HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-02 Bd Comm minutesNovember 19, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 2015 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Jose Assouline, Julie Bockenstedt, Minnetta Gardinier (arrived at 6:07
P.M.), A. Jacob Odgaard
Members Absent: Chris Ogren
Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Sue Dulek
Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Karim Malek, Omar Ahmad, Gary Milavetz
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
Secretary Odgaard called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes from the October 15 meeting were reviewed first. Tharp noted that there is a minor
addition to the minutes, on page 5. He will add the motions and times that the Commission
entered into Executive Session, as well as exited. Odgaard noted that there is a typo under
Item a, fourth line. This should be 'changes' instead of 'changed.' He also suggested that the
first place where the 3700 and 3800 plans are mentioned be further clarified. Odgaard moved
to accept the minutes of the October 15, 2015, meeting as amended. Assouline
seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0; Gardinier and Ogren absent.
Gardinier arrived at this time. Next Odgaard reviewed the minutes from the October 29
meeting. Assouline moved to accept the minutes of the October 29, 2015, meeting as
presented. Gardinier seconded the motion. The motion carried 40; Ogren absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Iowa City Auto Club Request to use Airport grounds — Tharp stated
that the Iowa City Auto Club is present in order to speak to the
Commission regarding a possible use at the Airport. Karim Malek first
introduced himself and the other members of the Auto Club to the
Commission. He stated that Tom Schnell, also from the University of
Iowa, is the person who recommended they speak with the Airport
3b(1)
November 19, 2015
Page 2
Commission. The request centers around an auto -cross activity and
Malek further explained what this entails. He noted that there is no
location in the Iowa City area for such racing activities at the present time.
Malek stated that the Club would be okay with paying to use unused
runway space at the Airport, if necessary. He reiterated that this Club is
seeking to have a community-based relationship, one where they can
share their activities. He also spoke to insurance matters, noting that
typically there is general liability and participant coverage, meaning that
the Airport would not incur any risks for these types of activities.
Malek continued his presentation, noting how many events the Club
would expect to host during a year. These events would be held during
the weekend and after -work hours the majority of the time. Malek pointed
out the specific location they are considering for these activities, showing
Members where on the unused runway events would be held. Odgaard
asked how Des Moines' arrangement would be different from what Malek
is requesting. Malek responded that from what he can tell, there is an
agreement between the auto club there and the airport allowing the club
to host such events. Gardinier stated that she would like more details on
this arrangement — a) more details on how other airports manage these
types of requests, and b) with a farming operation on the Airport grounds,
she would need to know that this type of activity would not interfere with
that. She also noted that the maintenance of this runway would be a
concern for her. Malek stated that he would be happy to speak with the
farming operation management, if need be. Assouline asked for further
clarification of time period, and Malek stated it would be a six to eight
month period with upwards of 20 events during those months. Assouline
asked about some of the items being proposed for use, such as concrete
blocks, and if these would become permanent. He reiterated Gardinier's
concerns about the farming operation and their use of this area.
The discussion continued, with Malek attempting to clarify the Club's
usage of the unused runway area. Bockenstedt stated that she thinks it is
a good idea, one that could bring more people to the Airport, but that she
too questions any risks the Airport could take on. Tharp reiterated that
they are currently working with the farm management on a new contract,
but he suggested they clarify with them their use of this area. This could
help them as they consider the Auto Club's request. Assouline asked
Dulek about the Airport's risk for such events and she noted that the Auto
Club obtaining such insurance would be very doable. Odgaard agreed
that publicity for the Airport would be good, but that he too needs further
clarification of these issues. Gary Milavetz then spoke to Members,
noting that typically these events have less than 20 people attending. He
also spoke about typical practice sessions, in addition to community
events. Gardinier reiterated that they first complete the farm operation
contract before considering the Auto Club request. Malek asked what this
revenue amount is and Tharp stated that they receive about $30,000 in
cash and $10,000 to $15,000 in land management services.
Assouline stated that he personally does not believe there will be a
problem with this request and the farming operation. Gardinier stated that
November 19, 2015
Page 3
she believes this is somewhat double-dipping on the land use, thus
diminishing the farm operation contract. Also the wear and tear on this
runway is of great concern to her. Assouline asked about the
autonomous car use request and if this would interfere with that. Tharp
stated that he has not heard anything further there, but that he does
suggest the Commission discuss these issues. Bockenstedt asked if
anyone in the car club are pilots. Assouline stated that he believes they
should look into this request further. Gardinier stated that she sees
conflicts on many levels, and that she would need to see how other
airports handle such requests. The other Members agreed with this.
Tharp stated that it appears to him that Members do need further
information before considering this particular request. He agreed that the
farming operation contract is of major importance. For now he will
continue to gather more information for Members to review.
b. Airport Master Plan — Tharp stated that Underwood would not be
present this evening , but that she did note that she will have updates
ready for the Master Plan group by the end of the month, with an update
for the Commission at the December meeting. After this, the plan will
head to the FAA for their approval process.
C. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM (David Hughes)
L FYI Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that they have
begun pulling the report together and hope to have a draft ready in
early December. Once this has been reviewed, they will plan to
submit it in January for it to become a public document. Wolford
asked about the bird situation with this mitigation and Hughes
responded. He further clarified the process and how long it
actually takes before trees are removed, due to the times of year
that this can be done safely in order to not disturb the birds and
bats in the area. Members continued to discuss this issue, with
Hughes responding to questions and concerns. Tharp stated that
he would suggest a subcommittee to deal with some of the
background issues for this process, so that they can be ready to
move forward once the FAA gives their blessing. Members
agreed that Tharp, Gardinier, and Bockenstedt would serve on
this subcommittee, along with a City attorney.
ii. Fuel Tank Rehabilitation — Hughes stated that they are
attempting to close this project out. They are working with the
contractor on the final documents at this time. The pump
problems from last month have been resolved, according to
Hughes. Wolford stated that the last week and a half have seen
everything working well.
iii. FYI Apron Expansion — Hughes stated that the plan is to still
get this out for bid this winter. They will then be ready for a spring
start date on this project. Gardinier asked how long the project is
expected to take, and Hughes noted that it could be upwards of 60
days. Hughes then responded to Member questions regarding
this upcoming project.
iv. FFY17 FAA AIP Pre -Application — Tharp spoke to this issue,
noting that they have taken projects from the Master Plan as they
November 19, 2015
Page 4
have been completing the pre -application. He spoke to some of
these projects, noting what is expected for 2018 and 2019.
Hughes then clarified what some of these projects will entail. He
also responded to Member concerns regarding the FAA's possible
response to their application requests. Hughes and Tharp both
clarified what can be expected if the FAA does not award them
much. Hughes continued, further explaining the projects that are
included in their pre -application. Gardinier noted that one thing
missing is the addition of approach lighting off of 7, and that to her
this is more valuable and likely than the stop -way. Hughes noted
that this is not something the FAA would participate in funding.
Tharp stated that if everyone is okay with this as discussed, he will
move forward with submittal to the FAA. Odgaard moved to
allow Chairperson Gardinier to sign the pre -application per
discussion. Bockenstedt seconded the motion. The motion
carried 4-0; Ogren absent.
d. Airport Operations —
i. Strategic Plan -Implementation — Tharp noted that he is working
through a hangar lease which he hopes to have for the
Commission's review at the December meeting. He added that
there should be a review after the first of the year on the strategic
plan, and that they should plan to do another five-year plan at
that time as well.
ii. Budget — Tharp noted that he and Gardinier met with the City
Manager and Finance Director recently. There is nothing new
here, other than a concern over reduced revenues for the City.
iii. Management — Tharp stated that he is planning vacation time
during the Christmas holiday, as he typically does.
e. FBO/Flight Training Reports
Jet Air — Matt Wolford addressed the Commission next, sharing
the monthly maintenance reports. Tharp introduced Wolford to
Bockenstedt at this point. Wolford then briefly explained what he
reports on each month. He reviewed what Jet Air staff completed
over the past month, noting that they are continuing to work on the
fuel tanks. Staff also worked on replacing the hangar door that
Gardinier had brought up recently. She then asked about the fire
extinguisher door by her hangar, noting that it has not been
replaced. Tharp stated that they will look into this, that they had
been working with Hawkeye on these replacements. Wolford
continued, noting the various maintenance issues addressed.
Tharp and Wolford also spoke to some of the empty hangars and
how they have been using them lately and what plans are for
them. The discussion briefly touched on snow removal and what
amounts determine snow removal to begin.
Wolford then spoke to how Jet Air is doing. He stated that they
have been quite busy with charters, with last month setting a
record for them. Earlier this week, he noted that five of their
planes left for charter flights. He added that they recently hired
November 19, 2015
Page 5
another mechanic and he gave some background on him. The
recent Hawkeye game brought quite a bit of traffic to the Airport,
according to Wolford. Odgaard then asked for an update on the
flight training side.
f. Security Subcommittee Report — Gardinier stated that she asked Tharp
to add this to the agenda as she would like to update Members on the
issue. She has three documents — a checklist, the emergency plan, and
the security plan. She will get these to Tharp soon. One of the
recommendations that came out of the review would be to have an
annual review coincide with when the Chairperson position changes.
g. Commission Members' Reports — Bockenstedt stated that she recently
went to the Air Safety Institute seminar at the John Deere hangar. She
shared what took place, adding that she was impressed with the
information given. Gardinier stated that she will be flying to Florida for the
Thanksgiving holiday.
h. Staff Report — None.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, December 17,
2015, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building. Bockenstedt will not be able to attend this
meeting. Tharp will check with Ogren to see if she plans to attend.
ADJOURN:
Assouline moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 P.M. Odgaard seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-0; Ogren absent.
CHAIRPERSON DATE
o O
.tj
N W
W
O V
V Z
O z
CL
Z
L W
Q �
Q
c Ln
0 0
h N
E e
0
t E �o
o_ > W
Q z a
r
0
N
12/17/15
E
m
g
s
�
O
z
11/19/15
X
X
w
X
X
z
W ��
W W
e
O
0z
10/15/15
X
X
X
Xz
z
09/17/15
X
X
X
X
z
z
08/20/15
X
X
X
X
z
z
07/16/15
X
X
X
w
z
O
O
06/25/15
o
X
X
X
z
O
05/21/15
X
X
X
X
2
X
z
04/30/15
X
X
X
X
O
z
04/07/15
X
w
z
O
03/19/15
X
X
X
X
X
z
02/19/15
X
X
X
X
2
O
z
01/15/15
X
w
z
a
w
m
co
0o
ti
r -
a
LU K
o
0
0
0
0
0
F W
MM
O
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
C
d
�
N
S
`
C
.O
Im
O
Z
C
d
d Y
V
L
�0
A)
V
QO
im
rn
c
E
m
o
s
�
O
C C
W a)
C
a) N a)
U
aaQ¢z°
W ��
W W
e
>
0z
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 16, 2015 — 6:00 PM
NDS CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Brock Grenis, Connie Goeb,
Becky Soglin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT:
A. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.
B. ROLL CALL
All members present.
C. CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 14, 2015 MINUTES:
Soglin moved to approve the minutes with two minor changes
Goeb seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0
D. Consideration of suggested update to the BOA Procedures
Walz explained that the changes proposed by staff dealt mostly with cleaning up some legal
language and the change in the name of the department.
Soglin raised issue of abstain vs. recuse in article 6, asking whether one could abstain from a
vote. Dulek stated that members could abstain, but that it would count as a no vote. The Board
agreed that language should be included on abstaining under Section 11. A few other minor
corrections were noted.
Soglin moved to approve the updated procedures with noted corrections and addition of
language regarding abstaining.
Goeb seconded the motion.
Motion approved by unanimous vote.
Board of Adjustment
September 14, 2015
Page 2 of 4
E. Discussion of Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgements Form
Walz reminded the Board that at their previous meeting they had approved a proposal that
would locate multi -family uses on a property located in the floodplain. A condition of the
approval required the applicant to disclose floodplain information to future tenants. The Board
had indicated that it would like to recommend to Council that this information should be
disclosed in all cases where rental units are located in the floodplain.
Walz indicated that after reviewing this there was some concern on the part of NDS staff that
the disclosure form not become too long or a catch-all for things that staff could not actually
enforce. She noted that the items currently in the disclosure form are enforcement items such
as occupancy and nuisance issues. She also said that some landlords may not know that their
property is in the floodplain or what the level or type of risk is—for example, associated with the
Ralston Creek flooplain are different from those in the Iowa River floodplain. There is some
concern that if tenants asked their landlord for clarification regarding risks due to the floodplain,
that landlords may not be able to answer their questions accurately.
Board members discussed whether landlords should know their floodplain status as it is
disclosed when property is purchased and when it is insured. Members felt it was important to
disclose this information even if many tenants face little risk or are uninterested—those who
are interested should be informed.
Dulek indicated that this information could be sought from landlords at the time they apply for
their rental permit. That would prompt the landlord to find the information. Board members liked
this idea and wish to recommend that both the rental form and the disclosure form include
language disclosing whether the property is in the floodplain.
Baker moved that a recommendation be made to council to require floodplain disclosure on
both the rental permit application form and the informational disclosure form provided to
tenants.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Motion approved by unanimous vote.
Walz will prepare a letter to council for the Board to approve at its January meeting.
F. Other
Walz noted that this was the last meeting for the Board Chair, Brock Grenis. She thanked
Grenis for his service. Board members expressed their appreciation for his long service as
chair.
ADJOURNMENT:
Soglin moved to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 on a 5-0 vote.
LO
t—
CD
N
le
r
0
N
0
x
x
x
x
x
N
x
x
x
x
x
co
X
x
x
x
M
x
x
x
x
x
co
x
x
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
LLI
x
x
x
x
N
V-
x
x
x
x
x
r
ox
x
o
0
x
xr—
O
cp
rn
00
W
r
O
N
O
r
O
r
O
O
N
N
N
(14
N
ui
H
W
Z
W
Lu
V
U)
Y
Q
Z
J
W
J
m
=
m
V
N
_
V
Z
W
W
m
Z
N
J
Z
m
C7
0
C)
N
W
Y
FINAL/APPROVED
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD 02-05-16
MINUTES — December 16, 2015 3b(3)
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donald King, Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter, Mazahir Salih
STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Ford, Staff Kellie Tuttle
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Hart from the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by King, seconded by Treloar, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 10/12/15
• ICPD Department Memo #15-23 (September 2015 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — September 2015
• ICPD Department Memo #15-26 (October 2015 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — October 2015
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
King asked staff to double check all the forms for the Board and make sure Citizen has been
changed to Community.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
King inquired when the Helling Conference Room and the front lobby area would re -open.
Hart stated that the conference room and lobby area are slated to be open by January 11 th and
the entrance to Police to be open by January 18th.
CPRB
December 16, 2015
Page 2
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subiect to change)
• January 12, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to Wednesday, January 20th)
• January 20, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• February 9, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• March 8, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by King, seconded by Treloar, to move the January 12th meeting to Wednesday,
January 20th due to complaint timelines.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by King.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
Meeting adjourned at 5:36 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2014-2015
(Meeting Date)
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
TERM
11/25
12/3
12/8
12/29
2/10
3/10
4/7
4/28
5/20
6/16
7/20
9/8
10/12
12/16
NAME
EXP.
Melissa
9/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jensen
Joseph
9/1/17
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Treloar
Royceann
9/1/16
O
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
O
O/E
O/E
O
X
O
Porter
Mazahir
9/1/17
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O
O
X
O
O/E
Salih
Fidencio
9/1/15
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
---
---
---
Martinez
Donald
9/1/19
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
King
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
3b(4)
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 10, 2015
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY MEETING ROOM A
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate
Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ginalie
Swaim, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ben Sandell
Jessica Bristow, Bob Miklo
Pat Lang
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
429 Ronalds Street.
Bristow said this property is on the corner of Ronalds and Van Buren Streets in the
G oosetown/Ho race Mann Conservation District. She showed a photograph of the house with its
new front porch.
Bristow said the applicant is remodeling the kitchen and would like to remove the double hung
window and the door on the east side, which faces Van Buren Street, and save them to
potentially relocate them on the south side. She said the applicant would like to replace the
door with a fixed window with a head at the same height as the door that would fit the width of
the current door opening and match all the other windows.
Bristow said the sill height is still to be determined, based on what would be necessary for
counter clearance in the kitchen. She said staff would work with the applicant to approve the
material choice for the window, once that is decided. Bristow said that with the size of the
space on the inside, this is the best option for getting anything close to a modern -style kitchen.
Bristow said that on this house, there are no windows to align with on the second floor above
this area. She said that in the front bay there are single windows instead of paired windows, so
a single window would not necessarily mess up any window rhythm. Bristow said this house
also has numerous, smaller rectangular windows in each of the gable ends as well as the small
window next to the front door, which appears to be original also, because of the window trim
and the placement of the radiators inside.
Bristow said that the window in the bay is also a large, fixed window, so the house has some
precedent for not having just double hung windows and having something that is a little bit more
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 2 of 10
of a rectangular shape. She said staff recommends approval of this, based on the idea of
getting the window material approved. Bristow said that when the porch was remodeled, the
applicant removed some of the synthetic siding and will probably have enough to fill in the area.
She said that anything extra that is needed should be able to be matched.
Bristow showed a current image and also a Photoshop image of what this project could look
like.
