d(2)