Ackerson asked if the steps are poured in place or are an independent unit and what the
foundation situation would be if they are removed. Bristow responded that this was a University
partnership house, and she had asked about the steps but they were existing and not put in
place. She said staff believes the steps are independent. Bristow said that, looking at this from
the inside photographs, there does not appear to be any foundation issue. She said the
foundation is all rough -textured, concrete block.
Michaud asked if it would be possible to allow a casement window over the sink for ventilation.
Miklo said the guidelines would indicate a double hung unless a casement is needed for egress.
He said that this could be designed as a double hung.
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
429 Ronalds Street with the following condition: window product information submitted
for review and approval by staff. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 10-0 (Sandell absent).
1009 East Colleqe Street.
Bristow stated that this is a continuation of the Commission's discussion at its last meeting. She
said this property is in the East College Street Historic District. Bristow said that earlier this
project came before the Commission for some siding and a window resizing above the porch.
Bristow said that currently, the application is to reroof the house. She said it has a standing
seam metal roof that would be replaced with shingles. Bristow said the chimney would be tuck
pointed, some siding would be replaced as needed above the base, and an ice and water guard
product would be installed. Bristow said the part of the application that caused this to be
deferred is the gutters.
Bristow said the application is to remove the built-in gutters by roofing over them and installing a
K -style gutter on the outside. She said the crown molding would be removed to create a flat
fascia, and the K -style gutters would be installed outside of that. Bristow showed images of the
built-in gutter.
Bristow said this is a Greek revival transitioning into Italianate house. She said the gutters do
create the cornice returns and are one of the main architectural characteristics to differentiate
and define this house and its style. Bristow said that is the reason staff recommended not
removing the gutters.
Bristow said the packet contains a memo explaining that roofer Mark Anderson has looked at
the house. She said Anderson has the ability to coat the existing standing seam roof with a
coating called Acrymax, add fabric reinforcement to the gutters, and coat the gutters as well.
Bristow said Anderson confirmed that he provided the applicant with a quote to do that work.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 3 of 10
Bristow said staff has also found a couple of articles discussing the construction and purpose of
the built-in gutters and how they can be maintained or repaired. She said that one of the
articles talks about the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and how to maintain
the gutters.
Bristow referred to a photograph of a home that is not in a district and is not a landmark
property, on the corner of Market and Governor Streets, where the built-in gutters were roofed
over and did exactly what the Commission is discussing, except for the possibility of continuing
the gutter at the cornice return. She said that on the example house, the crown molding was
covered over.
Bristow said staff also looked into some of the past examples of this type of request. She stated
that there were multiple projects where the homeowners decided to repair their gutters, and a
certificate of no material effect was issued. Bristow showed photographs of these examples.
Bristow said there were also instances where the gutters were allowed to be removed. She
showed a prairie style house on Summit Street and said that she could not tell the difference
with this house between before and after, partly just because of the incredible expanse of eave
and because the eave itself is much more of a feature in this particular instance.
Bristow showed a photograph of a house for which the owner was given approval to remove the
gutter. She said it is a different style and is part way up the slope. Bristow said the owner
decided to repair and coat over the gutters, and the gutters were not removed. Miklo said the
plan was to actually remove the gutters and reinstall something very similar. He said the owner
was not going to change the molding. Bristow agreed that the molding was not going to be
impacted here, because the gutter is not down in the molding area.
Bristow said that the issue before the Commission is whether to approve removing the gutters,
removing the crown molding at the fascia, and installing K-style gutters. She said the staff
recommendation is to not do this and to repair the gutters instead. Bristow said staff has found
out from SHPO that if the Commission decides to allow the gutters to be covered over, the
recommendation is not to remove the crown molding but instead to install a half-round gutter
outside of that, keeping the molding and all of the architectural features and install the gutter
outside. Bristow said that one of the reference books discusses how to use that method instead
of using the K-style gutters.
Swaim stated that Litton is recusing himself from consideration of this, because he is the owner
of the house.
Ackerson said he is surprised that SHPO is recommending the half round gutters, which he
thinks that would be more obtrusive than the solution at 906 East Market Street. He said that in
that case, the K-style had a square base and almost looked like it had a crown molding on it and
is indistinguishable from before and after.
Bristow said that the K-style gutter has the floor that does stick out more than the molding. She
said she thinks that, from SHPO's viewpoint, it is the fact that they don't want the original crown
molding removed but want to maintain the architectural feature. Bristow said part of that is the
fact that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are very strong on being able to remove things
done to a house that are modern to put it back in more of an historic state. She said that if one
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 4 of 10
removes the crown molding, it is harder to replace than it would be to just add the gutters on the
outside, according to SHPO.
Miklo said another viewpoint of SHPO may be that the half -round gutter does allow for some
visibility of the molding behind it, whereas with the K -style, the molding is gone.
Durham said that to him it looks like the cornice on the College Street house is the thing that
one really wants to preserve. He said that the crown molding itself is secondary. Miklo said that
gets back to the guidelines, which say that one should repair the gutter instead of removing it.
Litton, the owner of the house, said that the half -round gutter would be acceptable to him. He
showed close-up photographs of the gutters. Litton said it is his opinion and the opinion of his
roofing contractor, Pat Lang, that the gutters have failed completely. Litton said he is having
water issues on the west side, and none of the gutters are draining properly. He said the pitch
somehow is now out of whack, and he has standing water issues.
Litton said that the gutters have been coated multiple times. He said he has met staff at the
house and has the bid from Anderson, who would remove any of the loose debris and then put
on another coat of EPDM. Litton said he does not think that is a long-lasting, viable solution.
Litton said the tuck pointing is close to being done, and then he will start getting all the old,
rotted wood off for a major exterior rehab. He said he needs the roof to be sound before he can
move forward on anything else. Litton said the guidelines do allow the roofline to be changed, if
the gutter system has failed, which is his opinion.
Lang said that, as a remodeler, he likes to get a feel for his customers. He said it is great to try
to preserve things, but people buy these houses, and they have no idea as to what they just
purchased.
Lang said that one cannot see the built-in gutters from the street or any place around the
building. He said that if one wants the historic replication, that's fine and he would like to see it
as well and have it be mandatory so that everyone knows that and he can tell people what they
just bought. Lang said that in this case, since one cannot see that from the ground, if the crown
is left, he can do a special edging that he can tie the back of that half -round gutter in so that he
can keep the ice from climbing up and inside. Lang said that all one would see from the ground
would be a half -round gutter hanging on the outside, like people did for one hundred years.
Lang said it would be nice if there is a feel that he can take with him to all of the hundreds of
bids that he does so he can help people with restoration. He said he loves what the
Commission does, but he needs a feel in the public of what can be done.
Bristow said that she drove around taking photographs today and had no idea that there was
such an extensive number of built-in gutters in Iowa City. She said the one article discusses the
fact that they can be repaired. Bristow said they do have about a 100 -year lifespan, and a lot of
these homes have hit that point. She said this will be coming up a lot.
Ackerson asked if the Commission is allowed to take into account the incremental expense of
restoring gutters like this. He said he thinks this can get real expensive really fast, and it is not
very helpful to either local buildings or contractors if the Commission's response is that it does
not care how much it costs to repair the gutters. Ackerson said that if the Commission says
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 5 of 10
that, then these houses are going to be demolished, because they can't be repaired at a
reasonable cost and so they'll be torn down. He said that to him, that is not a very good
solution.
Miklo said that at this point, numbers have not been presented. Durham said he thinks it is in
the back of everyone's mind as these things are being reviewed.
Lang said that it is very, very expensive to make all the repairs to the wood itself. He said he
has modern underlayments he can put down, but then to put metal back in those, it gets to
$15,000 in a heartbeat, and that has nothing to do with the repairs to be made when peeling all
of that system up. Lang said he just did another copper solder on a house in Cedar Rapids that
cost $18,000 just to do a canopy roof.
Swaim asked if, when one is talking about altering the roofline, is that because the layer at the
end would be removed. Bristow said it is because basically the roofline comes down, and then
it is supposed to catch in the pan that is the gutter, and then there is the crown molding. She
said the roofline would come down, but it would go over to the end of the gutter instead of to the
inside of the gutters. Bristow said it would go over to the outside, and then the gutter would be
on the outside of that. She said the guidelines do show a diagram that shows the roofline not
being straightened out but kind of ending in a lower slope over the gutter itself.
Swaim asked if the half round gutters would obscure the crown molding. Bristow said the half
round gutters are preferable for a couple of reasons. She said that the half round gutters
themselves are more historic than modern, K -style gutters. Bristow said the K -style gutters
require the removal of the crown molding so that there is a flat fascia so there is a flat back wall
of it. She said that with the half round gutter, since it curves up, one could feasibly see up in
between and see the crown molding. Bristow said it would not be overly visible from the street,
but there is the fact that the molding still exists.
Agran said that costs are not supposed to be part of the decision-making process. Having said
that, he said it seems to him that in the packet it does not say one must do this or the house will
be ruined. Male said he thinks that two feasible options have been presented. He said one
option is that the gutter is abandoned, the roof is bridged, and a somewhat equally historic half
round gutter is put on, which seems acceptable to him.
Agran said the other recommendation is to fix this, which the Secretary of the Interior seems to
think is something possible. He said if the Secretary of the Interior thinks it is possible, then he
thinks there must be some degree of possibility there. Agran said that whether that fix will last
another 100 years, perhaps they need to be made out of a different material or totally rebuilt.
Durham said that we are very comfortable as a society and as a Commission with putting
asphalt roofs on that do not last another 100 years. He said that the standard that something
has to last 100 years and costs a fortune is a possibility and the two options provided and
recommendations in the report seem like viable options to him. Durham said that if someone
wants to go back and take off the bridging and restore the gutters and take off half round
gutters, then they can do that. He said that both of the options seem good to him.
Michaud asked about the EPDM and if four coats would be required. Bristow said it would
actually be a liquid material, not EPDM. She said it would be something that would literally be
hand painted on.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 6 of 10
Lang said the reason to put coatings on is that, although the metal itself is infallible, it is either
rusted through or there is so much wood damage below it that coats of things are put on it just
to get by.
Bristow said the research in the articles discussing built-in gutters talked about multiple things,
including the fact that if the gutters are going to be repaired that they not be coated, that one
takes out what is there, repairs any of the rotten wood and relines them with a metal that could
feasibly be repaired in small sections. She said the metal itself is literally soldered in between
the pieces so that one can make repairs anywhere along the line. Bristow said that is why it is
said that they have such an extended life.
Bristow said that at one point in our history, those were considered as something that could be
easily repaired by almost anyone, because of the fact that people had more knowledge about
how to do those things. Because this is a gutter that has a greater width and more structure,
she said it is more solid and would last longer than a modern applied gutter that people have to
have applied more often. Bristow said that they are also supposed to have a greater ability,
usually, for holding water and getting rid of water, because they are supposed to be so much
more expansive.
Bristow said these gutters look like they have been coated and filled multiple times, so they
don't have quite the capacity that most of the gutters she has found would have.
Bristow said they also are supposed to allow things like leaves to just blow out of them, because
they are not as narrow as an applied gutter. She said the holes for the downspouts are
supposed to be bigger than on modern gutters, so they are not supposed to clog like modern
gutters do. Bristow said that is why they were used so much, but they do have to be
maintained.
Durham said another thing to note is that buildings settle with time. He said that then there are
issues like this, where material is pooling in the low spot.
Lang said that when metal is filled with ice and there is nothing but a wood structure below it,
the condensation from frost and moisture is what destroys material. He said they did not have
our modern underlayments. Lang said that a special, high temperature ice guard is now put
underneath all the built-in gutters. He said that is impervious to temperature. Lang said those
modern products have to be put underneath, because when one puts a wood structure under
metal, the life of that is subject to the most severe winters. He said they were always rebuilding
those houses, because there is no protection below that.
Lang said that is when people started hanging gutters on the outside. He said that people quit
using built-in gutters, because there is so much maintenance. Lang said there is so much ice,
and there could be ice in the gutter five months out of twelve.
Michaud said it seems that the Commission has approved changes for the covering over of
built-in gutters previously. She said she would agree with Ackerson's perspective, as far as
changing the roofline slightly.
Agran said that changing the roofline is a recommended option. He said that there is no issue
with changing the roofline per se, but the issue is with the gutter system and removing the piece
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 7 of 10
of crown molding. Agran said his understanding is that it is okay to bridge this and then use a
half -round gutter or repair the built-in gutter.
MOTION: Durham moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
1009 East College Street as presented, with the provision that half round gutters be
installed and the crown molding be repaired and maintained. Michaud seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Sandell absent and Litton abstainingl.
Swaim said Lang talked about the need for contractors to get a sense for what is allowed and to
do that proactively. _ Swaim asked Lang if he had any suggestions for the Commission on how to
get the word out on the importance of the guidelines so people do not do things that are
disallowed.
Lang stated that he recently talked to the Linn County Historical Society. He said they
discussed the lead-based paint law and that if he touched any house built before 1977, it gets
into another whole realm of removal and restoration of the paint itself. Lang said he received
the letter regarding the boundaries in Iowa City, and it was very beneficial to now know the
boundaries.
Lang said that the Linn County Historical Society is going to put together a document of historic
things that they would like a realtor or a homeowner who is selling a house to have and that
would be accessible to the public. Swaim stated that the guidelines are available online, but the
Commission is always looking for ways to make the public more aware.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review.
620 South Summit Street.
Bristow said the owner was doing some soffit, siding, and shutter repair and window
replacement on the south side and the rear of this house. She said the rear of the house has
quite a few windows that are non -historic. Bristow said this was found mid -project; the owner
did not talk to the City first.
Bristow said staff believes that everything the owner was doing is correct but did not have a
before image.
714 North Van Buren Street.
Bristow said the owners of this house contacted staff about reroofing and removing the
chimney. She said staff talked the owners into tuck pointing the chimney instead. Bristow said
the owners are also replacing the asphalt shingles.
530 Ronalds Street.
Bristow said the house had a little area in a roof bridge where the side wall was not brought out
flush with the fascia and water was getting in. She said the owners needed to move the little
side wall out and repair some of that.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 8of10
Bristow said that on the bay, there were some crown molding problems and some roofing
problems. She said the owners were repairing the standing seam and the molding and not
changing anything.
Minor Review — Preappr_oved Item — Staff Review.
1115 Sheridan Avenue.
Bristow said this property came up previously, because the owners were doing some porch
repair. She said the owners replaced the stucco base of the porch column on the corner and
did a really nice job.
Bristow said the owners wanted to repair the storm windows on the bay instead of replacing
them. She showed a photograph with the modern storm door that was framed down shorter
than the historic wood front door. Bristow said the owners wanted to put in a storm door that
would actually fit, so they wanted to take out that little build down area and get the right size
wood door, instead of an aluminum storm door.
DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS.
The Commission reviewed the award nominations from the award subcommittee.
MOTION: Corcoran moved that the Commission accept the report of the subcommittee
regarding the historic preservation awards and approve them. Durham seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Sandell absent).
Swaim thanked the subcommittee members for their work. She said that a form is sent out to
the property owners to ask for details about their projects. Bristow said the awards ceremony is
to be held January 21.
Swaim said that there was a fire at 623 College Street. She said that she and Bristow and Alicia
Trimble have discussed with the owners what they would like to do and what the guidelines say
about potential demolition of the house. Swaim said the last she had heard, the owners have
not yet decided what to do.
Bristow said that when she was looking at the past agendas for discussion of gutters, she found
another house that had a fire in May that did not come before the Commission to approve the
demolition until November. She said she does not know what that means for the timing of the
College Street house if the owners decide they want to save it, but it may not be under as much
of a time crunch as she had thought.
Miklo stated that the City Council will be considering a rezoning of the City Hall parking lot next
to the Unitarian Church. He said that, as part of that package, the Unitarian Church would be
designated as a landmark to allow the development rights to occur on the City property. Miklo
said for that to happen, the City property needs to be rezoned, and that is what the City Council
is going to be considering in January.
Miklo said it is a very complex project, in that it would include replacing the City parking lot with
new parking for the City fleet vehicles and employee parking. He said it would involve a new
fire station with drive-through bays where the addition to the church was torn down. Miklo said it
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2015
Page 9 of 10
would involve residential, townhouse -style buildings lining the parking structure on Iowa Avenue
and Van Buren Street. He said there would be an additional three floors of apartments in the
middle of the block above the parking garage.
Miklo said the project requires not only zoning but some sort of agreement in terms of transfer
development rights. He said that the City would own some of the property but sell parts of it for
air rights above the garage.
Miklo said that Swaim spoke to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but not on behalf of the
Commission, about this. Miklo said it is in line with the letter the Commission sent to the City
Council several months ago. He said it is hopeful that the church can be preserved as part of
this larger, complex project.
Michaud asked if there will be any consideration for design compatibility of the protruding
second and third stories. Miklo answered that the CB -5 zoning designation that is working its
way through does have design guidelines and requirements that would apply to the property.
Corcoran said the view of Iowa Avenue toward the Old Capitol is very important. Miklo said that
is why that aspect of the project is proposed to be limited to four floors.
Michaud said it is her understanding that the setback is going to be maintained in line with the
next block east on Iowa Avenue. Miklo responded that the setback will be similar to what the
church's setback is.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 12,2015:
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
November 12, 2015 meeting, as written. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on
a vote of 10-0 (Sandell absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
N
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
r
r
p
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
o
w
w
W
W
X
O
X
O
X
O
X
X
X
X
O
X
x
X
X
4j
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
0
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
co
x
x
x
0
x
0
x
x
X
x
o
U)
w
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Cl)
N
X
X
X
X
41
X
X
X
X
co
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
w
X
X
X
X
X
X
W
O
m
� a
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
W W
N
N
(`I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
F-
Cl)
M
Cl)
Cl)
M
Cl)
M
M
Cl)
M
M
W
Z
a
W
a
~QQ
Z
w
Y
Y
a
W
Q
Q
p
p
a
m
Z_LL
w
a
O
~
w
Q
z
ui
a
z
a
ow
g
Z
w
p
w
Y
U_
Q
Q
(9
0
Q
m
V
V
J
U)
N
Na)
N N
7 -0
Ox E
W N
c c
N
Via- O
a - <<z
11 11 II II
xOW
02-05-16
® CITY OF IOWA CITY 3
..mMm�'t
MEMORANDUM _
Date: January 20, 2016
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Stefanie Bowers, Staff to the Human Rights Commission
Re: Recommendation from the Human Rights Commission
At their December 15, 2015 meeting the Human Rights Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to
make the following recommendation to the City Council:
Motion Hanrahan to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution in support of Muslim
communities, seconded by Olmstead. Motion passed 8-0.
Additional action (check one)
x No further action needed
S:RECform.doc
Minutes Approved
Human Rights Commission
December 15, 2015
Neighborhood and Development Services Conference Room (Second Floor)
Members Present: Kim Hanrahan, Orville Townsend Sr, Harry Olmstead, Paul Retish, Edie
Pierce -Thomas, Joe Coulter, Shams Ghoneim, Ali Ahmed.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendations to Council: Yes, for the City Council to adopt a resolution in support of Muslim
communities.
Call to Order:
Coulter called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes from the November 17, 2015 Meeting Date:
Motion Ghoneim, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed 6-0. (Ahmed, Olmstead not present).
Meeting Business
Funding Request from Strive for Success
Funding request is for $1500 to assist in purchasing 4 laptops for the after school program that currently
serves ten students. The program provides specialized academic tutoring and other services for at -risk
youth in grades 3rd to 8th.
Motion Hanrahan to contribute $200 to assist in the cost of purchasing a laptop, seconded by
Townsend. Motion failed 0-6. (Ahmed, Olmstead not present).
Sponsorship Request Choice Dinner
Funding request for $250 to support the deProsse Access Fund. The money raised for the deProsse Access
Fund goes directly to subsidize services for underinsured women and men accessing health care services
at the Emma Goldman Clinic.
Motion Hanrahan to contribute $200 (amended to $250) to the Choice Dinner 2016, seconded by
Pierce -Thomas. Motion passed 6-0. (Ahmed, Olmstead not present).
(Ahmed present at 5:37 p.m.)
Outgoing Commissioners
Coulter bid farewell to outgoing Commission members Olmstead and Pierce -Thomas whose terms both
end January 1, 2016. Certificates of Appreciation were presented to Olmstead and Pierce -Thomas.
Funding Request Form
Commissioners reviewed the funding request form that is currently required for anyone requesting
funding from the Commission. Bowers will update the form using bold font on certain sections for
emphasis.
(Olmstead present at 5:51 p.m.)
Education Programming/Outreach
Ghoneim and Townsend will work with Bowers on sponsoring a program that centers on a housing
concern or issue during fair housing month (April 2016).
Hanrahan proposed that the Commission encourage the City to show support and solidarity for Muslim
communities who have recently come under scrutiny, been subjected to hate crimes, discrimination and
harassment. Ghoneim suggested a resolution similar to the one the Seattle City Council had done on
December 14.
Motion Hanrahan to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution in support of Muslim
communities, seconded by Olmstead. Motion passed 8-0.
Community Outreach
In the next few months, the Commission will look at options, other than using the community survey, to
do effective outreach to more diverse populations.
Council Outreach
Townsend will accept the proclamation for Martin Luther King Jr. National Holiday at either the January
5 or 19 formal Council meeting date.
Job Fair
Retish reported that the job fair committee met and is determining where would be the best location for
future job fairs. Planning meetings will begin in June or July 2016.
Building Communities
Townsend reported that at the last Black Voices meeting two school board representatives attended.
Topics discussed were Tate High School and the TREK (Theodore Roosevelt Education Center) program.
Making Iowa City a Human Rights Community
Olmstead believes this program is still viable even with the recent death of Professor Burns Weston.
University of Iowa Center for Human Rights
The Center held a meeting last week and plan on sponsoring programs that support the Muslim
communities.
Education Subcommittee
Hanrahan reported that at the last Iowa City School Board Equity meeting members discussed dropout
rates and graduation rates.
Staff
Adjournment: 7:03 p.m.
Next Regular Meeting — January 19, 2016 at 5:30 p.m.
2
Here is the summary of the December 1, meeting of the Outreach/Educational Committee:
The Committee met December first at 3:30 PM in City Hall.
Minutes and Summary:
Potential direction and objectives included; -
1) Programs for New Comers.
2) Programs to address Women needs.
3) Addressing housing related issues in April which is Fair Housing Month including:
Information on rentals, loans, purchasing, persons with children and rent etc.
4) School Board related issues pertaining to busing.
5) Barriers encountering and facing: families, working mothers, single mothers, and minorities.
Projected events in 2016 are one in April and another in October. Committee discussed potential
venues and believed that Recreation Center Down town would be a good central location. We
also discussed the potentiality of providing complementary bus passes for attendees. Target
audience would be general with a focus on minority and underrepresented groups with diversity
as a key objective. Format would be offering information and Q & A. with an expert facilitator.
The recommended format would be a Town -hall Meeting Style. We recommended the creation
of a HRC Brochure in 4 languages that builds on current resources/personnel with phone
numbers and email addresses with timely updates as needed. A similar idea to what is currently
available in City Hall for mental illness (Where do I Turn Booklet).
M,
Stefanie Bowers
From:
Shams Ghoneim <shamsghoneim@mchsi.00m>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 2:57 PM
To:
Stefanie Bowers
Subject:
Seattle City Council adopts resolitlon to suport Muslim Community
Some food for thought?
See you tonight.
Shams
http: //murray. seattle. gov/city-adopts-resolution-to-support-muslim-
The Seattle City Council today adopted a resolution in support of
Seattle's Muslim community and speaking out against the rise in hateful
rhetoric and violence targeting Muslims.
Stefanie Bowers
From:
mohammed joreya <joreya_sud@hotm ail. com >
Sent:
Monday, December 14, 2015 5:39 PM
To:
Stefanie Bowers
Cc:
ali_tmtm@hotmail.com
Subject:
Sudanese American Association -Iowa City
Date: 12/14/2015
From: Sudanese American Association -Iowa City
To: Human Rights
Attn. Mrs. Stefanie Bowers
Human Rights Coordinator
Subject: Delegation of Mr. Ali Ahmed.
We are the Sudanese American Association in Iowa City, and we would like to introduce a new executive
committee and their names are as follows:
1. Shihabedin Ali
2. Mahsen khair
3. Mohamed Osman
4. Wisal Husain
5. Busyna Satti
6. Badrdeen Abdeltam
7. Nagwa Ragab
8. Ali Ahmed
9. Mohamed Emam
10. Abdulraheem Mohamed
We want to inform you that Mr. Ali Ahmed will be the Secretary of Foreign Relations and he will be the
coordinator between the Human Rights and the Sudanese American Association. A,
Best regards, / �\
l�
Mohamed Osman
General Secretary
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2014/2015
(Meetin¢ Date)
NAME
TERM
EXP.
1/20/
15
2/17/
15
3/17/
15
4/1/
15
4/21
15
5/19
15
6/16
15
7/21
15
8/18
15
9/16
15
10/20
15
11/17
15
12/15
15
Edie Pierce-
Thomas
1/1/2016
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/2016
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Harry
Olmstead
1/1/2016
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paul Retish
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
All Ahmed
1/1/2017
O
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
O
X
Orville
Townsend, Sr.
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kim
Hanrahan
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shams
Ghoneim
1/1/2018
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Stella Hart
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
R
KEY: X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
NM
= No meeting
---
= No longer a member
R
= Resignation
-i ®, CITY OF IOWA CITY 3b(6)
..��� AMM ■.■tel
� ME MORANDUM
Date: January 11, 2016
To: Mayor and City Council
From: John Yapp, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their January 7, 2016 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the December 3
minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
By a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no) the Commission recommends approval of REZ15-00022,
an application to rezone .98 acres of land located south of Iowa Avenue between Gilbert and
Van Buren Streets from P-1 to CB -5 subject to the general conformance with massing and scale
shown on the concept plan and the Unitarian Church Building located at 10 S. Gilbert Street
being rezoned as an Iowa City Historic Landmark prior to issuance of a building permit for the
property currently being rezoned.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amending Title 14 zoning as
indicated in the Staff Report with changing the border of the area from the alley south of
Jefferson Street to Burlington Street bounded by Gilbert and Van Buren Streets.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 3, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM A
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe
Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Zahradnik, Ginalie Swain, Adam Ingersoll, Tim Adamson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no) the Commission recommends approval of REZ15-00022, an
application to rezone .98 acres of land located south of Iowa Avenue between Gilbert and Van
Buren Streets from P-1 to CB -5 subject to the general conformance with massing and scale shown
on the concept plan and the Unitarian Church Building located at 10 S. Gilbert Street being
rezoned as an Iowa City Historic Landmark prior to issuance of a building permit for the property
currently being rezoned.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amending Title 14 zoning as indicated
in the Staff Report with changing the border of the area from the alley south of Jefferson Street to
Burlington Street bounded by Gilbert and Van Buren Streets.
LOCI • •;J1 -
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00022):
Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning from Public (P-1)
zone to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone for approximately .98 acres of property located
south of Iowa Avenue between Gilbert Street and Van Buren Street.
Miklo began the staff report showing a location map of the property and the recent amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the Council. The proposal is to rezone this property
from Public to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone, which is the zoning that several properties to
the north and east are as well as other the property on this particular block. This zone is intended
to allow the orderly expansion from Downtown (CB -10 zone) at a less intense scale, therefore the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 10
density and height of development that is possible is less than the immediate downtown to provide
a transition to adjacent areas.
Miklo noted the Comprehensive Plan for the area does show the possibility of changing this
property from Public to CB -5 and has some guidelines on how development of this property could
best fit into the neighborhood. The Plan shows the possibility of two to four story buildings on Iowa
Avenue and Van Buren Street with the possibility of taller development of four to six stories in the
center of the block and preservation of the historic Unitarian Church on the corner of Iowa Avenue
and Gilbert Street.
The rezoning is necessary to allow the City to transfer development rights of this property to a
private entity and that is why Allen Homes has applied for the rezoning. If the rezoning is
approved, there are several other steps that need to be accomplished in order for this proposed
development to occur. The City would need to negotiate transfer or ownership of the property, it is
possible that portions would be owned by the developer and portions would be retained by the
City. All details will need to be worked out with the City Council before development would occur.
Miklo noted a significant aspect of this application is the preservation of the Unitarian Church
building. That is one of the goals supported by the Comprehensive Plan and this zoning is seen as
a tool to help accomplish that.
Another aspect of the application is replacing the city parking that would be built upon, currently the
City has about 100 parking spaces on this property, most used by City vehicles such as police and
fire and some for employee parking. If this proposal was approved it would include a four -level
parking structure which would replace the parking that is currently there plus provide parking for
the proposed residential units.
The project would also include the expansion of the fire station and would allow the development of
drive-thru bays so fire trucks could enter off Van Buren Street and exit onto Gilbert Street, rather
than having to back into the station from Gilbert Street. Miklo stated that much of this property is in
the five hundred year flood plain from Ralston Creek so the residential aspect will be elevated
above the flood plain.
Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00022, an application to rezone .98 acres of land located
south of Iowa Avenue between Gilbert and Van Buren Streets from P-1 to CB -5 subject to the
general conformance with massing and scale shown on the concept plan and the Unitarian Church
Building located at 10 S. Gilbert Street being rezoned as an Iowa City Historic Landmark prior to
issuance of a building permitforthe property currently being rezoned.
Hensch asked for more information about the designation of the historic landmark. Miklo said
landmark designation is a form of zoning, it would first need to be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation, to determine the property does meet the criteria for landmark status, it is then sent to
the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if the designation would meet the
Comprehensive Plan and then finally the City Council makes the designation. The City Council
can make a property a landmark over a property owner's objection provided there are six out of
seven Council members in favor. If the property owner does not object it only takes a simple
majority of four members.
Freerks asked how the parking structure would be regulated. Miklo said that is a detail that has not
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 10
been worked out, but they don't anticipate the parking spaces would be rented by the applicant to
individuals outside the City organization. The spaces would primarily be for the City's needs and
the residents of the building. Howard added there is no "near downtown" parking requirements
anymore, which was eliminated when Riverfront Crossings was created. However, this parking
structure proposal is not intended to be a municipal parking structure in that the public can park
there, this is to fulfill the requirement for residential parking. She noted commercial parking spaces
are not allowed except when owned by the City. So a private developer cannot build a parking
structure and rent out spaces to the public. All parking spaces for this development will be for the
use of City vehicles and residents of the building. Hektoen noted there is precedent for this type of
parking structure in the redevelopment of the former Sabin site.
Eastham noted that the Unitarian Church used the current City surface parking lot spaces on
nights and weekends. Miklo said the Church is no longer in that building, so that building use will
change, likely to a commercial use and parking is not required for commercial uses in the
downtown area. Hektoen noted that level of detail will not be completed until the development
agreement is completed. Miklo said that in terms of the number of parking spaces available, there
will be the number of spaces the City currently has and additional spaces as required by the zoning
code for the number of residential units that will be in this development. There may be few extra
spaces, but the exact number is not known at this point. It has not been determined who will own
the parking spaces, it may be the City and not the private developer.
Freerks asked about the balconies and that in the schematic drawing it appears that the balconies
will "bump out" and she thought all balconies must be recessed inward. Hektoen said they cannot
intrude into the right-of-way. Howard said they can extend out from the building wall as long as
they do not extend over or within a certain distance of the property line per the zoning code. Miklo
noted the drawings are just conceptual at this point.
Freerks commented on some questions she has for the applicant with the conceptual plan only
having 6000 square feet of office space. The Commission hears often hears about the need for
office space, so was curious why more wasn't included in this project. Additionally she noted that
the zoning code would need to be amended prior to any of this project moving forward. Miklo
agreed stating that the CB -5 code would require that on the first floor on Iowa Avenue and Van
Buren Street be commercial, so an amendment would be necessary to allow residential. Hektoen
noted that amendment does not need to be done first, the proposal tonight is for the change in
zoning from P-1 to CB -5. After it is CB -5 it can then be amended to allow residential on the first
floor. Miklo anticipates both recommendations would go to Council at the same time.
Eastham asked if the Commission can make a recommendation that this application not be
approved until the accompanying amendment is also approved. Hektoen noted the
recommendation on the change is zoning is not contingent on the conformation of residential on
the first floor.
Martin asked about the office space in the conceptual plan, noting she sees 12,000 square feet of
office space over two floors. Miklo agreed, noting it was an error in the Staff report to state there
was only 6,000 square feet of office space.
Parsons asked what the square footage of the church that was being preserved, as that would be
potential commercial space. Miklo would look into that and report the answer to that question.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 10
Eastham noted he had some questions on the site design on this location. The site plan shows
building setbacks along Iowa Avenue and Van Buren Street that are small, and the rendering
drawings show a larger setback, so is unsure which is correct and he should consider in this
evening's proposal. Miklo said the Commission is being asked to consider the concept of the site
plan, the conceptual drawing is not to scale. Howard noted that the sidewalks are not always up to
the property line in the right-of-way. Eastham asked then if he would prefer a greater setback on
both Iowa Avenue and Van Buren Street what are his options. Miklo said he could make a motion
to add that as a condition, with the setback specified, however staff would be concerned due to the
need for adequate driveway width and parking. Additionally it could result in very shallow living
units in the residential portion of the building. He added that in the CB -5 zoning code the setback
is 0-12 feet.
Parsons asked if the setback on this proposal was similar to the other houses and properties on
Iowa Avenue. Eastham said no, this proposals was closer to the sidewalk and street than other
properties along Iowa Avenue.
Miklo noted the Unitarian Church building is approximately 6000 square feet.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Dave Zahradnik (Neumann Monson Architects) discussed the project in more detail. They began
working with the Unitarian Church even prior to Allen Homes getting involved in the project and
been through a number of ideas, proposals, and options for this site. The church needed to move
off the site, to a location that met their needs better. Allen Homes entered the picture and looked
at many scenarios for the area, including what if the church was torn down or what could be done
to preserve the church building. After discussion with the City and reviewing their uses and needs
for the land, it appeared there could be some project that would be a win-win for all involved
entities. In looking at this site, they followed the lead of another project in town, the Sabin
Townhome site, and looked at appropriate transition options for this site. CB -5 zoning allows for
75 feet in height, but there have been so many height issues in discussion lately so in an effort to
fit nicely into the neighborhood they came up with the concept of the townhomes that gives more of
a residential feel at the street front and respects the nature of the neighborhood. It would be a
good transition from the single family residential neighborhood into the downtown neighborhood.
Zahradnik noted their plans are to stay within all the CB -5 zoning requirements for the tall portion
of this building. There are two-story townhomes (stacked on top of each other so four stories total)
that are at ground level, although higher than existing grade due to the flood plain, so there is a
"front stoop" appearance to the townhomes. There will be parking supplied for the tenants of the
townhomes in the adjacent parking structure, the parking levels will be at the level of the
townhomes, so residents will be able to park at their backdoors and walk directly into their
townhomes which makes it a very friendly parking situation for the tenants. Additionally after
discussions with City Staff, they were able to accommodate the need of the fire department with
the drive-thru bays. They are also working with the fire department on redesigning their space and
allowing for better connectivity with City Hall and also for their bunks to be more accessible to the
bays for better response time.
Martin asked for clarification on the parking going right to the backdoors of the townhomes and the
safety of walking out the backdoor of a townhome and being immediately in a parking structure.
Zahradnik said the backdoors will have security units on them and with the City also using the
parking structure there will be police cars and other City fleet vehicles in the structure.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 10
Dyer asked about the concern of air pollution from the parking structure into the homes. Zahradnik
said 45% of the ramp is open so there is enough air circulation so they will not need mechanical
ventilation in the ramp.
Martin asked about the elevation of the first floor townhome and if that is raised above the flood
plain, what is below that? Zahradnik replied that nothing is below, no basements.
Theobald asked about the fire trucks and the residents vehicles using the same entrance and
Zahradnik said that is correct. In the parking structure cars will go up a speed ramp to the level of
the second set of townhomes (so level 3). On that level is also about 6,000 square feet of office
space. There is also 6,000 square feet of office space on the next level as well (level 4). There
will be elevators and stair corridors for every level. After the four levels of townhomes, there is
then above the parking structure three levels of residential studio, one, two and three bedroom
units. They are looking at affordable housing opportunities for this area where 15% of the units
would have to be part of that.
Zahradnik said there would be an area between the church and the building for a pedestrian plaza
area as well as the ability to add in some ADA accessible entrances and restrooms in the church
building. They are unsure what the church building will be transformed into, but are thinking
perhaps a restaurant or office. They are also looking at materials to use on the townhomes and
feel it is appropriate to use masonry due to all the other brick work along Iowa Avenue. They
would likely use a mix of brick tones to give individual identity to the townhomes. Freerks stated her
appreciation of having the mixed color of bricks on the townhomes.
Dyer asked what the materials for the three levels of residential above the parking structure would
be. Zahradnik said they have looked at a couple different options and are thinking terra cotta
panels of a different color than what is below or perhaps an architectural metal, but something that
will be contrasting and set that area off from the levels below. He said the lighter colors may
appear to recede. But colors are just conceptual at this point. Dyer felt that the lighter color of the
upper floors made them stand out and that she would like to see that works better with the
townhouses.
Dyer stated that since the townhomes would be two stories they would not be accessible.
Zahradnik confirmed that was correct, but all the units on the upper three floors would be
accessible.
Freerks asked if there were plans to rent individual parking spaces in the structure to the public.
Zahradnik said they are predicting about 200 spaces and the need for their units and what the City
currently utilizes would be about 180. The extra 20 spaces might be utilized by the office spaces.
The issue of who owns the ramp and the spaces and who is renting from whom will have to be
worked out in the developer's agreement.
Dyer asked for clarification on accessibility to the three levels of residential units from the parking
structure. Zahradnik stated there were two elevator and stairwells from each level of the parking
structure that would go to the residential units.
Ginalie Swain (1024 Woodlawn) Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission noted the
Commission has not reviewed this proposal so she is not speaking on behalf of the Historic
Preservation Commission, but wanted to state the Commission has been greatly concerned about
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 10
preserving the Unitarian Church building and in March to convey that concern the Commission
sent a memo to the City Council, building owner, and City Manager that all efforts be explored to
save the church and use zoning bonuses and incentives as ways to do so. Swain noted her
excitement to see this proposal saves the church building and honors its importance.
Adam Ingersoll (10 S. Iowa Ave) is a member of the Unitarian Church and is thrilled and relieved
that this proposal is moving forward. It was two years ago as a group the church made a difficult
decision that they could not afford to expand and create an accessible facility that they needed at
their current location. They have met with dozens of developers but none were as serious and
creative as this current one in saving the church building. There was a fear they would have to sell
to a developer that would level the church building and put up instead student housing at the
highest density they could. This proposal from Allen Homes is a saving grace and is in the best
interest of the entire community.
Tim Adamson (28 Highland Drive) was on the facilities committee at the Unitarian Church for a few
years and wanted to echo Ingersoll's comments and praise the developer and their team who have
been absolutely sterling in their relationship with the Church. They were able to work with the City
to meet the needs of the City and the development of the property. This has been a complicated
and long process and this is such an amazing solution. It can be a real jewel for downtown and a
great model for process.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to approve REZ15-00022, an application to rezone .98 acres of land located
south of Iowa Avenue between Gilbert and Van Buren Streets from P-1 to CB -5 subject to
the general conformance with massing and scale shown on the concept plan and the
Unitarian Church Building located at 10 S. Gilbert Street being rezoned as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark prior to issuance of a building permit for the property currently being
rezoned.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Parsons noted that this proposal benefits the City and the church, as well as the developer so
everyone wins. The concept is unique enough that it will succeed and be a benefit to the area.
Hensch agreed and stated this is a very innovative and creative solution, a good application of
public and private partnership, and including historic preservation. It is a dramatic improvement of
the use of the property from a surface parking lot. Hensch also noted the conversation regarding
the setbacks and he feels the building should be up as close to the property line as possible so
there is a better transition from downtown to the residential area. If the building is set back you are
losing that transition and square footage of the building.
Martin agreed, stating approval of the concept and the public hearing confirmed the approval of
this concept.
Eastham stated this proposal has a number of attractive features except for the appearance of the
building with relation to the street and sidewalk on both Iowa Avenue and Van Buren Street. He
noted there have been several proposals in the past where the Commission has approved
buildings in some cases where they have required greater setback, and more design detail
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 10
between the space between the building, the sidewalk and the street. Eastham noted the building
on Washington Street that is zoned CB -5 and did not have any design review, and how that
building has become problematic with its appearance from the street and it's acceptance from the
neighborhoods surrounding. He feels the setbacks are critical, especially on the north side as this
will be a fairly large building and the transition aspect goes the other way for him in terms of setting
back the building to reflect the residential area of Iowa Avenue more. He feels the buildings in
town that are set back from the street with nice landscaping are more successful and actually quite
pleasant from a pedestrian viewpoint. Eastham would like to see more detail on the streetscape
from the developer before sending this onto Council.
Freerks agrees with Eastham when it comes to transitioning and feels green space, even a small
bit, can do a lot to soften the transition from residential to downtown. She does agree this is a
good project for the community and wants to see it succeed.
Hensch stated that he likes the idea of the townhomes having a brownstone walk-up feel.
Theobald noted she likes how this proposal incorporates the church property and does feel it will
be a good transition from downtown to residential but to add additional landscaping, greenspace,
and trees is always a plus to give the building a neighborhood look.
Dyer stated she feels this proposal is a nice solution but is concerned that is will be a whole block
building that is not accessible on the street level. She feels it is vitally important that the access to
the apartments be really visible because if it is not people won't visit. If the building is not
accessible or welcoming to visitors it will not be as successful.
Eastham wants Council to be aware that he believes the amendment to the zoning code should
precede the rezoning of this parcel. He stated he will vote no on this recommendation because he
feels the Council needs to know about this discussion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Eastham voting no).
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, to allow residential uses on the ground level
floor in CB -2 and CB -5 Zones located south of Jefferson Street and west of Van Buren Street,
provided certain form -based zoning standards are met to ensure a high quality living environment.
Howard showed a zoning map of the area and the area is primarily CB -2 and CB -5 zoned.
Everything south of Burlington Street that was CB -5 has been rezoned to Riverfront Crossings.
Howard acknowledged that the Commission has held a number of Comprehensive Plan
amendment discussions and the area between Gilbert Street and Van Buren Streets was added to
the Downtown District and is largely civic uses with some opportunities for public-private
partnerships to encourage development on vacant lots and underutilized surface parking areas that
will achieve public goals, which could include preservation of a historic church, construction of
public parking facilities, creation of affordable housing, and encouraging commercial and
recreational uses that will serve a growing residential population in and near downtown Iowa City.
When updating the Comprehensive Plan for areas east of Gilbert Street in the downtown area, the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 10
Commission discussed allowing residential building types on lots with Central Business zoning
rather than strictly requiring ground floor commercial in every building. In other words, allowing the
market to determine where commercial space would be most successful and allowing appropriately
scaled residential buildings to be mixed in with small retail storefronts as the area transitions to the
lower -scale residential neighborhoods to the east. This is similar to the flexibility built into the form -
based zoning code for the Riverfront Crossings District. Staff is exploring development of a new
form -based zoning district for the areas currently zoned CB -2 and CB -5 located south of Jefferson
Street between Van Buren and Johnson Streets. This area was added to the Central Planning
District as a part of the Comprehensive Planning effort recently completed. Staff is currently
drafting language for this new district, which will be submitted to the Commission for review in
December or early January.
The zoning code amendments will allow residential building types on properties zoned CB -5 in
areas south of Jefferson Street between Gilbert and Van Buren Streets, provided that the
standards that apply in the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings are met. The South
Gilbert District has a maximum 6 -story building height, with a required 10 -foot facade stepback
above the 4th story, and building and parking placement standards similar to what is allowed in the
CB -5 Zone. However, it also allows a number of residential building types not allow in the CB -5
Zone, including multi -dwelling buildings, liner buildings, and townhouses. Frontage standards
appropriate to the building type would apply as well as the building design standards, open space
requirements, and building materials standards. Similar to the Riverfront Crossings District, to
ensure that different building types will fit and function well in this urban context, Design Review
will be required.
Freerks stated her strong opposition with including up to Jefferson Street in this amendment stating
there is no reason to include that area and cut a street in half where there are existing homes
knowing a developer would come in and remove the homes and build a CB -5 building. She feels
the area of for this amendment needs to be specified in detail so it is clear what the Commission
agrees to.
Martin noted that she is no longer on the UAY Board, so she no longer has to recuse herself from
these discussions.
Eastham asked about townhouses, in the South Gilbert Subdistrict townhomes are not allowed but
they are being proposed in this area. Howard explained that in this area townhomes are a
desirable transition from the east to downtown. She noted the concept plan just reviewed
technically shows a liner building even though the form is very similar to a townhouse.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing.
Theobald moved to approve recommending amending Title 14 zoning as indicated in the
Staff Report with changing the border of the area from the alley south of Jefferson Street to
Burlington Street bounded by Gilbert and Van Buren Streets.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Hensch asked if the main function of this amendment is to allow developers to not have to have
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 10
commercial on the first floor/street level and can substitute that with residential units. Freerks
confirmed that was correct in the CB -5 zones only.
Howard noted that in paragraph #3 of the staff report it -states that if a developer is mixing the uses
of a building they must follow the Riverfront Crossings Standards. It is for clarification purposes.
Freerks noted this amendment allows for more possibilities.
Hensch agreed stating anything that expands the residential types and allows more mixes of
people to live closer to downtown is a positive.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 19,201
Martin moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 19, 2015 with corrections.
Dyer seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Theobald asked if they could be updated at some point of what is happening in the
Riverfront Crossings area that does not come through the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
z
N
20
O(
Lo
Z W N
U
Oz�
NDN
od W
W
z_
z Q
z
J
CL
z
p
W
W
J
0
M
C-4
X
X
x
XXX
1
X
1
a-
LO
L
X
X
X
X
X
w
l
x
l
r
LC)
�
X
X
�
X-
X
X
I
X
1
V-
MW
0(owm
--
OLOWLo
o
XXXX
0
0
U')
0
LO
0
X
x
I
X
I
V-
o
X
X
X
x
w
X
Ix
w
1
r
J
p
0
m
v
z
Q
Y
_
a
0
ti
X
x
X
X
�
X
1
X
1
Wco
WI=-wN�U00�
Z
z
Q
Q
Q
Q}4WLU
X
X
X
x
x
x
I
X
I
0
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
X
i
co
(LCoPP
cc
XXXXXXI
0
1
W
X
X
�
X
X
X
I
X
1
ti
C4
X
�
X
X
X
X
1
X
1
�
Xxxxxx
I
x
I
NXXXXXX
1
X
1
Ln
inXxxXXX
1
X
1
co
4
x
X
X
1
x
1
0
x
X
4xxx
1
x
1
xxx
rn
;xxx
I
x
I
xxx
M
0)w
O
x
x
I
x
I
x
x
x
N
NXXX
1
W
o
i
X
X
x
LO
X
x
X
1
X
1
x
X
x
r
w
-i
w
<w
JXZY"�2ao=
00UQ�=x°-00
UQY=ZzWQvi
Q
x
w
V—
D
0
m
Q
W
F-
N
W
u)
w
W
Z
w
2
w
O
o
LL
X
a
��
0
z
H
w
w
0
z
�
XXXXXXIXI
to
LO
L
X
X
X
1
X
1
X
X
X
M
N
X
XX
1
X
I
X
X
X
MW
0(owm
--
OLOWLo
w m
FX
0
0
0
0
U')
0
LO
0
LO
0
M
0
LO
0
to
0
LD
0
w
w
Mw
w
Q
J
Q-)=
w
J
p
0
m
v
z
Q
Y
_
a
0
U
Q
Y=
aN-J
Wco
WI=-wN�U00�
Z
z
Q
Q
Q
Q}4WLU
xx
zinwU.
(LCoPP
.D
N
c `
X
X
� D
CO cu
N D .0.0Q o
�Q11Z
n 11 w 11
XOO 1
w
Y
Approved Minutes
November 19, 2015
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
November 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY ROOM, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Chuck Felling, Margaret Reese, Jack Hobbs, Cheryl
Clamon, Mark Holbrook, Kathy Mitchell
Members Absent: Jay Honohan
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman
Others Present:
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Holbrook at 4:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM July 16, 2015 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the July 16, 2015 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 6/0. Reese/Clamon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM October 15.2015 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the October 15, 2015 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 6/0. Reese/Clamon
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Kopping reported that she had met the new city council members at a meeting
and suggested the commission invite them to tour the building and learn more
about the Senior Center. Mitchell said she would send them an invite after the
Thanksgiving holiday.
3b(7)
�Mlllll
Approved Minutes
November 19, 2015
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Kopping will attend a board of supervisors meeting.
REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND ACCEPTANCE OF 1) MARKETING AND
FUNDRAS/NG ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT AND 2) IOWA
CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER FUNDRASING PLAN, BOTH BY
M. LINDA WASTYN, PH.D.:
Kopping noted that she had received the fundraising plan two days ago and that
staff would be meeting with Wastyn to discuss it the week after Thanksgiving.
She noted that the plan was extensive and she has some reservations regarding
the extent to which volunteers are relied upon for fundraising within the plan.
She reported that she requested a half time fundraising employee in the FY17
budget. Commissioners discussed the need for this employee and whole heartily
agreed that this position is crucial for the overall success of the comprehensive
fundraising plan.
Clamon asked when a decision for this employee would be made. Kopping
noted that final approval (or not) would be given when the operational budget is
approved in March. The Center's FY17 budget proposal is reviewed by the city
manager's office in November/December and then goes to the City Council for
approval. In January Kopping attends a City Council meeting to give an FY17
budget proposal presentation and respond to questions. The Council finalizes
the budget in March of 2016.
Clamon noted that the decision on the fundraising position will determine the
extent to which the staff, the Commission and Friends of the Center will be able
to operationalize recommendations in the fundraising plan. Ultimately, she said,
we will need to review the fundraising plan and make recommendations with two
tracks in mind: one with an employee and one without. Reese noted that the
report was very detailed and well done and supported Clamon's comments on
the hiring of an employee.
Reese discussed the steps in a successful fundraising plan. She stated that the
most important first step was to create the mechanics involved with how money
is received, recorded, reported, and recognition given to donors. Once the
mechanics are in place then a larger effort to cultivate donors, fundraising efforts
and stewardship can occur. She noted that volunteers are a very important part
to the overall fundraising goal but that it is important that volunteers are good fit
for their position. She noted that volunteers are helpful in all aspects including
mailing thank you letters, making follow up phone calls, introductions to donors
and donor cultivation and stewardship plans. However, she noted that
organizing, training and maintaining these volunteers is a large job unto itself.
Most importantly she stated that having a strong foundation of the mechanics is
the key to the overall success of any fundraising plan.
2
Approved Minutes
November 19, 2015
The commission discussed the history of Friends of the Center and the current
status of the organization. Mitchell noted that with this plan Friends of the Center
board members will need to take on a much larger role in the fundraising plan.
Kopping agreed. Buhman noted the upcoming goal setting for 2016-2020 would
be a good time for the Friends of the Center board and the Commission to meet
and discuss the fundraising goals and ideas.
Holbrook left the meeting.
Motion: To accept the reports from Linda Wastyn. Motion carried on a vote
of 5/0. Hobbs/Clamon.
IOWA CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ALCOHOL POLICY:
Felling asked how the meeting with the AvaCenter representative to look at the
Senior Center's rent -ability had gone. Kopping reported that it had gone quite
well. The AvaCenter representative had been very positive about the size of
Assembly Room, the historic nature of the building, the downtown location and
access to the parking ramp. He made some suggestions on ways to improve the
assembly room and kitchen. Kopping reported working with City staff to come up
with a plan for implementing these ideas.
OPEARTIONAL OVERVIEW:
Kopping reported she had asked for replacement tables and chairs for the 2nd
floor classrooms in the FY17 budget. The tables would have smaller depth so
that classrooms could accommodate more participants.
Kopping reported she had submitted her grant application to Johnson County.
She noted that 17% of current Senior Center members are non -Iowa City
Johnson County residents. Based on the proposed FY17 expenses and revenue
she has requested a grant amount of $120,985.
Buhman noted the change in the program committee by laws.
Buhman invited commissioners to the open house that will be occurring on
January 7th to kick off the Senior Center's 35th anniversary.
Kromray noted that the next newcomer's breakfast will be held on January 22"d
Kopping mentioned that goal setting for the Senior Center may take place in
January. The commission discussed various dates that might work for this.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Approved Minutes
November 19, 2015
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Hobbs/Felling.
Approved Minutes
November 19, 2015
Senior Center Commission
Attendance Record
Year 2015
Name
Term Expires
11/20
12/18
1/22/15
2/13/15
2/19
3/19/15
4/16
5/21
6/11
7/16
10/15
11/19
Cheryll Clamon
12/31/18
--
--
X
O/E
X
O/E
NM
X
X
X
X
X
Chuck Felling
12/31/15
X
NM
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
Rose Hanson
12/31/14
X
NM
--
--
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
Jack Hobbs
12/31/16
X
NM
O/E
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
Mark Holbrook
12/31/18
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
NM
X
X
X
X
X
Jay Honohan
12/31/16
X
NM
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
O/E
Kathy Mitchell
12/31/15
X
NM
X
X
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
X
Margaret Reese
12/31/15
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- = Not a member
MMaking Ideas Happen Through
Integrated Fundraising Consulting
WASTYN
4 ASSOCIATES
Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
Fundraising Plan
November 13, 2015
In February 2014, the City Council of Iowa City appointed an Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee to
evaluate the current vision, mission and programming of The Center with input from center staff and
members of the public as well as a review of existing reports and related documents concerning The
Center. This Ad Hoc Committee's appointment came from the city's concerns about declining revenue as
a result of statewide property tax reform and a trend of declining federal assistance. This fundraising
plan provides one means The Center can increase revenue through philanthropic means.
A mature fundraising operation raises money from individuals, corporations, foundations and bequests.
Nationally, about 85% of all funds given to nonprofit organizations comes from individuals which
includes family foundations and bequests. That leaves 15% from corporations and non -family
foundations. For organizations with less than a $1 million budget, the percent contributed by individuals
falls to 36% of all donated funds with 58% of that revenue coming from major donors which the study
defines as gifts of more than $1,000. Seventeen percent of this revenue came from online donations.
The number one variable that determined fundraising success in the above referenced study: a
fundraising plan. Organizations with a fundraising plan saw a $5,000 increase in donor revenue from
each donor meeting. How closely the organization followed that plan had no impact on this outcome.
Furthermore, organizations with a plan raised an average of $4.25 for every dollar invested in the salary
of their primary fundraiser which points to the need for and payoff of hiring someone to focus on
fundraising for The Center.
These data have important implications for the fundraising plan for the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior
Center.
• The plan itself becomes an important tool for fundraising success
• The plan needs to focus on raising funds from individuals as well as corporations and
foundations
• The plan functions within the constraints of the organization and its environment (as outlined in
the next section). However, The Center will likely raise more money if it invests in hiring a
person with primary responsibility for fundraising at least part-time
This plan assumes that The Center will secure at least half of its annual budget through membership fees
and revenue raised from gifts. It assumes that each means will contribute 25% toward the bottom line
or $200,000 annually. This plan uses a 5 year time horizon to achieve that goal for fundraising.
Linda@WostynAssoc.com • (563)110-1321 • www.WastynAssoc.com
The Center and the Friends of The Center currently solicit individuals passively throughout the year and
actively through an annual appeal sent near the end of the year by The Friends group. More on Friends
i later. The quarterly Program Guide also provides an opportunity for individuals to add a gift to their
Imembership or class fees.
The annual appeal letter sent by the Friends of the Center the last two year included a soft ask:
"By making a tax deductible gift of $500, $100, $50, $25 or other amount to Friends of The
Center, we can expand our outreach to low-income and minority adults and continue to provide
innovative programs and services that enhance the quality of life for our current participants.
Please, help us make sure that everyone can access the valuable services offered here." (2013)
"if The Center makes a difference in your life, or the lives of people you know, please join me by
making an additional investment with a gift to the Friends of The Center." (2014)
In FY15, The Friends of The Center received contributions from 111 individuals that totaled $34,425
including a gift of $17,000 from one individual. Four other entities gave gifts directly to the Center that
total $10,250 for a total of $44,500 raised for The Center's operations.
Opportunities in the Fundraising Environment
The Center has a very strong base of supporters among its members and the community at large. A
survey conducted in summer 2015 found that an overwhelming 63.1% of the 708 who answered this
question would make a charitable contribution to The Center in addition to their membership fee. This
inclination to make a gift exists among a large number of Center members provides a very strong
foundation upon which to build a fundraising program.
When looking at capacity or the wealth of The Center's members, the survey revealed that most self-
reported earning between $50,000 and $74,999 (22.7%) followed closely by $35,000 to $49,999 (16.4%)
and $75,000 to $99,999 (15.8%). A slightly greater likelihood — but not a statistically significant one — to
donate emerged for individuals at the higher income levels. Seventy-one percent of those earning
$100,000 to $149,999 indicated that they would likely make a financial contribution to The Center while
only 56% of those earning $25,000 to $34,999 indicated they would.
Wealth data confirms the assumption that The Center members have sufficient wealth to make a major
gift. Wealth data comes from AccuData who appended wealth indicators to 1257 individual's names
supplied to them by The Center. Seventy-eight of these individuals have an estimated net worth of more
than $1 million. Nearly 300 have an estimated net worth of more than $500,000, the desired threshold
for major gifts.
Based on the standard that an individual can contribute approximately 2% of his or her net worth over 5
years, these data suggest that if properly cultivated, these Center members identified by AccuData'm
have the capacity to make $3.78 million in gifts over 5 years. If we assume the national average that
25% will make a gift, this equates to $950,000 donated to The Center over 5 years or an average of
$189,000 per year. Adding to the reliability of these estimates, AccuData'"' rated 137 of these highest
wealth individuals as "extremely likely to give" and another 34 as "highly likely to contribute." Survey
ST N
data suggests that closer to 63% to 70% of these high net worth individuals will likely contribute to The
Center or 200 which would yield even higher results than those estimated here.
The survey also asked individuals if they would serve in a volunteer capacity to help raise funds for The
Center. Ninety-nine individuals responded in the affirmative; 52 left their name and contact information
and provides a strong beginning for a volunteer fundraising committee. Building a strong volunteer
group can help extend the organization's staff resources while increasing revenue for two reasons. First,
a study of wealthy individuals found that those who volunteer contribute 73% more to the organization
than those who do not volunteer. Second, people give to people. While staff gets paid to love The
Center, volunteers do not. Because of this, volunteers often make more compelling fundraisers
especially with individuals with whom they already have a relationship. When a member can tell
another member why he or she made a gift in addition to the membership fee, it can prove very
persuasive.
Challenges in the Fundraising Environment
While The Center has a strong, committed and relatively wealthy constitute base — necessary precursors
to fundraising success — it also faces a number of significant challenges to harnessing that passion to
raise money for the organization.
Staff: The Center has exceptional staff, clearly dedicated to their work and the individuals they serve.
That said, they work with a skeleton staff with everyone's time used to (and beyond) capacity. While
staff enthusiastically embrace the idea of fundraising for The Center and some have expressed a desire
to become actively involved in fundraising, in reality, a successful fundraising program requires an
investment of time beyond that which the current staff has available. Raising the amount of money
desired will require a focus on major donors —those with the capacity and willingness to contribute
$1,000 or more to The Center annually. Major donor fundraising relies on relationship building. While
The Center has the advantage over many nonprofits because staff has a relationship with many of its
members, staff still need to invest time to develop a donor relationship with major gift prospects. These
take time and dedicated time that the staff does not currently have.
I recommend expanding the capacity of the staff by developing an active volunteer solicitation
committee. The 52 people from the survey who indicated a willingness to serve in this capacity provides
a strong starting point.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #1: Recruit and train a volunteer fundraising committee to take an active
role in major gift and annual fund fundraising
However, recruiting, training, and managing volunteers can take almost as much time as the fundraising
itself. The Center will need to dedicate at least 0.50 FTE to this role for the plan to succeed.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #2: Expand the capacity of the staff by hiring and training at least 0.5 FTE
(preferably 1.0 FTE) dedicated to fundraising, donor relations, and volunteer management
City ownership: The City's ownership of The Center and reliance on the City for budgeting and approval
of purchases makes fundraising more complicated. Gifts directly to The Center in essence become
absorbed into the City's budget because they offset what the City needs to fund. That makes a less than
3
K0
compelling case to constituents who already support The Center with their tax dollars; in essence, they
give their money to the City twice (or three times if you count their membership).
The Center has circumvented this problem in the past by giving donors the option to make a
contribution to the Friends of The Center. While the City still approves expenditures from the Friends'
budget, the Friends remain totally separate from the City budget and provide the only means (other
than endowment) for individuals to make a gift that has a direct impact on The Center's operations and
special projects. This differentiation becomes too confusing for donors and may cause some to not make
a gift at all rather than risk making a donation in the "wrong' way.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #3: Accept donations only through the Friends of The Center; cease
accepting any contributions directly to The Center and funnel them all through the Friends
organization
This may legally change recommendation #1 to have the Friends group hire a fundraising professional;
we will need to discuss the implications in more depth before making a final determination of the best
structural way to accomplish these two recommendations but that does not change the essence of the
recommendations themselves.
Lack of Experience: The Center staff has very little if any experience with fundraising other than the
passive ways they have sought funds in the past. Their enthusiasm and desire to undertake such a plan
bodes well for the likelihood of future success, but they should also look to invest in professional
development for their staff person primarily responsible for fundraising as well as key volunteers and all
Center staff. Fundraising will have more success to the extent that a culture of philanthropy extends
throughout the organization. That culture begins at the top with the executive director and the
fundraising professional but everyone in the organization must understand and embrace his or her role
in fundraising for this plan to succeed. This becomes especially important with limited staff time to
invest in fundraising.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #4: Identify and invest in continuing education for all staff —but
especially the executive director and fundraising staff — on fundraising -related topics. 1
recommend starting with the Eastern Iowa Chapter of the Association of Fundraising
Professionals and looking at other state and national programs
The following plan outlines the steps and recommendations to build a comprehensive fundraising
program that will generate $200,000 in annual fund support for The Center within 5 years. Moving from
raising a few thousand dollars per year to $200,000 per year will take time. I recommend the following
ambitious schedule of fundraising goals to reach this threshold in 5 years.
Year
Goal
% In ease
Baseline:FY15
$44,500
N/A
Year 1:FY16
$80,000
80%
Year 2:FY17
$120,000
50%
Year3:FY18
$150,000
25%
Year4:FY19
$180,000
20%
Year5:FY20
$200,000
11%
�,N
This schedule takes into consideration the constraints just mentioned while taking advantage of the
strong commitment that members have for The Center. As noted in the introduction, it relies on
fundraising from individuals as well as corporations and foundations.
Major Gift Campaign: The foundation of any strong fundraising program lies in its major gifts program.
For the purposes of this proposal, I define a major gift as anything $500 or larger. In FY15, The Center
received only 14 donations of $500 or greater (either directly or through the Friends).
As a rule, 90% of all donations come from 10% of the donors so identifying and carefully cultivating and
soliciting those top 10% takes up the majority of time for a fundraising program. To raise $200,000 in
annual fund support will require a gift pyramid that looks like this:
This means moving from 14 donors who give $500 or more to 101 and a top gift from $17,000 to
$50,000 annually.
Successful fundraising proceeds through five steps: identification, education, cultivation, solicitation and
stewardship. The next steps in the plan walk through these five steps for the major gift program.
Identifying Maior Donor Prospects: The survey indicated that a large percentage of your members have
a fairly high income. The next step involves identifying by name those members with the greatest wealth
which the wealth screening started to do. From there, we work with the list 300 individuals identified by
the wealth screening as having a net worth of $500,000 or greater to see who has the greatest affinity
for The Center based on the following criteria:
• Current donor
• Previous donor
• Current member
• Previous member
• Current volunteer
• Previous volunteer
• Other information known by staff or volunteers
We determine the first six items by cross-checking the wealth -screened list of top donors against the
membership, donor, and volunteer lists. We determine other types of affinity through a prospect
screening session held with staff and volunteers at which we ask those involved: (1) who on the list they
x_
$200,000 gift pyramid
Gift Range
Average Gift
#gifts
# prospects
Total gifts
Culumative $ %
$ 50,000
$
50,000
1
4
$ 50,000
$
50,000
25%
$25,000- 49,999
$
25,000
1
4
$ 25,000
$
75,000
38%
$10,000- 24,999
$
12,500
3
12
$ 37,500
$
112,500
56%
$5,000- 9,999
$
6,000
6
24
$36,0001
$
148,500
74%
$1,000- 4,999
$
2,000
12
48
$ 24,000
$
172,500
86%
$500-999
$
750
15
60
$11,250
$
183,750
92%
$100-499
$
250
30
120
$ 7,500
$
191,250
96%
Less than $100 1
$
501
1751
700
$ 8,750
$
200,000
100•D
TOTAL 1
1 2431
972
$ -
This means moving from 14 donors who give $500 or more to 101 and a top gift from $17,000 to
$50,000 annually.
Successful fundraising proceeds through five steps: identification, education, cultivation, solicitation and
stewardship. The next steps in the plan walk through these five steps for the major gift program.
Identifying Maior Donor Prospects: The survey indicated that a large percentage of your members have
a fairly high income. The next step involves identifying by name those members with the greatest wealth
which the wealth screening started to do. From there, we work with the list 300 individuals identified by
the wealth screening as having a net worth of $500,000 or greater to see who has the greatest affinity
for The Center based on the following criteria:
• Current donor
• Previous donor
• Current member
• Previous member
• Current volunteer
• Previous volunteer
• Other information known by staff or volunteers
We determine the first six items by cross-checking the wealth -screened list of top donors against the
membership, donor, and volunteer lists. We determine other types of affinity through a prospect
screening session held with staff and volunteers at which we ask those involved: (1) who on the list they
x_
know; (2) who on the list they will introduce to someone else who will ask for a gift; and (3) who on the
list they will ask for a gift. We also ask what they know about the person in terms of their wealth and
fondness for The Center as well as any individuals who could make a gift of more than $500 per year but
do not appear on this list. The results of this research become the prioritized list of major donor
prospects.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #5: Identify potential major donors using wealth screening data cross
referenced with donor, membership, and volunteer lists
➢ RECOMMENDATION #6: Conduct prospect screening sessions to further refine the major donor
prospect list
Educating and Cultivating Maior Donor Prospects: Once you identify the major donor prospects, you
need to educate them about The Center's needs. This can occur in two ways: through mass information
(e.g., website, magazines, newspaper articles) and through targeted information. The former occurs as
part of the overall marketing plan. Some of those messages should include fundraising -based
information; that is, not only targeting reasons why individuals should join The Center but why they
should support it financially whether they become a member or not. In other words, these messages
should discuss the overall worth of The Center for individuals and the community at large.
Targeted information comes through meeting with individual prospects to give them more information
about The Center and the need for support. Once you identify the potential major donors, you should
create a customized plan for each that includes steps to educate, cultivate (get them involved in The
Center as a volunteer if not already), and solicit them for a gift. Depending on the individual, the
education and cultivation steps may be long or short; that is, someone who already contributes to or
volunteers for The Center may only need a brief reminder of the value of The Center and thanks for their
previous support before asking for a gift or an additional gift. Individuals less familiar with The Center or
less engaged currently may require more education and cultivation. This especially applies when talking
about corporate and foundation supporters, outlined below.
➢ RECOMMENDATION V. Brainstorm ways to get prospective donors involve with The Center
and begin to invite targeted prospects to serve in those capacities
Soliciting Maior Gifts — defined for the purposes of this plan as gifts of $500 or more — requires personal
contact with the donor and face-to-face solicitation. It also requires that the right person ask the right
prospect at the right time for the right amount. The work in the identification, education and cultivation
stages should set the stage for successful solicitations.
As part of the prospect screening sessions conducted in the identification stage, we asked volunteers
who they would feel comfortable soliciting for a gift and who they would introduce to others. As part of
the overall major gift plan, we assigned a solicitor to each major donor prospects using the data from
the prospect screening sessions to assign volunteers to solicit certain individuals. Part of that process
also involves identifying natural partners — individuals who could help in the solicitation process. Those
might include another volunteer, The Center coordinator, or other Center staff with whom the prospect
has a positive relationship.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #8: Identify the solicitation capacity of the staff and volunteers; conduct
training including mock major gift solicitations as appropriate
Once an individual asks a prospect for a gift, appropriate follow-up needs to occur. At a very minimum,
the volunteer should send a personal thank you for visiting with him or her immediately following any
visit. If the prospect did not make a decision on a gift, the volunteer or staff should follow up in an
appropriate amount of time to seek a decision. When receiving a gift, the stewardship plan kicks in, as
described below. Likewise, the internal gift receipt process gets initiated, also described below.
Annual fund/Mail Campaign: An annual fund campaign asks a broad range of constituents — in this case,
probably all members and former members for whom you have good contact information —to make a
gift to The Center. It excludes those identified as major gift prospects who will receive a personal ask in a
face-to-face setting. (However, if some major donor prospects have not received an ask by the end of
the calendar year, they should receive a mail appeal so that you ask them for a gift at least annually.)
Annual fund campaigns generally yield smaller gifts from an individuals' discretionary income. The
Center has some experience with these types of appeals as they have sent them in the past. To make
the annual fund campaign more successful, I recommend the following:
➢ RECOMMENDATION #9: Tie messaging of the annual fund campaign to the overall marketing
plan developed by Susan Shullaw and Robyn Hepker to have consistency across all channels
➢ RECOMMENDATION #10: Include a specific ask in the letter with a specific dollar amount; limit
the reason to give to one
For example, the ask might read: "Will you please make a gift of $50 to help The Center sustain its
current programs?" The research suggests that such a direct and specific ask yields generates more
money than a more general ask with multiple programs and different dollar amounts. The donor simply
has too many decisions to make in the latter scenario.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #11: Ask multiple times throughout the year and track which ask(s) get
the best response
More than half of an organization's contributed revenue tends to come during December so keep that
solicitation. However, every organization knows that and solicits their constituents during that month so
your letter needs to stand out from the others in terms of how you ask and for what you ask.
Furthermore, focus your ask on the individuals you serve not the needs of The Center. People give to
people. Let them give to the people you serve.
Also think of other times during the year when you can send a mail solicitation. Mid -year (June) often
proves a popular time as it falls in the middle of the year and for many ends their fiscal year. Other
nontraditional times that fit with your calendar and history may be appropriate as well including during
your September anniversary celebration. Experiment and see when your donors like to make
contributions and keep asking them during those months.
Finally, ask donors to give recurrent gifts — a monthly amount automatically deducted from their credit
card or bank account. These increase the overall gift from each donor and your overall funds raised.
Online donations: An increasing number of organizations have found success raising money online
including through social media and crowdfunding campaigns. However, this type of fundraising
campaign still pales compared to major gifts and annual funds and total less than 10% of all funds raised
nationally. While many sell crowdfunding campaigns as an "if you build it they will come" process that
K0
requires little effort on the organization's part, successful online campaigns require as much planning
and upfront investment of time and resources as any type of fundraising campaign does. They also
require an active online social community who will share your messages within their networks.
Given your constituents and their age as well as your constraints on time and resources, I do not
recommend an online donation campaign at this time. In the survey, less than 20% indicated that they
receive information about programs and events through social media. While not directly comparable,
that coincides with national data that suggests that older Americans, while active on social media, do
not tend to make contributions through these means. Instead, they prefer traditional means such as
letters and personal contact. As your demographic becomes more accustomed to social media and the
media evolves, this may become a viable means in the future and merits monitoring.
Endowment campaign: The Center (and the Friends) currently offers options for individuals to make a
contribution to The Center's endowment fund held by the Johnson County Community Foundation in
addition to gifts to the annual fund. Gifts to the endowment get held and invested in perpetuity to
provide a continuous source of revenue for The Center while annual fund gifts generally get spent in the
year received. I recommend creating a separate endowment campaign for individuals who choose to
give this way. Endowment becomes a very appealing option for donors who want to leave The Center in
their estate plans (below) or as memorial gifts.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #12: Keep options for both annual fund and endowment support
available to donors but solicit each using separate campaigns since they require different
messaging
Bequests and Memorial Gifts: Given your demographic, offering bequests and other types of planned
gifts in addition to memorial opportunities should prove very fruitful. Many seniors fear outliving their
assets; gifts to charity become an early sacrifice when they streamline their budgets. At the same time,
many hold significant assets in their retirement accounts and can realize significant tax benefits for
themselves and their heirs by leaving a portion of their estate to The Center upon their death (or the
death of their spouse).
You should integrate requests for estate gifts into your major gift program, especially if you can partner
with an attorney or trust officer (perhaps from among your membership) to answer the complicated
questions that will likely emerge. At a minimum, every major gift solicitation and pledge card should
include the opportunity and suggestion to make an estate gift and inform you of their intent.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #13: Partner with lawyers and/or trust officers to provide advice and
council on estate gifts which you should solicit as part of the major gift program. Volunteers
likely exist within your members. Consider creating an Estate Giving Council with a group of
volunteers to share the workload and create natural succession
Likewise, asking people to suggest that people make a gift to The Center when a loved one passes away
becomes an important source of more passive income. Marketing memorial gifts individually or as part
of the overall marketing messaging for The Center and its fundraising operations can achieve this goal.
Developing relationships with local funeral homes including providing material about the Center and
how people can leave a memorial to a loved one can enhance the number of memorial contributions
you receive.
8
W,.<k6?T
N
➢ RECOMMENDATION #14: Market memorial gifts as part of your overall marketing plan and
your fundraising marketing plan. Reach out to local funeral homes to encourage them to ask
their clients if they would like to suggest that memorial gifts go to The Center
Corporate giving program: Corporations tend to make gifts to charity out of two different budgets:
marketing and philanthropy (often called corporate citizenship). Both tend to have a tie to the
company's overall business strategies although the former tends to have more requirements for public
recognition than the latter. Companies also look at your clientele to see if they would like to have access
to them for their business purposes which becomes another reason for them to support your
organization. That said, The Center has a clientele that most business would love to access: older,
wealthier, and more mobile than the average consumer. Because of that, I feel a lot of potential exists
for soliciting corporate gifts in support of The Center programs, activities, and events.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #15: Develop policies for accepting corporate gifts (e.g., from whom, for
what, with what kinds of recognition)
v RECOMMENDATION #16: Develop a Corporate Solicitation Team, a volunteer committee led
by a staff member, to identify and solicit corporate contributions on behalf of The Center
Grants and foundation giving: Grants exist that could support The Center's programs, especially in the
areas of lifelong learning and senior wellness. Research to identify possible grant sources then meeting
with and writing applications to the most promising sources will allow you to secure additional funds
from these means. Because grant seeking can consume significant time, you might consider assigning
this task to an intern, volunteer or outsourcing it.
RECOMMENDATION #17: Research possible grant sources for The Center using interns,
volunteers, or outsourcing; apply for those deemed most promising
Stewardship: Nationally, fewer than 50% of all donors to an organization make a gift in subsequent
years. Since it costs significantly less to retain current donors than recruit new donors, developing a
vibrant stewardship program becomes essential for the success of this fundraising plan in the short- and
long-term.
Most individuals who do not make a subsequent gift to an organization after their first cite not knowing
the impact their gift made on the organization as the main reason. Luckily, that becomes a fairly easy
problem to solve: keep donors informed of the impact of their gift. A comprehensive stewardship plan,
segmented by donor levels and focused on outcomes of donations, will help you achieve this goal. Some
suggested elements of the stewardship plan appear in the table below:
Donor level
48 hours
1 month
3 months
6 months
9 months
1 year
Less than $25
Formal
Call from
Standard
Newsletter
Standard
Resolicit
thank you
volunteer
Impact letter
Impact report
$26-$250
Formal
Call from
Standard
Newsletter
Standard
Resolicit
thank you
staff
Impact letter
Impact report
$251-$500
Formal
Call from
Personalized
Newsletter
Personalized
Resolicit
thank you
Linda
Impact letter
Impact report
More than
Formal
Call from
Personalized
Newsletter &
Personalized
Resolicit
$501
thank you
Linda
impact letter
personal note
impact report
9 ST N
hA� 0 IAI I�
You might also consider creating a new donor packet to thank new donors more specifically and provide
them with some important information about The Center, much like we talked about for new members.
Likewise, any new member material should include information about giving to instill a culture of
philanthropy from a member's first day at The Center.
Marketing: Strong internal and external marketing of The Center and its amenities provides an
important foundation for building a successful fundraising program. The marketing plan developed by
Susan Shullaw and Robyn Hepker provides that solid foundation. Whenever possible, marketing
messages should focus on the impact that The Center has on the life of its members and the strength of
the Iowa City community. Messages that celebrate philanthropy and donors as well as the need for
donations interwoven into the overall marketing plan will further support the fundraising effort. Finally,
collateral material developed specifically for fundraising and should conform to the branding guide and
messages developed in the marketing plan. Some of the collateral material you might consider include:
• "Public" Case for Support (see below)
• Initial acknowledgment letters
• Quarterly gift impact letters, reports, or emails
• Donor solicitation packets
• Annual fund letters
Building a Case for Support: Your case for support outlines the reasons why someone might support The
Center. Two types exist. An internal case for support is a written document that has all of the
conceivable arguments that one might make to all of the audiences considering a gift to The Center.
Because of its comprehensive nature, this case for support remains an internal document that you use
to develop all (or most) fundraising messages and materials.
The "public" case for support creates a marketing piece from the internal case and outlines the
arguments that will resonate with a specific audience in a much more graphically -pleasing format. We
can create generic case statements to solicit smaller donations and leave behind at solicitation events as
well as customizable ones that we can use to solicit larger gifts.
➢ RECOMMENDATION #18: Develop an internal then public case for support
Gift Processing: Stewardship relies on the ability to quickly and accurately receive, record and
acknowledge gifts received from donors. We need to review current processes to assure that:
• Two people receive each gift: one should open and stamp any gifts while the second records
it to provide checks and balances
• Donors receive an official acknowledgement within 48 hours of receiving the gift (on
average)
• At any time, management knows how much the Friends have raised in donated revenue
• We know how much each donor has contributed, when, and for what
Once we complete a review of the gift process, we can make recommendations for improvements
where needed to meet these best practices.
10
10
➢ RECOMMENDATION 1119: Review gift process to assure compliance with best practices
Timeline for Implementation
This plan requires phased implementation to succeed, especially given the limited staff time to dedicate
to fundraising. I recommend the following timeline to implement over the next three years:
Timeline
Activity
Recommendation(s)
2015
Annual fundraising
9, 10, 11, 12
2015
Begin marketing plan
14
2016, Quarter 1
Build fundraising capacity
2, 3, 4
2016, Quarter 1
Review gift processing
19
2016, Quarter 1
Recruit volunteers
1
2016, Quarter 1
Develop case statements
18
2016, Quarter 2
Begin major gift program
5, 6, 7, 8
2016, Quarter 4
Recruit planned giving council
13
2017
Begin corporate solicitations
15, 16
2018
Begin grant program
17
Budget for Implementation
Successful completion of this plan will require an investment of resources that should return to The
Center many times over in funds raised. As an initial budget, I recommend the following for 2016:
IT Fundraising staff (salary and benefits)
$30,000
Professional Development
10,000
Materials and printing
5,000
TOTAL
$45,000
Summary
The Center has a very strong and loyal constituent group which positions it well for fundraising success.
Realizing this potential, however, requires an investment of time, energy and resources to identify and
solicit those with the greatest potential to make a gift to The Center. Following these steps should allow
The Center to raise $200,000 and secure approximately 50% of its revenue within 5 years and provide
the foundation for continued fundraising success and growth.
11 ST N
AAS llt lAll�
The
Center Marketing and Fundraising Environmental Study Report
September 8, 2015
M. Linda Wastyn, Ph.D.
President, Wastyn & Associates
In February 2014, the Iowa City City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee to evaluate
the current vision, mission and programming of The Center with input from center staff and members of
the public as well as a review of existing reports and related documents concerning The Center. This Ad
Hoc Committee's appointment came from the city's concerns about declining city revenue as a result
property tax reform and a trend of declining federal assistance. Rather than find themselves in a
situation where the city cannot fund The Center or have to make difficult funding decisions, they
proactively sought input on ways to help The Center succeed in this new fiscal reality.
As a result of this evaluation, the city asked The Center to develop and implement a plan to increase the
percentage of revenue it generates. Currently the city provides approximately 75% of The Center's
$900,000 operating budget with Center revenue (membership fees, rentals, and raised income)
comprising the balance. Contributed revenue comes from the earnings from an endowed fund held by
the Community Foundation of Johnson County of approximately $700,000 that generates $30,000 in
revenue annually and in philanthropy contributions that vary each year with the largest annual amount
totaling $37,000.
To achieve this goal, The Center identified two main avenues for meeting this revenue target: increased
memberships and increased philanthropy support. Toward that end, they hired Wastyn & Associates to
(1) conduct a study of its members to gauge their interest in contributing toward The Center beyond
their membership; and (2) identify areas of pride for members that could provide the foundation for a
future marketing plan. This report provides the data to support each of these goals. Wastyn &
Associates will use these data to develop and help The Center implement a strategic fundraising plan
beginning this fall.
This study progressed through two separate stages to collect the data reported here. First, a series of
eight focus groups conducted at the end of May 2015 engaged 73 individuals with different relationships
with The Center that ranged from highly engaged (donors, volunteers, leadership) to disengaged (former
members, non-members). Focus groups asked open-ended questions designed to learn about
participants' perceptions of The Center's strengths and areas for improvement. A follow-up survey—
distributed via email (Survey Monkey), The Center's website, and hard copies mailed to individual's
homes and left at The Center — sought to confirm the focus groups' findings from a larger audience.
With 1,121 survey respondents, great confidence exists in the reliability of the survey data.
The typical survey respondent has the following characteristics: female (74.5%), white (96.6%), retired
(71.8%), with a graduate or professional degree (47.2%), married or partnered (56.4%), 65-74 years old
(44.2%), living with one other person (54.5%) in Iowa City (75.3%), and with an annual household
income between $50,000 and $74,999 annually (22.7%). Most (63.1%) are current Center members and
ST N 1 September 8, 2015
h A U (> C I A I I
have been from 1 to 5 years (48.2%). They drive themselves (76.1%) from 1 to 5 miles (73.5%) to reach
The Center.
Together, these two methods gathered data to answer three major questions: (1) How can The Center
better market itself to attract more members? (2) Can The Center raise membership fees without having
a deleterious effect on membership numbers and, if so, by how much? (3) Does support exist for
members (and others) to make philanthropic contributions to The Center in addition to their
membership fees? If so, what kinds of arguments will resonate with them as part of a case for support?
These results indicate that most people initially learned of The Center through a personal contact or visit
with a friend and rely on word of mouth as the second most common source of information about local
events (after the Iowa City Press Citizen), pointing to the need for marketing strategies to harness the
power of personal connections. Overall, results and focus group comments point to a very committed
constituent who highly value The Center and its programs. The members become the best ambassadors
for The Center as this finding supports. Some focus group participants made suggestions along these
lines, such as a "bring a friend for free" promotion as a way to introduce others to The Center.
Even more than word of mouth, most respondents learned of current events in the Iowa City Press
Citizen which becomes another important avenue for marketing. They mostly learn about The Center's
events in the program guide either mailed to their home or left in a public place. While many mentioned
the complicated nature of the information in the program guide, they still relied on it to know what
programs The Center offered.
One-time courses most often drew individuals to become members of The Center followed by exercise
classes and equipment and one-time lectures. Interestingly, lectures ranked higher in importance than
exercise classes and equipment but fell to the bottom of the reasons when forced to choose the one
thing convinced them to become a member. While they likely enjoy the lectures (and some in the focus
groups indicated they prefer lectures to classes because of the more limited time commitment), they
could attend a lecture without becoming a member. The longer time commitment encouraged the
membership.
When asked how The Center made them feel or changed their lives, "staying active" and "mental and
intellectual stimulation" topped the list with the latter as the most important single reason they joined.
Those who do not join The Center or drop their membership find themselves too busy to add another
activity into their busy schedule. Parking issues ranked as the second (through fourth) most chosen
reason for not joining or renewing their membership, although when forced to choose the single most
important reason for not joining, parking fell to near the bottom.
The words that rose to the top of the list as accurate descriptors of The Center included "educational,"
"quality," "open to all seniors," "safe," "active," "clean," "helpful," and "seniors helping seniors." When
we look at the importance people ascribe to these same words, we see a different order but general
agreement that those at the top of the list belong at the top of the list and those at the bottom of the
list belong at the bottom of the list. "Open to all seniors" topped the list followed by "safe,"
"welcoming," "helpful," "friendly," "quality," "simulating," "educational," "clean" and "active."
No statistically -significant differences emerged based on membership status (members, former
members, and non-members), age, income, education, or place of residence on any of these findings.
9S N 2 September 8, 2015
&/A. S S 0 C I AT C S
All respondents overwhelmingly believe that they received more or much more value for their
membership than they pay. More than 60% indicate a willingness to spend between $5 and $20 more
per person per year for their membership followed by a large number willing to invest between $21 and
$40 more per person per year for their membership. Given the structure of this questions and the
nature of this type of question, likely The Center could increase annual membership by approximately
$30/person without a negative impact on the number of members. Interestingly, no difference emerged
on the willingness to pay more for memberships based on respondents' income level.
The other avenue for revenue comes in philanthropy support. An overwhelming 63% of members who
responded to this question indicated a willingness to make a gift in support of The Center. Most would
make a gift to whatever The Center identifies as its greatest need. Allowing The Center to continue its
good work and providing this services for future generations topped the list of reasons they would make
a gift. Self-reported income indicates that a number of respondents have sufficient revenue to make a
major gift to The Center. Equally important, nearly 100 individuals said they would join a development
committee and volunteer to help The Center staff raise this money. People who reported lower incomes
indicated a slightly higher willingness to volunteer than those with higher incomes, perhaps wanting to
make a difference at The Center in the way they best could.
This study proceeded through two steps. The first conducted eight focus groups that attracted 73
individuals and asked open-ended questions designed to gather broad opinions regarding The Centers
strengths and weaknesses. A copy of the focus group questions appears in Appendix A. Held the last two
weeks of May, Table 1 outlines the groups included in each focus group and the number of attendees at
each.
Constituent Group
N
Members
8
Volunteers
14
Volunteer leaders
30
Service organizations
6
Staff
7
Lapsed/prospective members
7
Government officials
6
Donors 17FS
At the conclusion of the audio -recorded and transcribed focus groups — led by Linda Wastyn of Wastyn
& Associates, survey tested the assumptions and ideas generated by the focus group participants with a
larger audience. The survey contained 32 closed -ended questions that asked respondents their
perceptions of The Center, how they learned about The Center, how they get information in general,
and their willingness to both pay more for their membership and make a philanthropic contribution to
The Center in addition to their membership. A copy of the survey appears in Appendix B. Question logic
imbedded into the on-line versions (website and email) allowed respondents to skip questions that did
not pertain to them based on previous answers. Hardcopies of the surveys did not have this option.
Survey distribution occurred three ways: an email directly to all individuals for whom The Center had a
valid email address (using Survey Monkey), a link on The Centers website and Facebook page, and a
%]��N 3 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCUTBS
hardcopy mailed to members and nonmembers in The Centers service area. All totaled, respondents
returned 1,121 valid surveys through the following channels:
Survey Vehicle N
Email (Survey Monkey)
738
Website
135
Hard copy
249
We could not use a handful of returned hardcopy surveys due to incomplete data (missing
demographics). Even with those excluded, the strong response rate signals very strong confidence in the
data, results, and conclusions drawn. For example, through Survey Monkey, we sent 1,832 invitations to
respond to the survey (with three follow-up reminders). Of these, 150 bounced for a total of 1,682
individuals who could potentially receive the email. Of these, 1,191(71%) opened the email and 738
(44%) completed the survey, an unheard of responses rate! For this type of survey, organizations
consider a response rate of 5-10% a success.
The survey provided an opportunity for individuals to enter a drawing for one of two gift certificates in
appreciation for their time. Just less than half (N=594) included their name for consideration of these
gifts.
The pages that follow provide the major findings from this survey— supplemented with insights learned
from the focus groups — as they inform the three major questions it sought to answer:
(1) How can The Center better market itself to attract more members?
(2) Can The Center raise membership fees without having a deleterious effect on membership
numbers and, if so, by how much?
(3) Does support exist for members (and others) to make philanthropic contributions to The
Center in addition to their membership fees? If so, what kinds of arguments will resonate with
them as part of a case for support?
Of the 1,121 survey respondents, three out of four identified themselves as female (N=832) with 283
men and 2 transgender individuals. The majority (56.4%) identified themselves as married or partnered
followed by divorced (18.5%), widowed (14.6%) or single/never married (10.5%). This mirrored the
question that asked how many individuals reside in their household: 55% lived with one other member,
37.1% lived alone with the balance living with 3 or more individuals.
%7N 4 September 8, 2015
!� &Assocures
Individuals 50 years of age or older qualify for membership at The Center, although some younger
individuals participate in some of their programs or outreach activities. The age of respondents mirrored
almost perfectly a bell curve with the majority (44.2%) between the ages of 65 and 75 years old followed
by those 75-84 years old (22.9%) and those 50-64 years old (21.1%).
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Age of Respondent (%)
Youngerthan 50-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years Older than 85
50 old old old
Consistent with the age of respondents, 71.8% reported their employment status as retired, followed by
14.3% who work full-time, and 9.7% who work part-time. Of the rest, 2.6% indicated that they could not
work, 2.5% as unemployed and not looking for work and 0.9% as unemployed and looking for work.
1.9% checked "other"; their comments indicate that many own small businesses or other self-
employment situation, freelance, have a disability, have multiple part-time jobs, consult or volunteer
extensively.
The majority of respondents come from Iowa City (75.3%) followed by Coralville (8.2%), unincorporated
areas within Johnson County (6.5%), other Johnson County cities and towns (3.9%), outside of Johnson
County (4.4%) and North Liberty (1.9%).
An overwhelming number of respondents identified themselves as White (96.6%) followed by Black or
African American (1.2%). This over represents the number of White residents in Iowa City:
Race
Survey Respondents
Iowa GtV (2oo)'
White
96.6%
82.5%
Black or African-American
1.2%
5.8%
Asian
0.9%
6.9%
Hispanic/Latino
0.7%
5.3%
Native American or Alaskan Native
0.6%
0.2%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
0.2%<,OS%
Other
1%
2.5%
*Source: US Census Bureau
WN 5 September 8, 2015
ASSOCIATES
Focus group participants lamented a lack of diversity at The Center; these results either confirm that
observation or point to an under -representation of non-White Center members and Iowa City residents
who completed the survey. Either way, the resultant data over -represents the view of White individuals
rather than minorities. Opinions of other racial and ethnic groups will require additional, focused
research. Results later in the survey also suggest that The Center could improve its diversity.
Focus group members also mentioned lack of educational diversity with, they perceive, an
overabundance of highly educated members. The survey respondents followed suit with 47.2% having
earned a graduate or professional degree, followed by 28.7% who earned a bachelor's degree. Only
7.3% earned a high school degree or less. This sample over -represents the number of college educated
residents in Iowa City that totaled 58.0% in 2013 (Source: US Census Bureau).
Not surprisingly, the majority of respondents identified themselves as a current Center member (63.1%)
followed by "never been a member" (17.2%) and former member (15.4%).
Current Center member
63.1%
"I have never been a member of The Center"
17.2%
Former Center member
15.4%
Center volunteer
11.6%
Donor to The Center
9.9%
Member of The Center Commission
2.2%
Staff
1.1%
The ability to choose multiple categories makes these numbers non -additive. Interestingly, no
statistically -significant differences emerged on the opinions expressed in response to the rest of the
survey questions based on the respondents' relationship to The Center.
Of the Center members, the length of time they have been a member represents a skewed bell -curve
with nearly half (48.2%) a member for 1-5 years, followed by 6-10 years (20.0%).
Years of Membership (%)
60
than 1 year
1-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years
September 8, 2015
The same shape appears for distance traveled to reach The Center with most members (73.5%) traveling
from 1 to 5 miles.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Distance traveled to The Center N
Less than 1 mile 1-5 miles 5-10 miles More than 10 miles
The vast majority (76.1%) drive themselves, followed by 12.4% who walk or bike, 4.7% have someone
else drive them, 4.3% take a fixed bus system and 1.5% rely on SEATS. Focus group participants and the
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee identified transportation issues as a potential barrier for many who
might choose to attend The Center. These data suggest that members overwhelmingly rely on
themselves to drive, walk, or bike to The Center. Whether the significant drop in the number who rely
on others (private or public transportation) confirms that such a barrier exists or that members stop
coming to The Center when their physical and mental condition reach a point where they can no longer
drive requires additional study and analysis. That is, does needing public transportation becomes a
symptom of a larger issue that keeps individuals from using The Center rather than a barrier itself?
A significant theme emerged in the focus groups that many in the community do not know about The
Center or have misperceptions about what it offers. This confirmed an operating assumption of the
study that stronger marketing efforts could inform more people about The Center, dispel any
misperceptions that exist, and serve as an important vehicle for increasing membership.
The survey asked specific questions about marketing avenues and marketing messages.
Avenues for Marketing: The ways in which individuals learn about The Center asked two separate
questions:
• How did they first learn of The Center (to become members)?
• How do they prefer to learn about Center activities once they became members?
Because of the nature of the question, only members had access to these questions in the online survey.
Six hundred forty-two members answered the first question (how they first learned about The Center);
727 answered the question about how they prefer to learn about program offerings.
�N 7 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
The majority of individuals (54.4%) first learned of The Center when a friend or personal contact
suggested they check it out. This confirms some of the comments made at the focus groups that
proposed that a "bring a friend" events might encourage new members to join. The other ways tested
paled in comparison:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Personal Program
Program
Newspaper
Attended Website Televisionad Center TV
Contact guide mailed
guide in
article
program program
to my home
public place
sponsored by
another
organization
No one chose "radio show," 'Facebook," or "YouTube channel" as the way they first learned of The
Center and only one person chose "this survey." One hundred and three individuals wrote comments,
most of which reflect one of the choices noted above. Others noted that they have walked by The
Center, they or someone they know lived in Ecumenical Towers, through the band or other special
interest group, don't remember, or "have always known about it." A complete list of the open-ended
responses appears in Appendix C.
For continued information about The Center's program offerings, the majority (63.8%) prefer printed
materials mailed to their home followed by emails (14.7%), printed materials picked up at The Center or
elsewhere (14.4%), and The Center or city website (4.7%). Other options (web calendars on various
sites), social media and text messages) received 1% or less of the responses. Taken together, more than
three-fourths of the members rely on the program guide to learn of ongoing Center programs. Although
not prompted, the program guide generated a lot of discussion in some of the focus groups. Those who
knew of it described it as overwhelming, confusing, and generally a lot of work to digest unless they
sought something specific (e.g., "Is yoga still taught on Tuesday at 10 AM?"). While they commended
The Center on assimilating such diverse and comprehensive offerings into a concise guide, they would
prefer something a little more "user friendly." Weekly or monthly calendars or lists of offerings by date
emerged as two recommendations that resonated with the rest of that focus group.
Finally, we asked respondents which of the following sources they consult frequently as sources of
information about local events and programs of interest. Because they could choose more than one
option, percentages do not add up to 100. More than two-thirds rely on the Iowa City Press -Citizen
�I7%�N 8 September 8, 2015
` &ASSOCIATES
(67.8%) followed by word of mouth (59.9%), and promotional materials received at home (48.4%). At
the other end of the spectrum, fewer than one in five rely on commercial radio (8.3%), the Daily Iowan
(15.9%), TV advertisements (17.5%) or social media (19.2%).
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
¢c
e4
°��o
QJ.p�
os¢�
o`ao
S�
oLoc
F
a
Q l o`a\3
Quo Q o�c
oy�
\
`oP
Forty-seven people added comments on this questions which appear in Appendix D. A few mentioned
Little Village Magazine; others listed different internet-based news sources.
Marketing Messages: The survey asked members to rank, on a four -point Likert scale, eleven possible
reasons forjoining The Center. On this question — and all of the rating questions in the survey — each
answer receives a weight from one to four with 1= not important at all and 4 = very important. All had
an option of "N/A or No opinion" which did not compute in the final analysis. For all of these questions,
the higher the number, the more highly the respondents rated it.
On this first questions, "Courses (multiple -session programs)" received the highest rating at 3.34
indicating that people find this "important" to "very important," closely followed by "lectures (one-time
programs)" at 3.01, exercise classes at 2.95, and exercise/fitness equipment at 2.91. Recall that a rating
of 4.0 would indicate unanimous support that the item was "very important' to their decision to join
The Center. This confirms the comments made at the focus groups.
�N 9 September 8, 2015
` &nssocinTes
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Courses (multiple -session programs)
3.34
Lectures one-time programs)
3.01
Exercise classes
2.95
Exercise/fitness equipment
2.91
Services (e.g., tax preparation, Medicare counseling)
2.73
Performance groups music, theatre, dance
2.73
Assistance with technology
2.71
The Centers Accreditation
2.62
Volunteer programs (e.g., quilters, Center Television,
2.50
Special interestrous(e.g., cards,games)
2.40
Meal program
1.96
The next question sought to confirm these data and force a single choice by asking what single factor
encouraged them to join. Again, the courses or multi -session programs emerged as the clear winner
with 39.8% of the respondents choosing this option. Interestingly, while members rate the lectures as an
important reason they joined, when forced to choose only one, it falls near the bottom with only 3.2%
saying lectures were the primary reason they joined The Center. This points to multifaceted decision-
making and the ability to have a variety of activities as a motivation for joining, again, a theme that
emerged in the focus groups.
Item
%
Courses (multi -session programs)
39.8%
Exercise/fitness equipment
16.2%
Exercise classes
13.3%
Performance groups (music, theatre, dance)
10.7%
Services (e.g., tax preparation, Medicare counseling)
5.9%
Special interest groups (e.g., cards, games)
3.3%
Lectures (one-time programs)
3.2%
Volunteer programs (e.g., quilters, Center TV)
2.6%
Assistance with technology
2.6%
The Center's accreditation
0.9%
Forty-seven people added a comment on this question, most of which reiterate a previous selection, fit
better with the next question, or lament having to choose only one. Those appear in Appendix E.
In addition to the activities that The Center offers, many focus group participants described joining
because of the way belonging to The Center and participating in its activities made them feel. The next
question tested those feeling, giving members eleven to rate on a 4 -point Likert scale where the higher
the number means they rated it as more important in their decision to join The Center. Of the 701
people who answered this question, the ability to stay active receive the highest support at 3.39
followed closely by mental and intellectual stimulation at 3.36.
10 September 8, 2015
` &AssoclArFs
Ans,
Stay
Men
Loce
Soci
Com
Price
To n
To fE
Builc
Volu
OPP
When forced to choose only one of these, mental and intellectual stimulation came out on top with
41.4% of members choosing it followed by staying active by 28.9% of the 654 people who answered this
question. Social interaction received the next highest selection by 12.8%. The balance had 3.5% (N=23)
or fewer people select it. Forty-eight people made a comment on this question, many of which more
appropriately describe activities rather than feelings as a reason why theyjoined (e.g., New Horizon's
Band, Medicare counseling, computer class), the inability to choose between them, or because a spouse
wanted to join. All of these responses appear in Appendix F.
The survey asked a parallel set of questions for nonmembers and lapsed members to understand what
prevents them from joining The Center or kept them from re -joining once their membership expired.
Using the same 4 -point Likert scale, "too busy to add another activity' emerged as the main reason for
the 294 individuals who responded to this question, although with a total score of 2.74 that ranks lower
than "important" which would total 3.0. The next set of reasons all revolve around parking issues,
important for the majority of individuals who drive themselves to The Center. This also confirms the
conversations at the focus groups in which individuals talked about how many activities they have
become involved in after retirement and that they do not find time to add another obligation. Some
focus group participants took this idea a step further and indicated that they prefer the programs that
meet only once or a limited number of times because they do not want to have to answer to a schedule,
even one they create themselves.
September 8, 2015
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Too busy to add anotheractvity
2.74
Paying for parking
2.50
Trouble finding arkin
2.43
Don't like the p a rking ramp
2.26
Location notconvenient
2.22
Does notoffer programs thatinterestme
2.16
Notforme
2.14
I don't know what The Centeroffers
2.05
Programs ofinterestare full
2.02
Noto en when l wantto use it
2.01
Notwelcoming
2.00
Cost is too high
1.99
Notenou h handicapped parking sots
1.94
No swimming pool
1.92
Signage in the parking ramp
1.90
I don'tconsiderm sella senior
1.90
Notphysically accessible
1.79
lam not eli ible for membershiplam not et50 ears old
1.71
I ne ed more h elp with activities ofdaily living than staff can provide
1.47
We also forced respondents to choose the single factor that most significantly impacted their decision
not to join The Center or not to renew their membership. "Too busy to add another activity' again
emerged at the top reason, chosen by 33.33% of the 291 individuals who answered this question.
"Location not convenient" ranked a distant second with only 8.9% of individuals choosing this option.
Interestingly, only 3.4% (N=10) noted that The Center's hours did not fit their schedule (e.g., "not open
when I want to use it"), contradicting a conversation at the focus groups that the paucity of evening and
weekend hours might hurt membership. Similarly, only 3.8% indicated that paying for parking prevented
them from joining, followed by "don't like the parking ramp" at 2.8% and "trouble finding parking" at
2.1%. Tied at 3.8% with "paying for parking," eleven people found The Center "not welcoming" or do not
consider themselves a senior.
The last set of questions that shed light on marketing messages asked people to use the same 4 -point
Likert Scale to rate how well a list of 26 words describe The Center followed by rating how important
they felt each of those 26 words were when describing the ideal center. We review these data in two
ways. First, we look at the raw scores to see which words they feel best describe and should describe
The Center. Second, we look for discrepancies. That is, do some words describe the ideal but not the
current center? These become areas where brand messages may not conform to reality.
Consistent with the reasons people join The Center, "educational" emerged as the top word with a
strong rating of 3.47 followed very closely by "quality" (3.43), "open to all seniors" (3.42), "safe" (3.41),
"active" and "clean" (3.40 each), and "helpful" and "seniors helping seniors" (3.38 each). The three
more words with more negative connotations: "old" (2.40), "elitist" (1.87) and "stuffy" (1.83) — all words
heard in the focus groups —fell to the bottom of the list but, perhaps, higher than desirable.
WISTN 12 September 8, 2015
ASSOCIATES
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Educational
3.47
Quality
3.43
Open to all seniors
3.42
Safe
3.41
Active
3.40
Clean
3.40
Helpful
3.38
"Seniors helping seniors"
3.38
Stimulating
3.35
Friendly
3.34
Something foreveryone
3.32
Social
3.30
Community
3.29
Fun
3.25
Welcoming
3.24
Caring
3.22
Engaging
3.19
Camaraderie
3.16
Inclusive
3.15
Vibrant
3.06
Diverse
3.05
Homey
2.91
Multi enerational
2.76
Old
2.40
Elitist
1.87
Stuffy
1.83
When we look at the importance people ascribe to these same words, we see a different order but
general agreement that those at the top of the list belong at the top of the list and those at the bottom
of the list belong at the bottom of the list. "Open to all seniors" topped the list at 3.62 followed by
"safe" at 3.60; "welcoming' (3.57); "helpful" (3.54); "friendly" (3.53); "quality" (3.51); and "simulating,"
"educational," and "clean" at 3.50; and "active" at 3.49. Interestingly, the words that rose to the top of
this list describe the way The Center makes individuals feel, with the more tangible "educational" falling
to a tie for 7t' (though still very important to them).
(Arn, r /N 13 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIi%TES
Answer Options
Rating
Average
Open to all seniors
3.62
Safe
3.60
Welcoming
3.57
Helpful
3.54
Friendly
3.53
Quality
3.51
Stimulating
3.50
Educational
3.50
Clean
3.50
Active
3.49
Caring
3.46
Community
3.46
Inclusive
3.43
Something foreveryone
3.42
Social
3.41
Diverse
3.39
Engaging
3.38
Fun
3.38
"Seniors helpinq seniors"
3.36
Vibrant
3.31
Camaraderie
3.27
Multigenerational
2.95
Homey
2.87
Old
1.77
Elitist
1.53
Stuffy
1.52
When we look at the differences between the perceived importance of each word and their ratings in
terms of quality, we find that respondents see the largest gaps in terms of "diverse" (0.34), "welcoming"
(0.33) and "inclusive' (0.28). "Vibrant' and "caring' come next at 0.25 and 0.24, respectively, not large
differences but enough to cause pause when developing the marketing messages. These data also
confirm earlier findings and focus group discussions that suggested not everyone felt welcomed at The
Center.
At the other end of the scale, participants felt that The Center exhibits qualities of stuffiness (-0.31),
elitism (-0.34) and old (-0.63) more than desired. The data does not differentiate between the age of the
building and the age of the participants; both emerged in the focus groups as topics of discussion. Some
loved the old, historic building; others lamented the limitations that such an old building has for
programming, especially on the flexibility (or lack thereof) of the space. Similarly, some felt that other
people perceived The Center as a place for "old people" to sit around and "wait to die' (my words, not
theirs). Focus group participants did not see it that way at all.
i��N 14 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATf3
Answer Options
Importance
Quality
Difference
Diverse
3.39
3.05
0.34
Welcoming
3.57
3.24
0.33
Inclusive
3.43
3.15
0.28
Vibrant
3.31
3.06
0.25
Caring
3.46
3.22
0.24
Open to all seniors
3.62
3.42
0.20
Multicienerational
2.95
2.76
0.19
Engaging
3.38
3.19
0.19
Friendly
3.53
3.34
0.19
Safe
3.60
3.41
0.19
Community
3.46
3.29
0.17
Helpful
3.54
3.38
0.16
Stimulating
3.50
3.35
0.15
Fun
3.38 1
3.25
0.13
Social
3.41
3.30
0.11
Camaraderie
3.27
3.16
0.11
Clean
3.50
3.40
0.10
Somethinq fbrevervone
3.42
3.32
0.10
Active
3.49
3.40
0.09
Quality
3.51
3.43
0.08
Educational
3.50
3.47
0.03
"Seniors helping seniors"
3.36 1
3.38
-0.02
Homey
2.87
2.91
-0.04
Stuffy
1.52
1.83
-0.31
Elitist
1.53
1.87
-0.34
Old
1.77
2.40
No statistically -significant differences emerged for any of these findings based on membership status
(members, former members, and non-members), age, income, education, or place of residence. All had
similar perceptions of The Center.
Membership Fees Findings
Raising fees emerged in focus groups as a way to raise more money for The Center. Many commented
that current membership fees paled in comparison to what they would pay for a health club
membership orto participate in a single class at the University's Senior College or another venue.
Obviously raising the cost of membership becomes an "easy" and predicable source of increased
revenue if it does not cause members to flee.
The survey tested that premise in two ways. First, the survey asked the value members perceive from
their membership with five options: "worth much more than I pay," "worth more than I pay," "worth
what I pay," "worth less than I pay," and "worth much less than I pay." More than half (52.6%) felt that
membership was worth much more than they pay, followed by worth what they pay (26.9%). Only 3.3%
�%7��N 15 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCLATES
felt they got less than they deserved based on what they pay for their membership, a good sign for the
positive perceptions of the members and their willingness to absorb a price increase.
Response
%
The Center membership is worth much more than I pay
52.6%
The Center membership is worth what I pay
17.3%
The Center membership is worth what I pay
26.9%
The Center membership is worth less than I pay
2.4%
The Center membership is worth much less than I pay
0.9%
The next question asked them to "put their money where their mouth is" specifically, if they would pay
more for their membership and, if so, how much? Nearly nine out of ten (86.8%) would pay more for
their membership if asked. The amounts varied with the majority (60.9%) willing to pay $5-20 more per
person per year.
Response
%
I would pay $5-$20 more per person/year for my membership
60.9%
1 would pay $21-$40 more per person/year for my membership
15.1%
1 would pay $41-$60 more per person/year for my membership
6.3%
1 would pay more than $60 more per person/year for my membership
4.6%
1 would not pay any more for my membership
13.2%
These data bode well for a possible membership fee increase. I suggest that The Center's price elasticity
lies probably closer to the $21-$40 level than the lower level for two reasons. First, people tend to
choose the lower dollar amount that falls within their comfort zone, fearful of too high a jump. Given
the overwhelmingly positive feelings for The Center expressed throughout this survey and in the focus
groups, the "true" answer probably lies closer to $30 than $5. Second, the order of the answers —from
lowest dollar amount to largest — suggests that people may have chosen the first response they saw and
to which they agreed. They may not have even looked down the list for higher dollar amounts which
they may have selected if presented first. The previous response that members overwhelmingly
perceive that they receive much more value for their membership than they pay provides additional
support for the suggestion that prices electricity probably exists closer to $30 per person/year rather
than $5.
No differences emerged on the perceptions of the value of membership based on respondents' income
level.
Philanthropic fundraising represents the next avenue for raising potential revenue. Donations come
from individuals with an inclination (willingness) and capacity (wealth) to make a gift to an organization.
This survey sought to gather information on both of these elements.
First, it asked outright if members would consider making a philanthropic gift to The Center in addition
to their membership fee. An overwhelming 63.1% of the 708 who answered this question indicated they
would. If each of these individuals made a very modest gift of $100, The Center would raise nearly
W4N 16 September 8, 2015
ASSOC IAIN
$45,000! The Strategic Fundraising Plan will outline ways to secure these and even more funds from
individuals.
Second, it asked individuals their annual household income to gather information on capacity. Of the
individuals who completed this optional question on the survey, a bell curve emerges in their income
levels with most earning between $50,000 and $74,999 (22.7%) followed closely by $35,000 to $49,999
(16.4%) and $75,000 to $99,999 (15.8%). Ninety-five individuals declined to answer this question.
25
20
15
10
Annual Household Income (%)
Less than $10,000- $15,000- $25,000- $35,000- $50,000- $75,000-$100,000-$150,000-$200,000
$10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 +
The great news for The Center: individuals with a relationship to The Center have both the inclination
and capacity to make philanthropic gifts to the organization. The Strategic Fundraising Plan will outline a
plan for identifying, securing, and stewarding these gifts. A slightly greater likelihood — but not
statistically significant one — to donate emerged for individuals at the higher income levels. Seventy-one
percent of those earning $100,000 to $149,999 indicated that they would likely make a financial
contribution to The Center while only 56% of those earning $25,000 to $34,999 indicated they would.
That bodes well for a major gift campaign since 90% of your contributions should come from 10% of
your donors or those with the greatest capacity (wealth).
The next part of developing a successful fundraising program relies on creating a compelling case for
support. In this way, fundraising and marketing work hand-in-hand. Many of the items identified in the
marketing questions also work for developing the case for supporting The Center with philanthropic
gifts. That is, those things that likely encouraged individuals to join will resonate when they decide
whether or not to make a gift. Of those who responded in the affirmative that they would consider
making a gift to The Center, the survey asked what aspect of The Center they would prefer to support.
Overwhelmingly (74.9%), they said they would support "wherever The Center has the greatest need"
followed by "day-to-day operations (9.1%), "special projects and items" (8.5%) and "endowment'
(7.5%).
%7N 17 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIAT F.S
The next question asked individuals what would motivate them to make a gift to The Center. Consistent
with the literature, the tax deductibility of the gift fell to the bottom of the list. Using the same four -
point Likert scale as in the previous questions where the higher number equates to higher importance,
assuring the viability of The Center (3.55) and for future generations (3.43) received the highest ratings
followed by facility maintenance (3.38) and "to give others the same opportunities I have' (3.23).
Answer Options
Rating
Average
To assure thatThe Centerremains viable
3.55
To assure thatThe Center remains forfuture generations
3.43
1 believe itis im ortantto maintain the facilities
3.38
To give others the same opportunities I have
3.23
My responsibility to support imortant community organization
3.18
Ifeel goodwhen Ican su ortThe Center
3.10
1 receive more value formy membership than I pay
3.06
Fortaxbenefits
2.41
Ten people made comments, most of which indicated that they either already made donations or could
not make a donation at this time. One person commented that "this is what I get back from property
taxes' which points to a possible negative perception to giving that the case for support will need to
address: as a tax supported organization, why should individuals give in essence a third time (e.g., taxes,
membership, gift)?
Success of this effort requires a cadre of dedicated, trained volunteers willing to work with staff on
behalf of this fundraising effort. The survey asked members if they would volunteer on a fundraising
committee for The Center. Ninety-nine individuals responded in the affirmative. Interestingly, those at
the lower income levels indicated a willingness to volunteer in much greater numbers than those at the
upper ends; 24% of those with reported incomes between $25,000 and $34,999 indicated a willingness
to volunteer while only 9% of those earning between $100,000 and $149,999 did. Perhaps those at the
lower end of the economic ladder want to contribute and believe they can better contribute their time
than their money. The 52 individuals willing to volunteer on the fundraising committee left their name
and contact information on the survey.
Conclusions
The Center is well positioned to increase the revenue it generates through membership revenue and
philanthropic support. Even before this study, the genuine love and support for The Center came
through in the media reports around the Ad Hoc Committee. The focus groups confirmed that, both in
numbers of participants and in the substance of their comments, as did the survey. Very few negative
comments emerged.
As a next step, The Center needs to decide on its marketing messages and avenues as well as future
membership fees. This study provides data to support appropriate avenues for marketing as well as the
messages that will likely resonate with current and future members. Finally, the data strongly supports
increases in membership fees, up to $40/person per year.
ST N 18 September 8, 2015
&�ssoci�, rs
Very strong support also exists for raising funds by soliciting donations. Most organizations would kill to
have 66% of their constituents indicate a willingness to support the organization financially! Even the
strongest college alumni association — often touted as the hallmark in constituent engagement — fails to
reach this level of engagement. Strong potential exists. The Strategic Fundraising Plan will outline a
series of steps and activities to effectively identify potential donors and major donors, educate them
about The Center's needs (in concert with the marketing plan), and then cultivate, solicit, and steward
their support. It will also include a volunteer recruitment and management plan, beginning with the
more than 50 individuals who already stepped forward indicating their willingness to work as part of a
Fundraising Committee for The Center.
9
S N 19 September 8, 2015
&ASSOCIATES
3b(8)
wwmm�
APPROVED
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23,2015--5:30 P.M.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Alexa Homewood, Bram Elias
MEMBERS ABSENT: Derek Johnk, Nick Kilburg
STAFF PRESENT: Ty Coleman, Mike Brau
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Lee Grassley, Bond Drager
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Grassley reported that the Iowa Utilities Board has reinstated Mediacom's municipal franchise with the
city, which will be effective in December. Grassley said Mediacom was surprised the city created a
regulatory environment for ImOn that is much different than that of Mediacom. Mediacom previously
had meetings with the city in which inquiries about fiber capacity were made but the city was not
forthcoming with information about any excess capacity. Grassley said the city leased the fiber at
$0.14 per foot, which is well below market rates. Grassley said Mediacom would be interested in
seeing the city's fiber maps. If they could expand their plant at those rates it would be a benefit for
Mediacom. ImOn is a company that provides the same range of services as Mediacom in the Cedar
Rapids area, but will offer only Internet in Iowa City. Mediacom doe& not fear competition, but does
want to compete on a fair playing field. Grassley said someone might have told ImOn officials that
they would be obligated to the same level of local access channel support as Mediacom, including
$230,000 for PATV and that those obligations would cease to exist in 2018. Bergus asked if the
Commission or staff knew anything about the below market rate fiber lease to ImOn. No one indicated
they knew anything about it. Bergus said the city administration needs to be fully informed of the
concerns Grassley articulated to the Commission, specifically the city purposefully undercutting one
company by offering a fiber lease at below market rates and PATV's operating subsidy possibly being
challenged if ImOn were not required to pay the same $230,000 if video services were offered. Bergus
said she is concerned the city administration may enter into some agreement with ImOn that
characterizes the service as something other than a video service, which could lead to a very large
problem with Mediacom. Bergus said the city would be better served if the Commission had been
informed of the city's discussions with ImOn.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bergus moved and Elias seconded a motion to approve the October 26, 2015 minutes. The motion
passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
None.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSUMER ISSUES
Coleman reported that the resident who had been trying to get Mediacom service to their new home
would be connected tomorrow.
MEDIACOM REPORT
Grassley reported that the Iowa Utilities Board has reinstated Mediacom's municipal franchise with the
city, which will be effective in December. Mediacom will be sending a letter to the city notifying the
city of their intent to renew the municipal franchise. The letter will preserve their legal rights
regarding the federal franchise renewal process for municipal franchises in the event there is a change
in the state franchising process. Grassley said if ImOn were to offer video service, they would be
required to meet the same local access channel requirements as Mediacom, including the PATV
operating subsidy. ImOn would be required to pay the same amount even if they had just one
subscriber. Grassley said Mediacom was surprised the city created a regulatory environment for ImOn
that is much different than that of Mediacom. At a recent city council meeting Grassley asked several
questions, one of which was about the city's lease of excess fiber capacity to ImOn. Mediacom
previously had meetings with the city in which inquiries about fiber capacity were made but the city
was not forthcoming with information about any excess capacity. At the council meeting Grassley
asked where the city's excess fiber was located, what were the terms of ImOn's fiber lease, and how
the value of the fiber capacity was determined. Grassley said the city leased the fiber at $0.14 per foot,
which is well below market rates. Grassley said Mediacom would be interested in seeing the city's
fiber maps. If they could expand their plant at those rates it would be a benefit for Mediacom. ImOn
is a company that provides the same range of services as Mediacom in the Cedar Rapids area, but will
offer only Internet in Iowa City. Mediacom does not fear competition, but does want to compete on a
fair playing field. Mediacom is testing a gigabit system in Columbia, Mo. using DOCSIS 3.1, which
permits them to use their existing plant to deliver a gigabit of bandwidth. Once Mediacom is confident
of the performance of the technology it will be offered in other communities. There are other
technologies on the horizon that may permit a terabit of bandwidth over the hybrid fiber coax system
Mediacom currently has in place. Grassley said someone might have told ImOn officials that they
would be obligated to the same level of local access channel support as Mediacom, including $230,000
for PATV and that those obligations would cease to exist in 2018. (Grassley left at this point.)
Bergus asked if the Commission or staff knew anything about the below market rate fiber lease to
ImOn. No one indicated they knew anything about it. Bergus said the city administration needs to be
fully informed of the concerns Grassley articulated to the Commission, specifically the city
purposefully undercutting one company by offering a fiber lease at below market rates and PATV's
operating subsidy possibly being challenged if ImOn were not required to pay the same $230,000 if
video services were offered. Coleman said the Cable TV Office first heard of ImOn negotiating a lease
for fiber when it came before the city council. Brau said rates for fiber lease are most often determined
on a per strand per mile basis with rates varying on the density and difficulty of the location. Bergus
said she is concerned the city administration may enter into some agreement with ImOn that
characterizes the service as something other than a video service, which could lead to a very large
problem with Mediacom. Elias said the Commission needs to make clear to the city administration
Mediacom's concern with the below market fiber rates and that the city did not maximize the value of
the fiber. In addition, the city administration needs to be aware of the potential for a challenge to the
PATV subsidy in any future negotiations with ImOn. Bergus said it is incumbent upon the
Commission to make sure the city administration is aware of Mediacom's viewpoints expressed at this
meeting. Bergus said the city would be better served if the Commission had been informed of the
city's discussions with ImOn. Coleman agreed to draft a letter to Geoff Fruin outlining the
Commission's concerns and inviting him to meet with the Commission in January.
LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL REPORTS
Homewood noted that the City Channel and the Library had written reports in the meeting packet.
Goding reported PATV's next board meeting would be January 21. PATV will be closed periodically
over the holiday season but will offer extended equipment check out and series producers will be able
to submit new programs through out the period. PATV will cover some of the City High and Regina
basketball games. Local sponsors will be sought. Ten games are planned for December. Eight
football games were covered. Drager reported well-known children's author Rosemary Wells would
be giving a reading at the library December 6. Coleman reported he sent Mediacom the annual notice
regarding PATV's funding. There will be no increase in funding, as the consumer price index did not
rise. Katie Linder has hired two interns for next semester to assist her with her productions.
ADJOURNMENT
Elias moved and Bergus seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment was at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
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
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
3/23/15
X
X
X
X
X
Johnk
4/27/15
x
x
Pic
X
X
6/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
6/22/15
o/c
X
X
X
x
8/24/15
0
x
X
x
o/c
9/28/15
X
X
X
X
X
10/16/15
X
X
X
X
x
11/23/15
X
X
o/c
o/c
x
1/25/2016
o/c
X
X
X
x
(X) = Present
(0) = Absent
(O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused)