Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-27 Info PacketLm_�_ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 27, 2016 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule [Update distributed on 10/31/16 as late handout] NOVEMBER 1 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Information from Development Services Coordinator: Excerpts from North District Plan IP4 Memo from City Manager: Downtown Development Discussion IP5 Memo from City Attorney: Downtown Development Discussion — Comprehensive Plans in Iowa I136 Memo from Sustainability Coordinator: Advancing strategic plan climate goals I137 Memo from Asst. to the City Manager: Food truck regulations and background IPS Pending City Council Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP9 Copy of letter from Mayor Throgmorton to US Corps of Engineers: Support for updating Coralville Lake Regulation Plan IP10 Copy of October 21 letter to Mayor from IAC (International Automotive Companies): Notice of Workforce Reduction IP11 Copy of October 24 letter to Mayor from IAC (International Automotive Companies): Notice of Workforce Reduction IP12 Copy of response from MPOJC Executive Dir. to Dennis and Debra Byrnes: On -street parking on Ireland Drive and Killarney Road Proposal IP13 Report from Senior Accountant: Quarterly Investment Report (July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016) IP14 Memo from Finance Dir.: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending September 30, 2016 IP15 Bar Check Report — September 2016 IP16 Copy of Press Release: Webinar — The Use and Benefit of STAR Certification IP17 Copy of Press Release: City Council Schedules Listening Post Copy of Press Release: Riverfront Crossings Park Information Open House — Nov. 2 [Distributed as Late Handout 10/31/161 DRAFT MINUTES I1218 Plannina and Zonina Commission: October 6 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 27, 2016 I121 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule NOVEMBER 1 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda I133 Information from Development Services Coordinator/lations om North District Plan IP4 Memo from City Man ger: Downtown Developme IP5 Memo from City Attorn y: Downtown Developmen — Comprehensive Plans in Iowa IP6 Memo from Sustainability oordinator: Advancing climate goals IP7 Memo from Asst. to the City nager: Food truck rnd background I138 Pending City Council Work Se ion Topics MI CELLANE US I139 Copy of letter from Mayor Throgmortto US orps of Engineers: Support for updating Coralville Lake Regulation Plan I1310 Copy of October 21 letter to Mayor from IA International Automotive Companies): Notice of Workforce Reduction IP11 Copy of October 24 letter to Mayor from I C (I ernational Automotive Companies): Notice of Workforce Reduction IP12 Copy of response from MPOJC Exec tive Dir. to ennis and Debra Byrnes: On -street parking on Ireland Drive and Killarn Road Propo I IP13 Report from Senior Accountant: Q rterly Investment eport (July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016) IP14 Memo from Finance Dir.: Qua rly Financial Summary fo Period Ending September 30, 2016 I1315 Bar Check Report — Septe ber 2016 IP16 Copy of Press Release: ebinar — The Use and Benefit of STAR ertification IP17 Copy of Press Release: City Council Schedules Listening Post DRAFT MINUTES I1318 Planning and Zoning Commission: October 6 � r � 01% CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Late Additions: Consent Calendar - ITEM 5d(9) THE QUARTERS EASEMENT AGREEMENTS - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY EASEMENT AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO "THE QUARTERS AT IOWA CITY" SITE PLAN IN IOWA CITY, IOWA. Comment: College Fund Properties II, LLC, and Tod K. Quiring, submitted a site plan for development of 2401 Highway 6 East, previously known as the Rose Oaks development and now known as The Quarters at Iowa City. This redevelopment will involve installation of new infrastructure, requiring the dedication of certain easements to the City. Additionally, there is an existing easement on the property that no longer serves any public purpose. The developer, therefore, as asked that the City release its interest in that easement. Staff has considered this request and finds it reasonable and in the public interest. Late Handouts: Information submitted between distribution of packet on Thursday and close of business on Monday. Consent Calendar: ITEM 5f(2) Joel Gilbertson -White, Amanda Van Horne: Police Chief Search ITEM 5f(6) Sharmeen Jones: Fw: Heavy Police Surveillance Reaular Anenda: ITEM 7a SIGN CODE - See additional correspondence INFO PACKET OF 10/27116: Tentative Meeting Schedule (Revised) Press Release: Update — Riverfront Crossings Park Information Open House I t , City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule T 11: w Subject to change CITYIOWA CITY REVISED October 31, 2016 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, November 1, 2016 5:30PM* Work Session* (revised start time) Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 3, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 7, 2017 8:00A -5:00P Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 10, 2017 1:00-7:00 P Budget Work Session (CIP) Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Late Handouts Distributed 103, /l� (Date) r City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule �i rr®'� Subject to change ' I CITY IOWA CITY Fo al Meeting October 27, 2016 Date Time Meeting Location Monday, October24, 2016 4:00 PM Reception Johnson County Health 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Human Services Bldg. Tuesday, November 1, 016 5:30 PM * Work Session *(re vis d start time) Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall :00 PM Formal Meeti g PM Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:001PM Work Sess' n Emma J. Harvat Hall PM 7:00 P Formal eetine Tuesday, January 3, 2017 5:00 PM orlySession Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Fo al Meeting Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:00 PMork Se ion Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Me ing Tuesday, February 7, 2017 5:00 P Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 P Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 2017/...000 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session mma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting "mWPMZI zrz `s CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319( 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org NOTE START TIME City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, November 1, 2016 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 5:30 PM • Discuss North District Plan goals for the N. Dubuque St. / Peninsula area [IP # 3 of 10/27 packet] • Discuss future actions concerning downtown development [IP # 4 and 5 of 10/27 packet] • Discuss Climate Change Task Force [IP # 6 of 10/27 packet] • Discuss food vending truck provisions [IP # 7 of 10/27 packet] • Clarification of Agenda Items • Information Packet Discussion [October 20, 27] rrom uevelopmen[ services coorainacor Yapp IP3 N ort I'st 'et Plan Iowa City CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 INTRODUCTION The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan presents a vision for Iowa City, provides a strategy for realizing the vision, and sets policies for the growth and development of specific geographic areas of the city. Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1997, the City has embarked on a series of District Planning efforts in order to provide vision and guidance for development that is more closely tailored to specific areas of the City. District plans are intended to promote patterns of land use, urban design, infrastructure, and services that encourage and contribute to the livability of Iowa City and its neighborhoods. District plans are advisory documents for directing and managing change over time. They serve as guides to decision-making, public deliberation, and investments. The North District Plan IThecitizensoflowaCitybuiIdcommuniiyandpreserve the establishes a set of planning city's quality of life by providing connections not only to the principles that relate specifically peopleandplaces around which activi ties are centered, but to the history and existing also to the city's history, its environment and the University, all of which have shaped Iowa city's unique conditions of this particular area character. of the City. These principles i-IowaCity_Comprehensive.Plan relate to issues of housing, transportation, public and neighborhood services, and parks, trails and open space. The plan translates these principles into a future vision of the North District and illustrates this vision on a District Plan Map. Most importantly, the plan acknowledges that the North District is a part of the larger Iowa City community. Establishing sound planning principles to provide a mix of housing, protect sensitive environmental and historical resources, and improve the existing transportation system will benefit citizens living or working in the North District as well as citizens in Iowa City as a whole. The Plan is divided into three sections: The North District Past and Present, which describes the location, history and existing conditions in the North District; The North District: Planning for the Future, which sets forth the planning principles that will act as a framework on which to base future development decisions; and III. Principles in Action: Guide to Future Development, which illustrates the planning principles on a District Plan Map and highlights areas of particular interest. The North District Plan 02/25/15 PLANNING PROCESS The vision for the North District was developed during a series of intensive neighborhood workshops where approximately 100 citizens spent many hours developing ideas and options on a variety of topics such as housing, commercial development, traffic and environmental protection. Prior to these workshops, planning staff collected extensive background information about the area through historical research, interviews, and site visits. Workshop participants used this information to inform their own knowledge and experience as they worked to formulate a vision for the district. The citizen workshops resulted in several key points of consensus - the planning principles on which the plan is based. These principles set a broad vision for the future of the district and act as guidelines for future development of the area. In addition to the development of the planning principles, planners identified key geographical areas where more specific direction was needed to guide development of the District. Various options were explored and preferred development patterns where identified. These preferred development scenarios were then illustrated on a District Plan Map. HOW WILL THE NORTH DISTRICT PLAN BE USED? The North District Plan is intended to be a general guide to future development within the district. As the City reviews subdivision and rezoning requests, the plan will be used to help ensure that new development fits into the surrounding neighborhood. The City will refer to the Plan when setting funding priorities for public projects and services. Property owners, developers and others may also use the plan when making decisions regarding investment in the North District. Continued citizen input will be important during the implementation of the plan. Private investment and neighborhood initiatives to enhance or improve housing and commercial areas and to protect valuable environmental and historic resources will be essential to the implementation of the North District Plan. The North District Plan 02/25/15 The North District Past and Present ♦ Location ♦ History Conditions Constraints The North District Plan 02125115 LOCATION The North District encompasses approximately 1,850 acres of the northern portion of Iowa City. The Iowa River forms a meandering boundary around the western half of the District. Interstate 80 defines much of the northern boundary; and Dodge Street runs diagonally along the southeast side of the District. Running north and south, Dubuque Street divides the North District roughly in half. Both Dubuque and Dodge Streets serve as major gateways into Iowa City, providing access from the center of town to Interstate 80 and points beyond. Prairie du Chien Road is the other major north -south artery within the neighborhood while Foster Road, Ridge RoadNVhiting Avenue, and Kimball Road provide limited east -west routes. (location map) The North District Plan 02/25/15 The North District North District Planning Principles ♦ Housing ♦ Commercial and Institutional Uses ♦ Transportation ♦ Public Services and Facilities ♦ Parks and Open Space The North District Plan 02/25/15 9 NORTH DISTRICT PLANNING PRINCIPLES After examining existing conditions in the North District and identifying what is most valued and what needs improvement, a set of planning principles was generated to guide future development. Once adopted, future development in the North District should conform to these principles. The North District planning principles are intended to support and complement the goals and strategies of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan. HOUSING — Maintain and enhance existing housing while providing opportunities for new housing development that complements existing neighborhoods, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and is affordable to people of all incomes and ages. �Hausing in a vital, energetic city builds a community of ❑ Retain the predominantly single- I neighborhoods thatprovides safe, attractive andaffordable family residential character of housing for a// its residents. A well-plannedneighborhood eXISYIng neighborhoods. welcomes all people and includes both owner -occupied and rental, single-family and multi -family housing. - Iowa City Comprehensive Plan ❑ Encourage clustered, conservation - -- -- ---- - -- -- -- -- - - design housing development near environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ Locate medium -density housing, including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments in areas with good access to arterial streets, near major intersections & close to neighborhood commercial areas. ❑ Encourage the redevelopment or improvement of housing that is not in good condition. COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES — Enhance commercial diversity and activity by encouraging a business mix that provides goods and services to satisfy neighborhood needs. ❑ Focus commercial activity in existing nodes along major arterial streets. ❑ Encourage commercial and institutional site design that is sensitive to adjacent residential areas. ❑ Discourage strip commercial development. ❑ Encourage neighborhood -serving uses such as daycare, religious and other community service institutions that serve the neighborhood. TRANSPORTATION— Improve the street system to increase safety and accessibility for all modes of transportation, including automobiles, transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The North District Plan 02/25/15 10 ❑ Extend and improve streets and roads to address traffic issues. ❑ Upgrade existing streets to address Ime-qua lityoflifeforresidentsof -Iowa lityis-and safety issues; add traffic signals at I will continue to be enhanced bya balanced, multi - key Intersections. modal system for the transportationof people. Iowa City Comprehensive Plan ❑ Improve pedestrian crossings. ❑ Install sidewalks and connecting trails that will enhance the pedestrian/bicycle network within the district. ❑ Plan, design, and implement entranceway enhancements along Dubuque Street and Dodge Street/Highway 1. ❑ Extend transit service to adequately serve new residential development. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES— Improve public facilities and services to meet the present and future needs of North District residents. ❑ Identify and explore options for connecting properties that are not currently served with municipal sanitary sewer service. ❑ Investigate the possibility of installing a sanitary sewer lift station north of Interstate 80. ❑ Consider building a fourth fire station in the northeast area of the City to keep emergency response times low. ❑ Explore options for the development of a welcome center along Dubuque Street. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE - Provide for new parks, trails, and open space to meet the present and future needs of area residents, with an emphasis on protecting and enhancing the District's unique natural areas. j Environmental protection is a basic tenet of Iowa City'r vision 1 for the future. As growth ond development occur, they should ❑ Protect sensitive environmental I be managed such that the environmental quality of the features. community is not sacrificed. Iowa City Comprehensive Plan ❑ Provide a central, active neighborhood park in the area east of Dubuque Street. ❑ Create pedestrian links from North District neighborhoods to City Park, Hickory Hill Park and Shimek School. ❑ Retain and enhance the open space buffer between Interstate 80 and residential development. The North District Plan 02/25/15 11 extended east from Dubuque Street to Prairie du Chien Road, it will be designed and will function as an arterial street. Between 2003 and 2006, Interstate 80 will be reconstructed to eight lanes between the Dubuque Street interchange in Iowa City and the First Avenue interchange in Coralville, and to six lanes east of the Dubuque Street interchange to Highway 1. Iowa City and Coralville are applying for State transportation enhancement funds for a beautification project along 1-80 to improve the natural vegetation along the interstate and provide more attractive median barriers. Dodge Street/Highway 1 is scheduled for reconstruction in 2003 between Governor Street and Interstate 80. To improve the function and safety of this arterial street, the upgrade to either three or four lanes will also include the construction of sidewalks on both sides of the street including an eight -foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the street, the reconstruction of the Dodge Street/Prairie du Chien intersection and the installation of traffic signals at that intersection. The intersection of Dodge Street with Conklin Lane and Dubuque Road will also be realigned and reconstructed. These improvements should allow for safer turning movements for traffic in the corridor, as well as improved accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. North of Iowa City in Johnson County, Prairie du Chien Road has been reconstructed with slightly wider pavement, paved shoulders for bike lanes and more moderate curves. Except for the reconstruction of the Prairie du Chien Road intersection with Dodge Street and its signalization, there are no other plans at this time to modify Prairie du Chien within Iowa City. Dubuque Street is an arterial street entranceway to Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus. Landscaped parks along the riverbanks (Terrell Mill Park & City Park) enhance the view of the Iowa River from Dubuque Street. The residential, non- commercial character of the area creates a pleasant gateway setting. The Foster Road/ Dubuque Street intersection will be reconstructed and signalized in the future. Flooding of sections of Dubuque Street following heavy rains or snow melts sometimes can create traffic hazards and emergency access concerns. Elevation of flood -prone portions of Dubuque Street would be costly, but may be deemed necessary in the future to address these concerns. Any upgrade of Taft Speedway, a local street that intersects with Dubuque Street, will need to balance the floodproofing/vehicular access improvements to the road with the concerns residents have about a raised road and the impact it may have on existing residences along the river. The North District Plan 02/25/15 16 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections A system of pedestrian/bicycle trails that connects schools, parks, bus stops and commercial areas is also important to the livability of neighborhoods. Potential locations for trails are along stream corridors, utility easements and public rights-of- way. A segment of Iowa City's longest, most established trail, the Iowa River Corridor (IRC) trail, runs through the North District. The IRC trail is in place along the west side of Dubuque Street in Terrell Mill Park. Future extensions of this regional trail are planned along the south side of Foster Road into the peninsula area and north of 1-80 on the water plant site. In the future, the IRC trail will connect to the trail along North Dubuque Street (County Road W66) to provide a continuous trail system from Iowa City to the Coralville Reservoir. The Williams Pipeline easement, which runs through the north portion of the district, also provides a potential route for a regional trail connection. Other potential trail connections that will enhance pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and are depicted on the North District Plan Map include: ♦ A trail connection from Shimek School north to the future Foster Road extension. ♦ A trail from Whiting Avenue to the Mayflower Residence Hall and Dubuque Street; ♦ A trail along the south side of Dubuque Road; ♦ A trail along the Iowa River on the south side of the Elk's golf course; ♦ Pedestrian bridges over the Iowa River at Park Road or Crandic Park, Terrell Mill Park and the site of the Iowa River Power Dam; ♦ A potential University project to build a pedestrian bridge over Dubuque Street between Mayflower residence hall and Terrell Mill Park. It is also City policy to provide wide sidewalks along one side of the City's arterial streets in order to create additional bicycle and pedestrian connections. Much of Foster Road west of Dubuque Street includes an eight -foot sidewalk. Similar sidewalks will be built when Dodge Street is reconstructed in 2003 and will be included in the design when Foster Road east of Dubuque Street is constructed and as Dubuque Street is upgraded. Entranceway Corridors Dubuque Street and Dodge Street (Highway 1) are two of the main entranceway corridors into Iowa City. Based on input received at the neighborhood workshops, there is a lot of support for maintaining and enhancing the appearance of the entranceways into Iowa City. It is also a policy in the Comprehensive Plan to create and maintain attractive entrances to Iowa City. Dubuque Street has long been recognized for its scenic character, views of the Iowa River, and woodlands and open space transitioning into the Northside neighborhood The North District Plan 02/25/15 18 NORTH DISTRICT PLAN MAP Citizen planning teams were asked to put the district planning principles into action by illustrating them on maps of the District. City planners analyzed, combined and synthesized these efforts into a District Plan Map. The North District Plan Map is located at the end of the document and folds out for a larger scale view of the district. For comparison purposes a map of the existing land uses is located on the page facing the district plan map. The North District Plan Map is color -coded to indicate the type of land use or type of development intended for specific areas of the District. The trees represent the general location of existing woodlands.' The large numbers on the map indicate areas that are likely to redevelop or that are of particular significance to the neighborhood. These areas are described in more detail in the numbered sections that follow. In addition, future road extensions and possible new street configurations are illustrated using dashed lines. The red lines indicate existing and future trails. planned at the intersections marked with the stop light symbol. New traffic signals are ' For a more accurate illustration of the North District's sensitive environmental, archaeological, and historical areas, refer to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory Map located in the Department of Planning and Community Development, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City. The North District Plan 02/25/15 24 F3—]Future Development along Foster Road/Laura Drive This privately owned area of the peninsula is bordered on the north by 1-80, on the east by Laura Drive and on the west by the Iowa River. It contains heavily wooded areas, steep ravines, the gas pipeline easement, and a few open fields. A mobile home park and several apartment buildings are located adjacent to the 1-80 interchange and Laura Drive. Development of this area has been limited due to the lack of adequate streets, water and sewer service. This situation will be alleviated to some extent with the upgrade of Foster Road and the extension of Laura Drive west and then south along Am Lane to reconnect to Foster Road. The extension of water and sewer lines through this area also makes development and redevelopment of this property more feasible. As infrastructure is improved in this area, there may be market pressure to redevelop some of the existing properties, particularly the Forest View Mobile Home Park. If the mobile home park redevelops in the future, consideration should be given to securing relocation assistance for the current residents of the park. As infrastructure improvements open up this area for new development, protection of environmentally sensitive areas will become more of a concern. This area can continue to accommodate existing affordable housing options and provide opportunities for new single family homes, apartments, townhouses, and condominiums if they are clustered along the extension of Laura Drive and Foster Road. Promoting conservation design by clustering development away from heavily wooded areas and ravines will protect wildlife corridors, preserve the tree canopy in the area, prevent erosion of steep slopes, and reduce stormwater run-off. The Plan Map illustrates one possible neighborhood design that would be appropriate in this area. The scenario shows development clustered away from the wooded ravines with a connected street system in the flatter areas that exist just west of Am Lane and the extended Laura Drive. Unlike areas of the North District located east of Dubuque, the Williams Pipeline Easement does not run directly south of the interstate in this area and therefore is not as useful as a buffer between the interstate and residential development. Therefore, preserving and enhancing a wooded open space buffer between residential development and Interstate 80 should also be a key element of any future plans to develop or upgrade housing in this area. The North District Plan 02/25/15 27 ' °I �•� - -- _ �i• moo`:....- � ✓� y,••' k 7 _ y fl� ■ I T 1 f -4'vg 1 Ix mer r - r mj CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4 ®.35& 1ViEMORANDuQr M Date: October 27, 2016 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Downtown Development Discussion At your last City Council meeting you agreed to further the ongoing discussion on downtown development at your November 151 work session. Specifically, there was interest in exploring the Mayor's recent proposal for a special work session on the topic. This memo is intended to help you frame the issue(s) and determine an appropriate path forward. First, it is critical that the City Council clearly define the issue in as narrow of a manner as practical. Your ability to narrowly define any real or perceived disconnect on future downtown development will allow you to select a process that is best suited to address that particular issue. It will also give stakeholders in the discussion, including the general public, clear insight into the issue(s) open for discussion. For example, if the City Council determines that building height is the chief issue of concern, then the ensuing discussion and process can be narrowly tailored to address that particular issue (i.e. zoning code amendment). Contrarily, the inability to identify the specific issue(s) may lead the City Council to choose a broader path requiring significantly more time and community involvement (i.e. comprehensive plan amendment or form -based code development). At your last work session I mentioned four paths forward. After further internal discussions I have added a fifth option as well. Commentary on those five options is provided below: 1. Take no further action: The comprehensive plan is a guide, not a regulatory document. Such plans typically contain a multitude of goals and objectives and purposefully contain language that suggests aspiration toward those elements. It is not uncommon that projects that proceed forward in the community only meet some, not all, elements of the plan. Similarly, it is not uncommon to find that some existing zoning regulations may unintentionally work against specific goals and objectives of comprehensive plans. This should not necessarily be interpreted as a failure of the plan or the underlying zoning code. When comprehensive plans and zoning codes are as detailed and complex as they are in Iowa City, there are bound to be discrepancies and unique considerations that come up with individual development projects. The City Council has the authority and responsibility to take such discrepancies and unique circumstances into consideration when making land use decisions. The City Attorney has provided you a memo reviewing the law in Iowa regarding comprehensive plans. 2. Amend economic development polices: Due to complexities in our zoning code and the economics of urban infill, it is rare that redevelopment projects in downtown move forward without some consideration by the City Council. Considerations can come in the form of tax increment financing, tax credit support, public land, code amendments, etcetera. Looking back at recent history, the exception to this rule appears to be mid -rise student housing developments. With this reality in mind there is arguably little risk that large scale downtown redevelopment can take place without the City Council having some type of approval authority in the legislative process. If the Council is uncomfortable with a development proposal there will likely be an opportunity to reshape that project before it can move forward. October 27, 2016 Page 2 If Council chooses this path, it may be wise to express your collective position on certain elements of the comprehensive plan that you feel particularly strong about and build those positions into your economic development incentive policies. Recent efforts by the Council's Economic Development Committee to obtain feedback from various stakeholders may provide useful information and/or the Council could choose to engage specific downtown stakeholders prior to revising the policies. 3. Amend the CB -10 Zoning Code: The CB -10 zoning code was developed prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan for the downtown area. If the City Council believes that the CB -10 zoning classification produces undesirable development characteristics, it can initiate a code amendment to attempt to address those issues. Text amendments to the zoning code are not uncommon and are often pursued to address negative unintended consequences of the existing code, incentivize desirable development characteristics, or pave the way for projects that are desired yet unable to proceed under the current zoning code. The Council should be aware that protest petitions are allowed when pursuing zoning code text amendments, and could trigger a super majority vote requirement to approve the amendment. 4. Initiate a form -based code: The comprehensive plan recommends that the City pursue a form -based code for the downtown area. When the city pursued the RFC form based code we purposefully made a decision to exclude the downtown area recognizing it would benefit from a separate and targeted public involvement process, and knowing that the code will likely need to be different in many respects given the historical and built -out characteristics of the downtown compared to more of a large-scale redevelopment area such as the RFC district. This option is best suited to address a multitude of concerns as it would include a robust public input process and develop a brand new zoning code replacing the CB zoning classifications. If this option is selected, staff would recommend that we postpone one of the previously discussed form -based code initiatives (south district or northside). 5. Amend the Comprehensive Plan: An amendment to the comprehensive plan could more clearly signal the City Council's goals and priorities for the downtown development. However, because the plan is not regulatory and the downtown is already zoned with CB classifications the practical impact of this option may be negligible. The City Council can initiate a comprehensive plan amendment and follow the prescribed process set forth in the City Code. However, it is customary when doing comprehensive plan amendments / updates of significant interest that a dedicated planning process would be followed. This process would not only target stakeholders but also provide anyone from the public the opportunity to participate. In conclusion, the first step toward moving forward is clearly defining the issues that the City Council is interested in addressing. In past discussions this has been referred to as the 'shared problem'. Once defined the path forward should become more clear. When moving to select a process the Council will need to weigh several variables ranging from community input expectations to the practical outcomes that those processes will produce. Staff is ready to help facilitate your discussion, clarify issues and help work through whatever process you choose. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 27, 2016 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City AttorneY Re: Downtown Development Discussion - Comprehensive Plans in Iowa In considering how you wish to move forward with the above, an understanding of the law in Iowa regarding comprehensive plans and the relationship between the plan and the City Council's zoning authority is essential. The City's comprehensive plan is a statement of the community's goals, policies, aspirations. The Iowa Code requires that the City Council exercise its zoning authority "in accordance with" its adopted comprehensive plan. Iowa Code Section 414.3 (2015). Zoning is a means of regulating land uses in furtherance of the comprehensive plan goals. The comprehensive plan requirement is intended to ensure that local governments act rationally rather than arbitrarily in exercising their delegated zoning authority. Webb v. Giltner, 468 N.W.2d 838, 840 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). The Iowa Supreme Court has opined on the meaning of the comprehensive plan on a number of occasions in considering challenges to land use decisions. A comprehensive plan must be considered in its entirety. W&G McKinney Farms L.P. v. Dallas County Board of Adjustment, 674 N.W.2d 99, 105 (Iowa 2004). "[S]trict adherence to certain statements made in the plan could actually negate other goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan." Id. The purpose of the plan is "to guide zoning officials in harmonizing competing land uses", and therefore, strict application "would undermine their very purpose". Ackman v. Black Hawk County Bd. Of Adjustment, 596 N.W.2d 96, 103-04 (Iowa 1999); see also Anhalt v. Bremer County Bd. Of Supervisors, No. 9-443 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2009) (upholding denial of application for rezoning, and rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the comprehensive plan was violated because there were multiple factors for consideration and plaintiffs focused on selective language in the comprehensive plan). The Court's decisions about the purpose of a comprehensive plan are consistent with the breadth of the Council's zoning authority under Iowa law. "The governing body of a city, the council, may amend its zoning ordinances at any time it deems circumstances justify such action, and such an amendment is valid if statutory procedural requirements are followed, and the amendment is not unreasonable or capricious, nor inconsistent with the spirit of the zoning statute." Kane v. City Council of City of Cedar Rapids, 537 N.W.2d 718, 721 (Iowa 1995). "There is a strong presumption of legality when reviewing city zoning ordinances, and if the validity of the classification for zoning purposes is fairly debatable, the council's judgment must be allowed to control." Id. "[C]ourts reviewing zoning amendments should not substitute their judgment as to the wisdom or propriety of the municipality's action when the reasonableness of the amendments is fairly debatable." Neuzil v. City of Iowa City, 451 N.W.2d 159, 166 (Iowa 1990). These principles were recently applied by the Iowa District Court in Johnson County in holding that the City Council's conditional rezoning of the Chauncey to CB -10 was consistent with the comprehensive plan and within the Council's zoning authority. I raise this as an example of the application of these principles to a building in Iowa City that most are familiar with. In that decision, the court stated: October 27, 2016 Page 2 When the entire Comprehensive Plan is read as one document, it is clear that, in enacting the conditional CB -10 zoning, Defendant acted in accordance with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals applying to the area where the subject property is located included higher -density, walkable housing; economic development; sustainability; and the prioritizing of a strong and accessible downtown area that is pedestrian -oriented and has a strong and distinctive cultural, commercial, and residential character. The Court finds nothing in Defendant's decision to enact CB -10 zoning for the subject property that is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or lacking substantial evidence in the record, particularly where the conditional CB -10 rezoning supports the goals found at pages 79-82 of the Return to Writ. [portions of the record referring to the comprehensive plan] Ruling On Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Iowa District Court in and for Johnson County No.CVCV077386 (October 22, 2015)) The plan is a guideline and must be considered in its entirety. It is full of many "shoulds" and does not have the force of law. While zoning laws must be "in accordance with" the comprehensive plan, those laws can be enacted only after a public hearing, three ordinance readings and the opportunity for protest. Council is not compelled to adopt any particular zoning ordinance, regardless of the goals set forth in a comprehensive plan. For example, the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan states that "ultimately the City should pursue the creation of a form -based Code to regulate all downtown development" While the Council may ultimately decide to do so, the plan would not prevent the Council from choosing, instead, to make specific amendments to the CB -10 zone in furtherance of the plan as read in its entirety. Similarly, if the Council chose to pursue a form based code and the height requirement of any particular corner or block face was shorter or taller than those shown on the map contained on page 106 of the plan but was "in accordance" with the comprehensive plan when read in its entirety, such a code would be a lawful exercise of the City Council's zoning authority. CC: Geoff Fruin, City Manager r ITY CITY OF IOWA C MEMORANDUM Date: October 26, 2016 To: p,�eoff Fruin, City Manager From. Oc/ Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator Re: Advancing strategic plan climate goals Background: The City Council identified two significant climate goals in the most recent strategic plan: 1) Set a substantive and achievable goal for reducing city-wide carbon emissions by 2030 and 2) create an ad-hoc climate change task force. These goals align with the Compact of Mayors' requirements, which include setting a target reduction goal and creating a community -wide climate action plan. Iowa City Climate Efforts: Iowa City has been tracking community -wide emissions for several years, but a formal target to reduce emissions has never been adopted by Council. Data from past inventories show that emissions are produced by several sectors within the community; residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, the University of Iowa power plant, wastewater and landfill waste. To reduce emissions, representatives from some or all of these sectors need to be included in the conversation to have buy -in and cooperation for this effort to be effective. Because reductions are voluntary, collaboration with stakeholders in these sectors will be important for successful climate action planning for Iowa City. Setting a goal for reducing city-wide greenhouse gas emissions Although the strategic plan aims for an emissions reduction goal for 2030, the U.S. recently adopted a target to reduce emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 as a result of the Paris Climate Agreement. Iowa City does not have an inventory for the year 2005, but that baseline can be calculated. This is a fairly aggressive reduction goal, but this it is both current and scientifically accepted, whereas in the past, most cities have a locally chosen a reduction percentage. Creating a Climate Task Force and Climate Action Planning of Options A climate change task force (or steering committee) made of up community stakeholders can be an effective method to a begin planning actions and strategies to reduce Iowa City's emissions. Stakeholders who are key leaders in the community can be invited to convene to begin defining strategies which are actionable, cost effective and have measurable emissions reductions. October 27, 2016 Page 2 Technical expertise will be also be needed to calculate the data on energy, emissions, and costs to reach the set target. Two options are discussed to coordinate the task force and the technical groups: 1) Hire a facilitator: Earlier this year, staff suggested a process that was similar in nature to the recently utilized ad-hoc Senior Center Committee or ad-hoc Diversity Committee. In these processes the Council appointed a group of community representatives to study an issue and offer recommendations. We further recommended a facilitator be hired to guide the process and relieve staff of some of the administrative work such as scheduling, minute taking and coordination of communications and logistical details that emerge. The facilitator could also assist staff in collaborating with local experts from University of Iowa and within the community on technical issues. The facilitator would have experience with the process of community planning, but not necessarily extensive subject matter expertise. Collaboration with the University of Iowa could help could help produce some of the technical expertise, but students and/or classes would be limited in experience for this comprehensive task. Students may be very useful in assisting with data collection or with calculations for energy and emissions reductions with guidance from faculty. The amount of $25,000 is in this year's budget for this purpose of hiring a facilitator and the scope for the rip has been drafted. 2) Hire a consultant: Hiring a consultant experienced with climate action planning would provide added expertise in completing the community -wide plan. Estimates for this type of consultant costs for cities range from $50,000 to $75,000. The City would be able to specify that this work will involve working with a Council appointed task force and with key stakeholders who will have input in the planning process. The University of Iowa Engineering Department has verbally agreed to work with the City in the area of technical assistance, primarily through student work with facility oversight (for either option). Although this approach would cost more, further research into other cities' processes have led us to determine that this is the most common route when approaching local climate action planning. With the complexity of the issue, numerous levels of input from the community and the U.S. recommended target, hiring someone with experience appears that it would have the most successful overall outcome to reach the Councils goals and ensure that the strategy which is adopted can produce the desired results and guide the community over a longer period of time. October 27, 2016 Page 3 Recommendations: Staff recommends the Council adopt the national standard 26-26% reduction target by 2025. It is also recommends that we change course from our previously recommended position and hire a consultant with the expertise in working with communities to create climate action plans. An RFP for a consultant can be put out as soon as possible so hiring could be in place in early 2017. Example RFPS are available from other communities who have recently undertaken this effort. During the RFP process, staff can pull together the necessary baseline data and complete other Compact of Mayors requirements (a 2015 ghg inventory) that are due in December. Staff can also assist with recommendations for selecting stakeholders for the climate task force and draft a mission and description of the work to be undertaken, if the Council approves. If the Council would like to involve an undergraduate class or graduate student from the College of Engineering, arrangements could be made so that these can be in place by the time a consultant begins. In both options, collaboration with the University would require aligning with the University schedule. Cc: Doug Boothroy, Neighborhood and Development Services Director I ® CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P7 r'„Z"'�'rg� MEMORANDUM Date: October 27, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Food truck regulations and background Introduction: At the October 18, 2016 City Council meeting, Council discussed a proposal from the Iowa City Mobile Vending Association for a pilot project designed to evaluate potential changes to the current food truck ordinance. The proposal appeared in the October 18 Council agenda packet. Council requested that staff provide a summary of current regulations and the process that was used to develop them. Council also requested information on the number of downtown restaurants that serve food after 10:00pm. A summary of this information is provided below and copies of staff correspondence from previous years' discussions are also attached for additional detail. This discussion is scheduled to be continued at the November 1, 2016 City Council work session. Background: The current framework for food truck operations permit food truck vending from parking areas on city streets. Vendors are restricted from operating in the downtown zone, residential areas, and within 150 feet of a restaurant. Operations must currently be within the hours of 7:00am and 9:00pm. The proposed pilot program would allow food trucks to operate within the downtown zone and operate during the hours of 10:00pm and 3:00am. The Iowa City Downtown District provided information regarding the number of downtown restaurants with kitchens open after 10:00pm. There are thirty-five restaurants and five mobile food carts with varying closing times. A list of restaurants and closing times is attached. Note that food trucks are regulated separately from the five food cart vendors permitted on City Plaza. 2014 Pilot Project In 2014, City Council expressed an interest in examining changes to City Code that would promote greater opportunities for food trucks. Staff designed a food truck pilot project in cooperation with the Mobile Vending Association of Iowa City. This pilot was conducted during the summer of 2014. Outside of City Plaza vendors, farmers markets, and special events, mobile vending from public streets was generally prohibited prior to 2014. Mobile vending from private property using a temporary use permit is commonly used by food vendors. October 27, 2016 Page 2 Three vending locations for the pilot were chosen gauge demand in various areas: Chauncey Swan Park, Lower City Park, and Eastside Recycling Center. Flooding during 2014 made the Lower City Park location infeasible and demand was not present for the Eastside Recycling Center location. Thus, the pilot was carried out at Chauncey Swan Park. Of the five mobile vendors whose applications were accepted, one vendor never started, two vendors stopped midway through the program, and two continued to operate with moderate success. The primary concern expressed by the vendors was the lack of visibility of the Chauncey Swan location. Development of the Current Ordinance The current regulatory framework was developed through a review of peer city ordinances, a National League of Cities (NLC) report on mobile food vending, and the experience gained through our local pilot program. The review of the processes in other municipalities indicated a common set of issues that regulations attempt to balance. These include: economic development, both in terms of supporting new business models and recognizing the significant investments existing restaurants and vendors have made in their businesses; public health and sanitation, especially trash, littering, and food waste concerns; and public safety, including requirements for where and how customer lines queue. Information regarding the NLC report and other cities' regulations are included in the attached correspondence. Discussion of Solutions: The proposed pilot program will require an amendment to City Code. This topic generates a significant amount of public interest; a considerable amount of community input from the public and stakeholders should be expected. A robust dialogue between current and prospective vendors, brick and mortar businesses, and the general public will help inform the code revisions being considered. It stands to reason that if Council wishes to create a pilot program, the program would be most informative if conducted during 2017. In order to effectively gauge the outcomes of a late night pilot, the University should be in session and the weather should be conducive to outdoor dining. With expedited action and Council's current meeting schedule, the soonest a code change could be approved is December 6, which would provide two opportunities for public comment. This is shortly before the University's winter break and at a time when the weather is turning colder. It seems as though a pilot beginning in early December would come at a time of the lowest demand and would be of limited usefulness in gauging outcomes of the pilot. 0_1 _$ CITY OF IOWA CITY '==� MEMORANDUM Date: May 12, 2014 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager Re: Proposal for Food Truck / Cart Pilot Program IP3 Over the last several years, mobile food vending operations have become increasingly popular throughout the country. As this growth has taken place, cities across the country have debated changes to local regulations that govern the time, place and manner in which such mobile food businesses can operate. The range of actions taken by cities has varied considerably. Some cities have aggressively adopted mobile vending friendly ordinances that permit such operations in public parking spaces, surface parking lots, vacant property, parks or other public spaces. Other cities have taken steps to restrict such operations based on concerns from existing brick and mortar restaurants. Numerous other cities have attempted to find a middle ground that balances concerns with the desire to accommodate a growing entrepreneurial trend in the food service industry. Iowa City currently has three-year agreements with six mobile vendors that are permitted to sell food in the Pedestrian Mall. Over the last decade, there have been several changes to the regulations governing mobile vendors, and there remains considerable debate among some in the community on whether the current process serves the downtown community well. Outside of the Pedestrian Mall, mobile vending opportunities in Iowa City are very limited. Generally, speaking mobile vending in public streets or other public property is not permitted. Exceptions do exist for special events and for certain circumstances in public parks. Mobile vending can be permitted on private property through a temporary use permit. Historically there have been numerous mobile food vendors that have used a temporary use permit to legally vend from private property. The City Council recently expressed an interest to examine changes to current regulations that would promote greater opportunities for mobile food vendors. In preparing for this discussion, I read numerous ordinances and attempted to learn from the debates surrounding this issue in various communities. I have quickly realized that this issue tends to generate very localized debates. For example, in some cases mobile vending is seen as a way bolster economic development efforts and inject more street life into commercial districts. Contrarily, other communities have seen such operations as a threat to the brick and mortar restaurants that invest substantial resources into the community through property taxes. In other words, while there may be some commonalties 1 I t =-- -4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM in approaches, there is no one solution that can be viewed as an ideal fit for Iowa City. With this in mind, 1 am hesitant to open a discussion on long-term policy changes without a greater understanding of how the communityvalues such opportunities in a variety of different contexts. I am recommending that the City initiate a mobile vending / food truck pilot in 2014. 1 believe a pilot program can provide valuable insight that will ultimately better Inform long-term policy decisions. In cooperation with the newly formed Mobile Vending Association of Iowa City, staff has prepared a rough outline for a pilot project. To be fair, it is my understanding that the Mobile Vending Association of Iowa City is new organization that only has a handful of members. Other input on this pilot project has not been sought from other vendors, including those that have agreements with the City. Similarly, staff has not actively sought input from other community stakeholders, such as existing restaurateurs. However, given the limited duration of the pilot, the open nature of vendor application process, and the fact the primary purpose is to gather information, I am comfortable proceeding in a fairly quick manner in order to take advantage of the wanner months in 2014 and leave open the possibility for policy solutions to be considered in advance of the spring of 2015. The proposed pilot project consists of the following elements. Staff requests that we still maintain flexibility with these provisions as certain aspects may need to change as we proceed with planning and implementation. 1. Chauncey Swan Park • Goal: Test a location in close proximity to the downtown where multiple vendors may coexist. • Operations: Thursdays 11-4, Fridays 11-7 from July 10 through the end of October. • Maximum of three food trucks and two mobile vendors to be selected by a lottery. Eligible operators must meet minimum requirements (existing operator, insurance, health department permit, etc,). Existing brick and mortar businesses located within Iowa City will receive a preference during the selection process. • Permit cost is $15/day, paid upfront in total by the selected vendors. The proposed fee is comparable to the daily rate at the Farmer's Market. Revenue from the program will go toward a beautification effort downtown. • Vendors must be self-contained (no public electricity provided) and will be responsible for removal of all trash from the site. 2 = -1 CITY OF IOWA CITY r-� MEMORANDUM • City can revoke Individual permits or cancel the program at anytime for any reason and will pro -rate permit fees back to the vendor(s) 2. City Park (near children's rides) • Goal: Test mobile vending as an added amenity to City operations • Operations: Saturday and Sundays 11-8 while rides are being operated • Maximum of two mobile vendors with selection made by the Parks and Recreation Department. Operators must meet minimum requirements (existing operator, insurance, health department permit, etc,). Consideration of menu offerings may play a role in selection. For example, vendors with healthy food operation may be given preference. • Permit cost is $15/day, paid upfront by the selected vendors. Reimbursements will be offered for days the rides are not open more than three hours. Revenue from the program will support park operations. • Vendors must be self-contained (no public electricity provided) and will be responsible for removal of all trash from the site. • City can revoke individual permits or cancel the program at any time for any reason and will pro -rate permit fees back to the vendor(s) 3. East Side Recycle Center • Goal: Test a 'destination location' that may help raise awareness and increase business to the City's recycling center and partner non-profit agencies. • Operations: To be determined but anticipated to be approximately four days throughout the pilot period • Maximum number of permits Is to be determined, but It is anticipated to be a larger gathering of vendors. Operators must meet minimum requirements (Existing operator, insurance, health department permit, etc,). • Permit Is $15/day, paid upfront by the selected vendors. No reimbursements offered unless event Is cancelled by the City. Revenue from the program will support East Side Recycle Center operations. • Vendors must be self-contained (no public electricity provided) and will be responsible for removal of all trash from the site. • City can revoke individual permits or cancel the program at any time for any reason. 3 ZZs.=.�r CITY OF IOWA CITY Z5,2:►�, MEMORANDUM I believe that these three different operating environments will each provide valuable insight that will help inform future policy discussions. If the City Council concurs, staff will begin to develop a more detailed framework and launch the selection process in June. A City Council resolution will be required in order to permit the staff to carry out the pilot project. That resolution will be ready for the June 3rd meeting if the City Council chooses to proceed. 4 �•�-r_A CITY OF IOWA CITc -►r d;E4 T MEMORANDUM Date: February 4, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Alec Bramel, Intern Re: Mobile Vending Regulations Introduction: Iowa City currently has an ordinance established for mobile food cart vendors to operate on the pedestrian mall. The ordinance allows no more than 6 (six) vendors to be licensed at one time. Vendors apply for City permits which are renewed every three years. Permits are issued once the vendors have met requirements including: proper cart size, selected vending location, adequate storage space, acquiring necessary health permits, payment of fees, and insuring that pedestrian traffic or the public right of way is not blocked. The next permit issuing period will end on April 30`", 2016; applications for vending permits will be solicited by the City of Iowa City in late 2015. In addition to the pedmall, mobile vendors are allowed to operate on private property through a temporary use permit. This is a 180 day (6 month) seasonal permit that is applied for by the vendor. Cost for the first season of operation is $75; subsequent cost is $25 per season. These permits most often run between April and October. At the request of local vendors, a mobile vending pilot program was set up in the spring of 2014. This pilot program accepted applications from 5 (five) local mobile vendors. This program gave the opportunity for these mobile vendors to establish their operations around Iowa City. Three locations were chosen for the mobile vendors to operate and these locations were open to all the mobile vendors. Lower City Park, the East Side Recycling Center, and the Chauncey Swan Park were chosen as pilot locations. This program was set up to determine if mobile vending operators could work successfully in Iowa City and what market environments yielded the most public interest or concern. Pilot Program Experience: Locations were chosen to determine the demand for these mobile vendors. Lower City Park was chosen to provide concession at the park and determine the demand at that location. East Side Recycling center was chosen as a destination location, to determine whether customers would seek out mobile vendors to patronize. The last location was Chauncey Swan Park, which was selected to determine mobile demand near the downtown area. Lower City Park saw no participation; however, the Park was closed during the beginning of the program due to flooding. There was no participation at the East Side Recycling Center location. Chauncey Swan Park was the only location that was utilized by mobile vendors. Of the five mobile vendors whose applications were accepted, one vendor never started, two vendors stopped midway through the program, and two continued to operate with moderate success. When the two remaining participants were asked whether or not they would participate in the same program again, the answer was no. The vendors wish to operate in other areas around the downtown, and be located in areas with higher visibility. A primary concern of the vendors was that their operations in Chauncey Swan Park were not easily visible from Gilbert. The vendors operated around the noon/ lunch hour, which is when they received the most business. February 4, 2015 Page 2 In addition to the vending in the park, mobile vendors also continued to participate in the farmer markets with success. In August, the City Council received a letter from Iowa City Downtown District Executive Director Nancy Bird expressing that the ICDD does not support modifications to the current mobile food programs. This is primarily due to the already high concentration of brick and mortar dining establishments in downtown. It was also noted that the six vendors currently vend on the pedmall, and that adding more mobile vendors anywhere downtown will take away from the tenant diversity in the downtown. The ICDD also stands behind the fact that brick and mortar establishments pay property taxes that help support government and community whereas mobile vendors pay substantially less in fees. Review of Local Ordinances: Research on this topic was pulled from many sources. I developed a list of cities that either were similar in size to Iowa City, or had drafted favorable ordinances for mobile food vendors. I looked into ordinances from cities such as Cedar Rapids, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Illinois, Colombia, Missouri, Madison, Wisconsin, Columbus, Ohio, and Knoxville, Tennessee among others. In addition to these city ordinances, further data was found in the National League of Cities (NLC) report titled "Food on Wheels: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream" (1135 10-23-14). This article provided a greater summary of information and recommendations for municipalities to utilize if faced with these impending discussions. The NLC reports focused on four main policy areas. These four policy areas are: 1. Public Space 3. Public Health 2. Economic Development 4. Public Safety 1. Iowa City's concerns are primarily with use of public space. This is usually the case with medium and large cities that host a thriving downtown with many successful brick and mortar restaurants. The first use of public space is the question regarding time limits for mobile vendors. The majority of test cities in the NLC article found that the majority of sample cities did not regulate time at all. Enforcement of time limits is a concern for law enforcement and administrators. Constant oversight is not feasible. The NLC recommends time limits of 4-5 hours at the least, with the most progressive choice being no operating time regulation. Currently, Iowa City does not have any operation time requirements or restriction for mobile food carts on the pedestrian mall. Proximity restrictions remain the foremost determination for cities regulating mobile vendors. The question is how far should mobile vendors operate from traditional brick and mortar establishments? The NLC found restrictions ranging from 50-600ft distance requirements. Durham, NC is the shortest at 50ft as is Bloomington, Indiana while New Orleans ranked as the longest distance at 60011. The NLC recommends a maximum of 200ft for distance to brick and mortar restaurants. Minneapolis allows mobile vendors to vend no closer than 100ft from a restaurant on the same block. In some cities, such as Bloomington, Illinois, mobile vending is restricted 15 feet from a real property line. In addition to proximity, many medium to large cities have a central downtown area. Determining what to do with food trucks in these dense downtowns is a challenge. The NLC report highlights a few of the options municipalities can choose from. The first option is to restrict food vendors from operating downtown completely. Draw up boundaries and allow food trucks to operate in areas outside of the downtown zone. This can be an incentive to food vendors to find demand in areas other than the downtown, and also to provide service to customers in areas distant from brick and mortar establishments. This was a tactic used by the February 4, 2015 Page 3 City of Denver, Colorado. Knoxville, Tennessee is currently using a mobile vending pilot program to determine how they will proceed with mobile vending regulation. Knoxville has restricted mobile food vendors from inside their central downtown area and instead issued them designated operating locations where they can vend. Other than a few complaints from citizens about reserved but empty parking spaces near the downtown, the program is going well. A second approach is simply to establish distance boundaries for mobile vendors that restrict mobile vendors from operating within a certain distance of a brick and mortar establishment. This would allow mobile vendors to operate freely so long as they remained a selected distance from another business of conflict. Operation based on distance is done in the majority of the cities studied in this report. This is done in Minneapolis, Bloomington, IL, Colombia, MO, Bloomington, IN, Chicago, Durham, New Orleans, and many others. Further regulations are in place for operation in these cities; however a distance requirement is common among all of them. A third option is to allow food trucks to operate in the downtown but only in spaces determined by the city. This would allow vendors to operate in the downtown area yet not directly interfere with the brick and mortar establishments in the heart of downtown. It is quite common for cities to have their traffic engineers, public works director, or parks and recreation director sign off on mobile vending locations. Cedar Rapids allows mobile vendors to submit locations of operation to the City, the traffic engineer's office then provides final approval to the vendor. In Minneapolis, the public works director approves vendor locations. A fourth option is deregulation, that is allowing mobile vendors to operate where they want and when they want, with limited regulation on operations. This will let the market demand for mobile food vendors determine when and where the vendors operate. Locating a parking space downtown would be a challenge in itself for mobile vendors, this along with 1 hour only meters in the downtown would be a large disincentive for mobile vendors. Mobile vendors would be required to adhere to all parking regulations and meter regulations; however where and when they operate would not be regulated. 2. With use of space comes the opportunity for the economic development of or the need for food vendors in areas of the city lacking them. Mobile vendors could provide a service to an area or neighborhood that does not have easy access to food vendors. It can also add vibrancy to neighborhoods, parks, or commercial districts that lack local food options. 3. Public health and public safety go hand in hand, while these aspects of mobile vending are important to Iowa City, the results of the pilot program demonstrated that sanitation and public health were top priorities for the participating mobile vendors. While our pilot programs were respectful and orderly concerning sanitation, it should be noted that future mobile vendors may not be. Requiring service logs, inspections, and respective county health permits, are a few examples of how a few municipalities standardize food safety with their mobile vendors. Many of these are present in the current mobile food cart administrative rules. 4. Public Safety is a crucial part of any regulatory rules that may be put in place. Many cities put sanitation regulations in place such as cleaning up waste and containment of grease and food production waste. Johnson county issues health safety permits to each mobile vendor which must be properly displayed. These operating and sanitation licenses are handled by Johnson County and determine food preparation and service requirements for vendors. In addition to food safety, public elements such as lighting and vending time could also be examined. Minneapolis only allows vending from 7 am to 10 pm. Colombia, Missouri allows vendors to operate between 6 am and 3am in metered spaces, and any other permitted area between 6 am and 11 pm. Madison has established a Late Night Vending (LNV) license; this allows vendors to operate between the hours of 9 pm and 4 am. This license is separate from a mobile vending license and the vending areas are determined by the City of Madison. Instituting a limited vending time may be used to ensure public safety and to keep vendors from operating in neighborhoods or other areas where safety or lighting may be minimal. February 4, 2015 Page 4 Recommendation: After consideration of the pilot program, review of ordinances in other cities, and taking into account the unique aspects of Iowa City, I have prepared recommendations for the council. Recommendations for mobile vendors are as follows. Staff recommends that mobile vendors operate no closer than 150ft from another brick and mortar/restaurant establishment. With the 150ft buffer in place, the impact effectively removes mobile vending from the downtown area. The Northside District will also be restricted near the intersection of Linn and Market Street as well due to the concentration of restaurants in the area. Removing Downtown and Northside will eliminate the hassle of tracking the shifting of business in and out of both areas. Mobile vendors that choose to operate from streets outside of the restricted areas and not within 150ft of a restaurant will be required to obey all traffic and parking regulations. Vendors shall vend to the side facing a sidewalk. A mobile vendor shall occupy no more than two (2) parking spaces. Angular parking may accommodate mobile vending vehicles so long as they vend facing toward the sidewalk and take no more than two (2) parking spaces. Vehicle operation and customer queues should not hinder vehicular or pedestrian traffic, nor should it interfere with the public right of way. Promising locations for mobile vendors include Jefferson Street and Clinton Street near the University dorms to the north of downtown and the Courthouse in River Front Crossings. A mobile vendor may be active from seven (7) am until nine (9) pm. Staff also recommends that no vending should take place after nine (9) at night. This is to maintain public safety at late hours and also to limit late night nuisances such as noise and litter. Currently there are no required hours of operation or time restrictions on mobile cart vendors on the pedestrian mall. Staff believes that mobile food vendors will need an exemption from the current one hour meter restriction, and has determined that a three (3) hour max is appropriate. A mobile vendor may vend from any metered parking space available, however they cannot operate in a one (1) or two (2) hour metered space for more than three (3) hours at a time. Mobile vendors have indicated that three (3) hours is sufficient for operation at a short term meter. This limit is February 4, 2015 Page 5 designed to provide parking turnover in short term metered areas. Metered spaces over two (2) hours can be utilized by a mobile vendor until the time limit is reached. Non -metered spaces have no time limits. Permitting fees will be similar to if not closely based on the fees paid by street cafes and food carts on the pedestrian mall. Permitting fees should be large enough to cover the administrative work entailed with permit application, but not so high as to dissuade entrepreneurs from entering the market. Vendors need to show proof of Johnson County Health Department compliance. There should be basic standards for all carts, vehicles, generators, trash clearance, and refuse. This recommendation would not replace the temporary use permit process or the downtown food cart permit process. While the proposed recommendation would not eliminate the current processes, it is plausible that the future of the pedestrian mall mobile vendors may be looked at for possible changes. It is conceivable that with an addition of mobile vendors in Iowa City, that the need or number of mobile vendors in the immediate downtown areas be reassessed. Providing a first right of refusal to brick and mortars may allow for greater opportunities for our downtown business to establish mobile vending of their own. Mobile vendors will continue to operate on private property with consent from the owner and the acquisition of a city issued temporary use permit. FOOD ON WHEELS: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream Ah Food on Wheels: Best Prockes for Integroting Food Trucks into City Life Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Additional Recommendations 25 Introduction 5 Conclusion 29 Economic Activity 7 About This Publication 31 Public Space 1 1 Appendix 33 Public Health 17 References 35 Public Safety 21 Food on Wheels. Best Practices for Wegroling Food Trucks into City Life Executive Summary Mobile food vending generates approximately $650 million in revenue annually.' The industry is pro- jected to account for approximately $2.7 billion in food revenue over the next five years, but unfortu- nately, most cities are legally ill-equipped to harness this expansion. Many city ordinances were written decades ago, with a different type of mobile food supplier in mind, like ice cream trucks, hot dog carts, sidewalk peddlers, and similar operators. Modern mobile vending is a substantial departure from the vending typically assumed in outdated local regulations. Vendors utilize large vehicles packed with high-tech cooking equipment and sanitation devices to provide sophisticated, safe food usually pre- pared to order. Increasingly, city leaders are recognizing that food trucks are here to stay. They also recognize that there is no "one size fits all" prescription for how to most effectively incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a community. With the intent of helping city leaders with this task, this guide examines the follow- ing questions: What policy options do local governments have to regulate food trucks? What is the best way to incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a city, taking into account the preferences of all stakeholders? Thirteen cities of varying size and geographic location were analyzed for this study. Information on vending regulations within each of these cities was collected and analyzed, and supplemented with semi -structured interviews with city staff and food tmck vendors. Based on recurring themes and commonalities, regulations are grouped into four policy areas: • Economic activity: this policy area provides insight into aspects of food truck regulation that could potentially enhance economic development, and looks at specific processes that can be barriers to market entry. Two areas of regulation that impact economic activity - streamlining and permit costs — are examined, with recommendations provided for each. • Public space: mobile vending takes place on both public and private property, but public property presents a unique set of challenges. With the rapid expansion of food trucks, there is increased demand for limited space, which increases the likelihood of conflicting interests and encroaches upon the ability of stakeholders to maximize the advantages that public space can offer. Time constraints, proximity rules, and geographic limitations related to density are exam- ined here, with recommendations provided for each. • Public health: this is one of the most basic concerns regarding mobile vending. All stakeholders realize the need for comprehensive regulations around sanitation and food safety. These issues should be addressed within a regulatory framework that is cost-efficient, thorough, and results in a streamlined process for all stakeholders. • Public safety: public safety is a key reason why many cities began regulating food trucks. Regu- lations examined here include private property, vending near schools, and pedestrian safety, with recommendations provided for each. Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City life All of the recommendations in this guide include regulatory best practices that are currently in place in the selected cities. "These best practices provide a balance of the concerns and interests of the four stakeholder groups identified in this report: (1) mobile vendors (this term is used interchangeably with `food truck throughout the guide) and food truck/industry associations, (2) restaurants and restaurant associations, (3) the community, and (4) city government. In addition, five overall recommendations for cities looking to update their regulations for mobile vending are also included: 1. Hold Town Hall Forams and Private Meetings with Core Stakeholders. 2. Encourage Dialogue and the Building of Relationships Among Competing Stakeholders. 3. Implement Pilot Programs to Determine What Regulations to Adopt. 4. Use Targeted Practices as aWay to Address Underserved Areas of the City. 5. Identify Private Vacant Lots and Create Partnerships for Mobile Vendors to Gather and Vend in the Same Location. The recommendations included here are intended to be flexible enough to accommodate different cir- cumstances, but logical enough to provide useful guidance to local leaders interested in integrating food trucks into city life for the benefit of both their residents and ousting businesses. Food on Wheels. Best Practices for Integrating Foots Trucks into City Life Introduction Mobile vending has grown considerably in recent years, generating approximately $650 million in revenue annually.' The rapid expansion of mobile vending, or food trucks, is attributed to residents' desire for quality, value, and speed; an appreciation for fresh, local food; and a preference for small and sustainable business. As such, mobile vending is also commonly used as a means to expand eco- nomic opportunity, and enrich communities by improving access to goods and produce not otherwise available through area merchants. The recent recession has also made food trucks an appealing option for hopeful restaurateurs, as they are an easier and more cost -friendly alternative to opening a brick and mortar restaurant. Many entrepreneurs have capitalized on the mobile vending industry, creating opportunities for self-sufficiency and upward mobility.' The mobile vending industry is on pace to quadruple its revenue stream over the next five years, but unfortunately, most cities are legally ill-equipped to harness this expansion. Many city ordinances were written decades ago, with a different type of mobile food supplier in mind, like ice cream trucks, hot dog carts, sidewalk peddlers, and similar operators. Modem mobile vending is a substantial departure from the vending typically assumed in outdated local regulations. Vendors utilize large vehicles packed with high-tech cooking equipment and sanita- tion devices to provide sophisticated, safe food usually prepared to order. Food trucks also take up a significant amount ofspace, require more safetyand health oversight, cater to a different customer than the aforementioned types of mobile vendors, and have a more challenging relationship with brick and mortar restaurants and other vendors. Advocates of stricter regulations generally assert that mobile vending congests sidewalks and streets, are unsanitary, and diminish urban quality of life. Regulations that currently impede mobile vending operations in U.S. cities commonly include public property bans, restricted zones, proximity bans, and duration restrictions. Supporters tend to argue that food trucks provide affordable, high quality food, rejuvenate public space, and fairly compete with size and open-air limitations. Cityofficials have to bal- ance these interests by regulating food and traffic safety without impeding the creativity and innovation of this popular market, but because the industry is so new, there are few examples of the best ways to amend existing provisions or adopt new laws. The purpose of this guide is to offer best practices and recommendations to city leaders about how they can most effectively take advantage of the benefits of food trucks, while balancing the need to regulate growth and account for the concerns of key stakeholders: food trucks, restaurants, residents, and city government. It includes an analysis of food truck policies and regulations, specifically as they relate to four policy areas: • Economic activity • public space • Public health • public safety Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life The guide also includes recommendations on mobile vending polity and regulatory devel- opment for cities of all sizes. Using this guide, local leaders will be able to better understand the policy options local governments have for regulating food trucks, and determine the best way to incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a city while taking into account the preferences of all stakeholders. Selection of Cities This guide analyzes mobile vending regulations across 13 cities, based on population density, presence of local food truck industry, and avail- ability of mobile vending regulations. Figure 1 shows the cities that are included in the guide. Very large cities like New York City and San Fran- cisco were not included on the basis that conclu- sions drawn from analyzing their regulations would not be generalizable to most other cities. Figure l: Selection of cities Cities (population density) wrrarr.p.w... t I � i � �, •ori Stakeholders and Stakeholder Values Stakeholders are identified as: 0 ) mobile vendors (this term is used interchangeably with food trucks here) and food truck/ industry associations, (2) restaurants and restaurant associo- tion, (3) the community at large, and (4) city government. For food truck vendors, it is assumed they would prefer an approach of looser regulations, dear, naaowly tailored laws, and streamlined procedures. For restaurants, it is assumed they favor stricter regulations that limit competition from food truck vendors. Ahhough values are likely to vary among different community groups, it is assumed that — in general — conn munity members hold quality of life concerns, including fear of negative spilovers (congestion, raise, pollution, etc.) as primory concerns, but also harbor a strong desire for community vbmnry. At the some time, community members generally pre fer more food options to fewer. For city government, balancing the interests of stakeholders is a key priority, but so is a desire for economic vibrancy and revitalization, administrative ease, effective enforcement through regulatory clarity, and option that are budget friendly and cost effective. LOW POPULATION DENSITY Durham, NC New Orleans, LA Indonapolis, IN Atlanta, GA Austin, TX MODERATE POPULATION DENSITY Cincinnati, OH Denver, CO Las Vegas, NV Portland, OR St. Louis, MO HIGH POPULATION DENSITY Oakland, CA Washington, DC Boston, MA Food on Wheels: Best Praclices for Inlegroling Food Trm6 We City Life Economic Activity This policy area provides insight into aspects of food truck regulation that could potentially enhance economic development, and specific processes that can be barriers to market entry. This section cov- ers two topics that impact economic activity - streamlining and cost of permits for food trucks - and explores how these issues impact the various stakeholder groups. Streamlining Regulations that dictate how centralized the mobile vending permitting process is tan greatly impact mobile vendors' level of access to a city's economic activity, as they determine how easy or difficult it is to gain permits and licenses. Stakeholder Cortcems For food trucks, one of the key objectives is to earn revenue. For brick and mortar restaurants, their goal is the same, and the level of competition food trucks create or are perceived to create can be of concern. For the community and city, creating opportunities for economic development is a key priority because it raises tax revenue, vibrancy, and creates a level of attractiveness for business and residents as well as for the city as a whole. Having a more centralized process for permitting generally allows vendors greater ease in entering the mobile vending arena by reducing the number of city departments they must interact with and receive Food m Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trades inb City Life approval from. Centralizing the process also reduces the number of intra -department communications. A streamlined process benefits both the mobile vendors and city staff directly, as it diminishes the amount of work for each. Although to be fair, it increases the level of work for whichever department is tasked with overseeing mobile vending permitting process. For the community, a centralized process is in their best interest as it helps to create more efficiency, a greater potential for economic development and ultimately, raise more revenue for the dry. Regulatory Trends The majority of the cities included here do not have a centralized permitting process in place; they use multiple city departments to permit and license various aspects of the mobile vending business. For instance, mobile vendors must apply for and receive a health permit that inspects the sanitation and food safety of a mobile vending vehicle, a traditional business license, and at times a rotting license and a safety permit. Although the number of permits and departments involved may vary, there is a trend of three to five departments and three to five permits that are typically involved in the permitting process for mobile vendors. Three cities use three departments, four use four or more. Only three cities have centralized the process into one city department for all city permits. Although these cities have centralized the part of the permitting process they control, there is still a need for a county health permit. Recommendation Malting the permitting process more streamlined has positive impacts on both mobile vendors and city staff. Austin and Cincinnati's streamlined permitting processes can be used as models by other cities looking to implement a more centralized mobile vending permitting process. Ausdnds comprehensive set of requirements can be found on the citys official government website, and contains everything the vendor needs, including: • Mobile Food Vendor Permit form, including the cost of the permit, • Checklist of additional permit requirements for mobile vendors (with exact descriptions of what is expected and who to contact if there are any questions), • Mobile Vending Unit Physical Inspection Checklist (includes 14 requirements ranging from a current license plate to the specifications of the sinks), • List of mobile food vendor responsibilities, including the signature of the certified food man- ager/food handler, the responsibilities of the central preparation facility (the commissary), and the restroom facility agreement. ° Austins webpage is dear and concise. It has detachable forms and blank spots for the necessary sig- natures, with instructions regarding who to contact to obtain those signatures, specifics about the actual schematics of the truck components required for food preparation and handling safety, and perhaps best of all, nowhere does it suggest the reader refer to a subsection of some code or statute not included in the document. As of January 2013, the Cincinnati Department of Health is solely responsible for the city's permitting process, application process, and payments associated with the city's mobile food vending.s This change was an effort to streamline the permitting process and give food truck owners a one-stop shop for all their licensing needs. Food on Wheels: Best Practices For Integrating Food Trucks inb City Life Cost of Permitting The actual cost of permitting plays a role in would-be mobile vendors' decision-making process about whether or not to start a business. One of the most basic barriers to entry for many potential entrepre- neurs is start-up costs, which include permitting fees. Stakeholder Concerns This issue impacts all stakeholder groups. On the vendor side, high permitting costs can serve as a bar- rier to entry. On the city government and community side, it can mean either an increase in revenue (from the actual permit) or a decrease in revenue (if cost deters some vendors from applying for a permit[s]). For mobile vendors, their self-interest is to keep the costs of permitting low so that there is an ease of entry into the market. For brick and mortar restaurants that believe mobile vendors are their competition, their interests he in keeping the costs high enough to keep the number of mobile vendors low. City staffwant to keep costs high enough to raise revenue, but low enough to keep the amount of mobile vendors growing. For the community, their interests are much the same as city staff - to find the balance between raising costs enough to maximize fees while not increasing them to the extent that they become a deterrent for mobile vendors. Regulatory Trends For the cities included in this guide, the cost of permitting fees ranged from $110 - $1,500 annually. Although the amount of permits required and the cost for each vary depending on the city, the majority of cities fall within either the $1504400 (five cities) or $1,000+ range (five cities). Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Recommendafion Permit fees should be high enough to generate revenue that off -sets at least some of the costs produced by the presence of food trucks, but not so high that they discourage potential business owners from entering the market. The actual amount is contextually determined, as budgets and administrative expenses vary depending on the city. Below are examples of permitting costs in three cities: • Durham: $75 for a yearly permit (not including health permit costs). • New Orleans: Annual mobile vending permit fee - $305.25, Occupational license - $150.00, Mayoralty permit - $100.25, Sales tax deposit - $50.00, and Identification card - $5.00, total- ing $610.50. • St. Louis: $500 mobile vending permit fee to the Director of Streets, a $200 licensing fee (and $20 for each employee) to the License Collector, and $1304310 (depending on type of food served) for a health permit to the Director of Health. 10 Food on WheelsBest Proctices for Integrating Food Trucks into City rife Public Space Mobile vending takes place on both public and private property, but public property presents a unique set of challenges. Flexible access can lead to over -utilization, which in turn can produce unwanted con- gestion, pollution, and conflicts between different stakeholders trying to use the space at the same time.' With the rapid expansion of the food truck scene, there is increased demand for limited space, which increases the likelihood of unwanted externalities and encroaches upon the ability of other stakeholders to maximize the advantages that public space can offer. In most cases, cities are tasked with managing this property, which includes balancing the needs of all interested parties, diminishing negative exter- nalities, and otherwise preserving the integrity of the space. They are also trying to find appropriate ways to address the higher demand. This section looks at three issues related to public space: time constraints, proximity rules, and geo- graphic limitations related to density. A variety of approaches are recommended for dealing with these issues that balance stakeholder needs and take into account context and other practicalities. Time Constraints One set of regulations that impacts the use of public space for mobile vendors is how much time food trucks are allowed to park and vend in one location. Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Tucks into City Life Stakeholder Concerns Shorter time limits translate to less time for vendors to sell in one spot, which favors competing stake- holders like restaurants, since less time means less competition. Time limitations have both advantages and disadvantages for members of the public - less time means fewer choices for consumers but it also means less congestion and more parking options. For the city, the issue is also a mixed bag. Longer time limits mean vendors are easier to track down, since they are in fewer spots throughout the day. At the same time, longer time limits have the potential to reduce patronage at area restaurants. Moderate time limits, such as four to five hours, are often be the preferred approach for cities, since they usually produce the most balanced results (from a stakeholder perspective). Regulatory Trends Most of the cities included in this guide favor moderate or less restrictive parking durations. Five cities have no time limits, while three currently have durations of 45 minutes or less. The rest have provisions of four or five hours. It is worth noting that cities with more restrictive limits often have lax enforce- ment of these regulations. Recommendations Time limits of four hours or longer are recommended. Vendors need approximately one hour to set-up and pack -up once they are done with selling. As a result, anything less than four hours leaves vendors with only one to two hours of actual vending time. Moreover, it is more difficult for city staff to crack food trucks for safety or health purposes when they are in several locations throughout the day. How- ever, an unlimited approach may not be feasible in denser regions, where restaurants and other estab- lished businesses, pedestrian traffic, and congestion are more significant factors. This four hour or more time limit is included in regulatory amendments and council suggestions of various cities, including Oakland and Durham. Oakland has a five hour time limit. Originally, the city had a two hour limit for one location. This left little time to actually sell food before having to move again. Vendors complained about the restric- tion, and were successful in getting it changed to five hours.' Originally, Durham bad a regulation on the books that required mobile vendors to move 60 feet every 15 minutes. The police did not enforce this provision because the number of trucks was not large enough to create much conflict with other stakeholders. As the number of trucks started to increase in 2010, push back began, particularly among restaurants that insisted the police enforce the 15 -minute rule. This prompted the city to consider amending the rules to mote effectively address modern vending. The Town Hall meetings on the topic were well attended, not only by key stakeholders but also by members of the public. Durham is a town with strong public support for small businesses, and regulations that would make vending easier were favored. In late 2012, the rules were amended, and included a repeal of the 15 -minute provision. No additional time constraints were adopted, and as a result, food tracks can vend in one location for an unlimited amount of time." Unlike Durham and Oakland, Atlanta's provision of 30 minutes in no more than two locations per day has not been successfully challenged. Since the 2013 NCAA Final Four basketball game, vending on public property is completely prohibited. Before this, vending in public space was very limited, based on history that daces back to the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta and the more recent contracting F Food on Wheels: Best Proctices for Integrofing Food Trucks into City Life out to a private company the responsibility of mobile vendor management' Virtually all mobile vend- ing takes place on private property, where the 30 -minute rule does not apply. Proximity Restrictions This refers to regulations that designate a certain amount of distance that must be maintained between food trucks and other establishments, people, or infrastructure. This section is primarily concerned with the distance restrictions between food trucks and restaurants that impact the use of public space. The limits that concern distance from pedestrians or infrastructure are addressed in other parts of this guide. The cities included here have adopted a variety of proximity requirements. Stakeholder Concems Greater distance requirements favor restaurants and other established businesses, and are a mixed bag for residents for the same reasons discussed under time constraints. Larger proximity Hiles disadvantage mobile vendors because it reduces the number of places to sell, particularly where clusters of restaurants exist, which are often denser areas with more pedestrian traffic. Many cities prefer a moderate approach in regards to proximity restrictions, since such regulations usually balance competing stakeholder needs most effectively. Unlike parking, there are no tracking advantages related to distance requirements, but such regulations do impact where vendors conduct thew business, which means the city still has to deal with congestion and other spillover concerns, particularly in denser regions. Regulatory Trends Similar to time constraints, the cities included here have largely moderate or lenient proximity restric- tions. Six or seven have either no restrictions or relatively short distances, and four of the cities occupy the middle ground, with 150-200 foot requirements. Only one, New Orleans, has a restriction of 600 feet. New Orleans has a proposal to shorten the distance to 50 feet, but there has been resistance to this proposal from some city council members and the Louisiana Restaurant Association." Recommendations Proximity restrictions should be no more than 200 feet at the high end. Density issues may call for a tiered structure, or for abandoning proximity altogether. One of the problems with adopting an explicit distance rule is that a `one size fits all' approach ignores context. Three hundred feet may make sense in less dense areas of a city, but such a distance is impractical in very dense neighborhoods. A city right- of-way, with multiple restaurants on both sides of the street where the distance between each side may be less than 300 feet, makes the area entirely off limits to mobile vending. As such, cities may want to loosen or abandon proximity rules in dense neighborhoods with a great deal of commercial and residential activity. A tiered model, where the distance requirements are shortened for denser neighbor- hoods and widened for others is also an option. As the food truck scene has expanded within the last few years in St. Louis, conflicts between restau- rants and food trucks have surfaced. In order to quell the rising tension, the St. Louis Department of Streets enacted a 200 foot rule." Durham has adopted a 50 foot mle.12 13 Food on Wheels: Best Practices For Integrofing Food Trucks into City life Geographic Limitations Associated with Density Another set of regulations relate to whether vending is permitted in particular segments of public space. Like proximity restrictions, these provisions concern access to fixed locations. Stakeholder Concerns Like the above issues, the more restrictive provisions advantage established businesses like restaurants, while working against the interests of food trucks. Constraints on the number of places open for selling tend to be more prevalent in denser areas of cites due to the much greater number of players udlirr ing the space at the same time. These are usually core downtowns where a large number and variety of established businesses and residences are located in dose proximity to each other within a relatively limited area. Again, for cities, moderate approaches are generally the best at balancing stakeholder inter- ests. Like parking durations, tracking issues come up here as well. Limiting vending to certain locations makes it easier for cities to find vendors, but might hinder economic growth and opportunity. Regulatory Trends Of the cities included here, most currently embrace a patchwork approach, wherein vending is lim- ited to certain zones, districts, parking spaces, or limits on operation in the Central Business District (CBD). Three have lenient provisions, where few public spaces are off limits, while another three arc on the more restrictive side, with outright bans on public space or CBD vending. 14 Food on Wheels Besi Procfices for InlegroFng Food Trm6 inlo City Life Recommendofions The greater the density of the area, the greater the case for more restrictions, but an outright ban on all mobile vending is not suggested unless the circumstances are exceptional. For a city like Durham, heavy-handed zoning constraints snake little sense, as the interests of other stakeholders are only mod- estly compromised compared to denser areas, there are fewer negative spillover threats, city residents are Oven more choice without substantively higher safery concerns, and vendors are given more flexibility to choose where to operate. As a result, street right-of-ways and core downtown parks are open for vending." In denser dries, the compromises that other stakeholders must make and the risk of negative externalities ate increased, suggesting a more moderate regulatory fiamework should be implemented that requires all parties to relinquish some freedoms without entirely excluding them from the space. One option is the approach taken by Denver, where only the densest section of downtown is off limits to food trucks. Vendors are barred from selling in a section of the southwestern corner of downtown, which is roughly seven by nine blocks. Vendors must also maintain a 300 foot distance from all public parks, unless a special event is taking place, and then they must obtain permission from the dry to participate. Another approach is a lottery or first-come, first -serve system that allows a restricted number of park- ing spaces or sections of right-of-way to be set aside for mobile vending. Las Vegas currently has a pilot program that adopts a version of this (three spaces are being set aside downtown for food trucks only)." Washington, DC is also in the process of establishing a lottery system to increase efficiency and safety, and to balance the competing needs of residents. There could also be higher permit or parking fees associated with more heavily trafficked areas. Areas where vending is allowed must be clearly delineated and easy to decipher. Several cities have regulations that make it difficult to easily discern permitted regions from unpermitmd ones. Regula- tions that clearly define permitted areas are needed. Distinctions between public and private regulations should also be dear and transparent. A map that explicitly Iabeh the areas where vendors are allowed to operate would be a helpful tool for all stakeholders. If the political climate or density issues make it difficult to relax restrictions on public space, cities could consider making private space in less dense areas easier for vendors to access. Atlanta has a unique his- tory that has produced provisions that greatly restrict vending on public property, and most recently, an outright ban by the Mayor Kasim Reed. To alleviate the impact of this restriction on mobile vend- ing, Councilmember Kwanza Hall and others have worked to make vending on private property easier. A provision that originally required food trucks to maintain a distance of 1,500 feet from restaurants when at least two mobile vendors are selling on private property was amended to shorten the distance to 200 feet." Trucks have adapted to the ban on public property by moving into private space, and this has kept mobile vending alive in Atlanta. 16 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Public Health One of the most intrinsic and logical concerns regarding food trucks, and one that has been a basic consideration since their inception, is public health. All stakeholders realize the need to address sanitation and food safety. The role of health departments and commissaries should be continually reevaluated to address these concerns within a regulatory framework that is cost-efficient, thorough but not onerous, and results in a streamlined process with outcomes that provide for the wellbeing of all stakeholders. Sanitation Sanitation refers to food trucks' proper cleating of preparation utensils and disposal of garbage, wastewater (gray water) and remnants of grease traps. Unlike the variety of procedural approaches taken by cities within the sphere of public space, the guidelines adopted for sanitation tend to be similar across cities. Atlanta's rules provide a typical example of the sanitation provisions that exist in most cities. Mobile food units must have a trashcan that is at least 30 gallons, and it must be emptied at the commissary. Two sinks are required - a three -compartment equipment sink (for washing dishes, etc.) and another sink for washing hands. A wastewater tank that has a 15 percent larger capacity than the potable water tank is also required. To prevent contamination, the connections for each must be distinguishable, and the wastewater tank must be lower than the potable tank.16 Atlanta is also typical of many cities in that rhe health code is state law. As such, cities are unable to craft law; they can only enforce provisions established at the state level. Recommentiahon Cities looking to adopt sanitation regulations for mobile vendors should adhere to the standard require- ments in cities with an already established food truck industry. These regulations can be found on almost any city government website; Austin has particularly clear processes.' Since many cities are unable to enact their own sanitation laws, they may want to articulare their treed and concerns to the state legislature when appropriate. Food Safety Not surprisingly, the specifics of food safety do not vary that much from city to city. The guidelines for the cities profiled in this guide ate common sense and fairly straightforward. For example, in Atlanta, mobile vendors are mandated to have a `Certified Food Safety Manager" (CFSM). The CFSM could be the owner or an operator; whoever is selected must complete a food safety -training program and pass a `professionally validated" CFSM exam. The mobile unit must always have a designated Person in Charge (PIC). This will be the CFSM when present. When absent, 17 Food on Wheels Best Practices For Integroting Food Trucks into City life the CFSM must designate someone else as the PIC. During Health Authority inspections, the PIC may be asked to demonstrate their "knowledge of foodborne disease prevention," for example. The Food Code lists a variety of ways this can be shown, such as demonstrating knowledge of how to properly handle food, among other things." Recommendation State laws often require mobile vendors to adhere to the same food safety regulations that are applied to brick and mortar restaurants. This is an effective way to promote proper food handling and accountability. Many vendors report that they actually appreciate the standards because they serve to combat the "roach coach" stereotype. Brian Bottger, a food truck vendor in Durham, is one of these operators. He likes that he can confidently tell patrons that his truck is held to the same health standards as restaurants.") Role of Commissaries One of the most promising and more diversified aspects of mobile food vending is the commissary, a food truck'home base' of sorts. Commissaries are fixed location kitchens where food must be prepped before being loaded onto the truck for cooking and selling. They often operate as storage for various ingredients as well. Ig Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Stakeholder Concerns All stakeholders can benefit from the appropriate utilization of commissaries. If mote than one truck may operate out of a commissary, city employees, whether collecting licensing and permit documents and fees, or performing routine inspections for maintaining sanitation and public health standards, have fewer places to visit and can more easily streamline their permit review and inspection process. Food truck owners can reap the benefits of the economies of scale that commissaries provide. Comph- ance with many of the regulatory burdens food trucks face are less expensive when shared by several owners. Mobile vendors can also be assured that they are doing their due diligence with regards to regulations, which if not properly followed could mean large fines and even the possibility of being shut down. Commissaries provide new vendors with a central facility to get all the information they need to operate. This can save a significant amount of time and cost, especially when city business codes are dif- ficult to track down. They may also benefit by not having to shoulder the full responsibility for compli- ance; if they sign a contract with a commissary, it may become the commissary operator's responsibility to see that compliance is achieved. Commissaries provide brick and mortar restaurant owners with the assurance that food trucks are being held to the same standards and inspections as they are. Lastly, the general public can rest easy knowing that commissaries cut down on the number of unregulated mobile vendors and that health concerns are addressed in a thorough and efficient manner (when considering taxpayer monies spent on health departments). Regulatory Trends All of the cities included in this guide have a commissary requirement. Boston requires proof that food trucks are serviced by a mobile food vending commissary and that mobile venders keep accurate logs indicating that the food truck is serviced at least twice daily by a mobile food commissary for all food, water and supplies, and for all cleaning and servicing operations. In Washington, D.C., all vendors must maintain access to an approved depot location. A copy of the license for the service support facil- ity and/or a recent inspection report is required to be presented. In St. Louis and Denver, trucks must operate from a commissary and report there once a day to clean all supplies and servicing operations. Recommendations Mobile vendors should embrace the use of commissaries. It is recommended that cities adopt an approach similar to the ones employed in Austin and Durham, where all food trucks must have a con- tract with a commissary, but more than one food truck may be associated with a single commissary.") Food trucks may also negotiate with restaurants to utilize (and pay) them as places to dispose of waste. These contracts foster a sense of community and keep conflicts to a minimum. In Durham, multiple mobile vendors are also able to use a single commissary. This approach best satisfies the concerns of all stakeholders. The regulation is not terribly onerous to the food truck operators, but still ensures food safety, which the public and the city may be concerned about. It helps give the impression that food trucks are being held to the same standards, which restau- rants appreciate, and makes it easier for local food safety enforcement officials to do their job. N Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Public Safety Public safety is a key reason why many cities began regulating food trucks. Issues around public safety include private property, vending near schools, and pedestrian safety. Private Property Private property options for mobile vendors create opportunities for businesses to extend their market reach, particularly for denser cities or those with very little public space (consider the Atlanta case discussed under public space). The cities included here have adopted a variety of regulatory models to address private space. In some cases, they practice a more informal approach, allowing food truck oper- ators to gain a private space permit and conduct business without further regulatory strings attached. Others restrict mobile vending operations solely to private property. Equally important are existing zoning codes applied to private property that may or may not be zoned for vending. Stakeholder Concerns Standard public safety practices used in other city regulatory affairs (within the realm of private prop- erty) ought to lead the dialogue and development of relevant rules that empower proprietors to observe 21 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks inio City Life and enforce appropriate safety measures on their property, and communicate those measures with mobile vendors. For cities, responsibility of property maintenance is lessened and is likely to fall on the shoulders of vendors and property owners, who will determine ways to address sanitation, safety, and property upkeep. Mobile vendors generally appreciate the flexibility that private space has to offer, e.g. fewer time restrictions and less government involvement in their daily operations. Regulotory Trends When examined through the lens of public safety, the cities selected have adopted a variety of regula- tory models to deal with private property. Seven cities had rules regarding private property. Two cities lacked spccifics on the issue, perhaps because they do not allow vendors to operate in private space in general. Cities that allow the use of private property for mobile vending have designated specific private zones where food trucks can operate to ensure public safety. Recommenclotions The adoption of more lenient regulatory language is generally the preferred approach for food trucks on private property, with the exception of denser regions. Owners of private property have the power to control what takes place on their land, including the ability to exclude whomever they choose. The issue at stake is not how to best balance the needs of various parties that have access to the land, as it is with public space. Instead, the emphasis shifts to reducing any negative externalities that might spillover onto adjacent or neighboring properties, particularly if an owner grants permission to mul- tiple vendors. 22 Food on Wheels: gest Practices fa Integrating Foci Trucks into City Life As such, a regulatory framework that is generally less restrictive than for public property is appropriate as long as the owners grant permission for their land to be used by mobile vendors. However, since there is a greater danger of negative externalities when private property is located in denser areas, a modestly more regulated structure may be called for within these regions. In Indianapolis, few regulations limit mobile vending business on private property. While the time- frame for vending on public space is limited to between loam and bpm, a business can get a permit for operating on private property and simply park at parking meters for the same rate as personal vehicles.21 The majority of Portland's mobile vending occurs on private property, particularly surface parking lots.ZZ A zoning pemrit may be required for development associated with a mobile vending cart, such as changes to an existing parking area, landscaping, and drive-through facilities. Vending carts over 16 feet in length, with or without wheels, are considered Heavy Trucks by the zoning code, and are not allowed in certain zones." Vending Near Schools Mobile vendors encounter several public safety issues when deciding to operate near schools. Issues of concern include traffic -related safety, increased chances of interaction with predators that may be waiting for children to step off public property, and whether the food offered by mobile vendors meets school food safety standards." Stakeholders Mobile vendors are beginning to recognize the potential opportunity to expand the food options avail- able to local secondary schools and simultaneously capture a new, steady stream of customers, but they may be met with opposition from school administrators and parents who see their presence as a threat to safety and may view their menu options as potentially unhealthy. Cities looking to regulate vending near schools must determine the best precautionary measures in terms of distance requirements that mobile vendors must abide by. Regulatory Trends Five of the cities included in the guide have regulations around vending near schools. "The regulations emphasized specific distances from schools that are intended to keep students from venturing off cam- pus to patronize mobile vendors, and maintain safety standards for neighboring schools and commu- nities. All other cities have no specific rules around this, perhaps indicating that this is not an issue in their jurisdictions. Recommendations Restrictions on operating during school hours are recommended, and mobile vendors should be required to maintain farther proximity from schools compared to restaurants, keeping density in mind. The time restriction is mostly a health-related issue, while the proximity suggestion is largely motivated by safety concerns. The framing of regulations surrounding mobile vendors and schools should be focused on protecting children during school operating hours. This approach keeps vendors from sell- ing to students without adult supervision, but still allows them to benefit from afterschool activities 23 Food on Wheels: Best Proctices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life such as games, competitions, and concerts, where adults arc more likely to influence food consumption decisions. However, proximity requirements should not handicap vendors in denser areas from selling in viable spaces that happen to be closer to schools. In Indianapolis, vendors are prohibited from operating within a distance of 1,000 feet (roughly 0.2 miles) of any part of a public or private grade or junior high school grounds while school is in session. In Durham, a special temporary permit can be obtained for mobile vendors to operate at non-profit or civic events held on public property such as a school. School districts that want to expand their food options, but wish to do so with minimal budgetary impact should work with city officials to create school vending permits for a limited number of vendors. Designated curb -side parking (which is not adjacent to a main mad) could reduce many public safety concerns, particularly if students are generally allowed to roam the school parking lot where the trucks would operate. As long as they continue to comply with the city's food safety standards, this could be a viable option for city and school officials. Pedestrian Safety Mobile vendors move from location to location, coming in close contact with pedestrians at intersec- tions and street corners every day. While some city ordinances have distance-from-pedestrianlsidewalk requirements (e.g. Durham has a 4 -foot rule), the majority of the cities examined here have no such language in their regulations. Pedestrian safety may be part of a broader regulatory approach in many cities, but that focus often lacks emphasis or enforcement for mobile vendors (although it may be taken up in other sections of city ordinances). Pedestrian and intersection safety measures be included in food truck regulations, as they affect all potential food truck patrons. 24 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrofing Food Trucks into City Life Additional Recommendations In addition to the recommendations included under each policy area, there are other, more general recommendations to help cities adopt new vending policies, amend existing policies, build stakeholder collaboration, and harness the potential for economic growth through the mobile food industry. Five of these recommendations are discussed in detail below: 1. Hold Town Hall Forums and Private Meetings with Core Stakeholders. Durham decided to embrace a very inclusive approach to their ordinance restructuring. The city brain- stormed initial ideas internally then presented the draft suggestions to the public for feedback. They also had private meetings with individual stakeholders to allow them to speak freely without fear of backlash. This tactic was particularly useful for restaurants in a food truck friendly city like Durham. Any fears they may have been afraid to share in Town Hall meetings could still be articulated to decision -makers. The weight of opinion worked against restaurants in this context, but they were still brought to the table. 2. Encourage Dialogue and the Building of Relationships Among Competing Stakeholders. Cities should look for ways to encourage relationships between the various stakeholders. At the heart of proximity rules are concerns that restaurants (and other established businesses) have about unfair competition. They pay expensive monthly rents and property razes, but they are also engaged with the community. Because they are stationary, most restaurants see themselves as pan of the community fab- ric. They create employment opportunities and care about neighborhood safety and aesthetics. Some view mobile vendors as profit -driven, fly-by-night operators with few or no ties to the community. Conversely, mobile vendors often feel that restaurateurs are fearful of innovation in food culture. Collaboration between these stakeholders is something to strive toward, and cities can play an impor- tant role in spearheading dialogue between these groups. Conferences, forums, or meetings could be called with stakeholders from both sides invited to the table in a spirit of cooperation, with the intent of encouraging them to see each other as collaborators rather than competitors more often than they currently do. It could also encourage voluntary compromise help craft solutions that balance the needs and concerns of both parties. Cincinnati has achieved this, to some degree. Food Truck Alliance Presi- dent Matt Kommeyer explained that food trucks in the city, voluntarily maintain a 100 -foot distance from neighboring restaurants as a sign of respect to brick and mortars, and as a preparatory measure. " 3. Implement Pilot Programs to Determine What Regulations to Adopt Pilot programs are flexible, encourage innovation, and can help uncover and address issues unique to particular communities. They are usually implemented on a small scale, so they do not create a sudden, large burden on an already existing network, and they provide insight that can inform the decision- making process before regulations are made into law. Their flexibility and emphasis on experimentation make them an especially useful tool for new industries. Pilot programs are being used in a variety of cities, including Oakland, and are recommended for cities with a relatively new food truck scene or a rapidly expanding one. 25 Food on VAeels. Best Practices for Integrating food Trucks into City the In 2001, the Oakland City Council created the Pushcart and Vehicular Food Vending Pilot Programs." The pilot program was created to promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and gen- eral welfare by requiring that new and existing pushcart food vendors provide residents and customers with a minimum Level of cleanliness, quality and safety. "This program issued 60 permits and required a 10 -step validation process, including a complete application, proof of Business Tax Certificate, and a photocopy of a valid driver's license." The program restricted the use of these permits to centralized districts because of the added desire to infuse economic development into the city. 29 This pilot program is still active. 4. Use Targered Practices as a Way to Address Underserved Meas of the City. The issue of food accessibility has been linked to poverty, decreased public health, and quality of life." Moreover, in recent years, food deserts have become an issue of public concern. Although the cities included here are not directly using mobile vending to combat food deserts, some are employing a tar- geted strategy to get food trucks into various areas of their cities, outside of the core downtown districts, some of which are underserved by brick and mortar restaurants. Initially, the 2012 Cincinnati City Council approved an ordinance that declared a mobile vendor could not sell food on the curbside or right-of-way. Now, seven zones exist in strategic places around the dry, up from four in 2011 per the recommendation of the Department of Community Development." 26 Food on Wheels. Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Denver has actively considered several issues that might impact or encourage economic development. These include whether food truck clustering could be used to combat food deserts, the ability of food trucks to activate underutilized space (like surface parking lots), and food trucks as restaurant incuba- tors in underserved areas. jr 5. Identify Private Vacant Lots and Create Partnerships for Mobile Vendors to Gather and Vend in the Same Location. 'The use of private space has been used to create several food truck centers that increase economic activ- ity in various West Coast cities. For example, Portland is known as the food truck capital of the world. This type of clustering can create hot spots for loyal customers, as well as an opportunity for mobile vendors to gain new clients. For city government, it can create an ease of regulation and enforcement by focusing attention and resources on specific parts of the city. While Portland has a number of the more traditional mobile food trucks around the city, the majority of their mobile vending occurs on private property, particularly surface parking lots and vacant lots." Portland uses food truck centers to create economic vibrancy within various pans of the dry. In 2009, the city proposed the use of vacant lots as pods, or areas for food trucks to cluster. The idea was to use vacant lots as catalysts for economic development, deterring blight and encouraging vibrancy in the process. It is important to note that while many of the food trucks (what they refer to as food cans ) are mobile, the city has several stationary mobile units. These units are moveable, but primarily remain on private property.' Many of the pods are hosts to more permanent vending units, particularly in downtown. They are still classified as mobile though because as long as the food carts are on wheels, they are considered vehicles in the eyes of the law, and are therefore exempt from the building code.35 Atlanta often uses private surface parking lots to encourage mobile selling. Atlanta has also had a very active and successful food truck association, the Atlanta Street Food Coalition, which does an admi- rable job mobilizing vendors and keeping public and private partners informed. 27 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Conclusion Mobile vending is not just a passing fad. However, it is important to recognize that there is no one size fits all prescription for how best to incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a community. Many char- acteristics contribute to the complexity and vibrancy of a city, including political climate, state laws, demographics, and the existing restaurant industry. With this in mind, the recommendations included here are intended to be flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances, but logical enough to provide useful guidance. They can serve as a road map that will help cities establish a regulatory framework best suited to their unique circumstances and that takes into account the whole spectrum of stakeholder needs and concerns. 29 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks info City Life About this Publication Research for this guide and the original draft of the document were completed by graduate students at the George Washington University Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administra- tion. Contributors include Anju Chopra, Malia Dalesandry, Garrett Jackson, Ana Dara, and Stephen To. These students worked in partnership with J. Katie McConnell, Brett Common, and Christiana McFarland at the National League of Cities to conduct an analysis of food truck regulations in cities across the country. The final report was edited by Christiana McFarland and Emily Pickren at NLC. The National League of Cities is the nations oldest and largest organization devoted to strengthening and promoring cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance. NLC is a resource and advo- care for more than 1,600 member cities and the 49 state municipal leagues, representing 19,000 cities and towns and more than 218 million Americans. NLC provides research and analysis on key topics and trends important to cities, creative solutions to improve the quality of life in communities, inspiration and ideas for local officials to use in tackling tough issues and opportunities for city leaders to connect with peers, share experiences and learn about innovative approaches in cities. Acknowledgements Special thanks to the George Washington University Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration faculty and staff, particularly Elizabeth Rigby and Patrick Besha. Special thanks also go to all the interviewees - city staff, food trucks owners, and city officials for their candid and informative perspectives regarding the regulatory concerns and opportunities for their cities. 31 Food on Wheels: Best Prockes for Integrofing Food Trucks inb City Life Appendix Selection of Cities This report analyzes mobile vending regulations across a range of cities. First, cities with existing food truck industries (51 in total) were identified, based on information from the Washington, DC Depart- ment of Transportation (DDOT). Each cirys content and food truck policy/regulatory environment was reviewed, and data was gathered on each city's region, population density, level of the local food truck industry, and availability of mobile vending regulations. The 51 cities were stratified into three groups based on population density. Specifically, we developed a three -tiered density structure in which cities were classified as: • Low density (cities as those with a density range of 3,500 persons per square mile (ppsm) and below) • Moderate density, (cities with 3,501-7000 ppsm) • High population densities (cities with 7,001 ppsm and above) Ultimately, the sample of cities drawn ranges in population size from 279,641 (Durham) to 827,609 (Indianapolis), in density from 936 ppsm (Durham) to 12,793 ppsm (Boston). Very large cities like New York City (27,000 ppsm) and San Francisco (17,000 ppsm) were not included on the basis that conclusions drawn from analyzing their regulations would not be generalizable to most other cities. Between three and five cities from each population density tier were selected for a total of 13 cities. The selection process focused on cities with a food tmrk presence, then cities were divided into geographic regions, and several cities were chosen from those regions. Context and background were also taken into account. That is, cities with mobile vending regulations and histories that insufficiently high- lighted particularly noteworthy regulatory conflicts or solutions were ruled out in favor of those that lent themselves better to examination of recurring themes and common pitfalls. With such an approach, it is possible that a city regulation that was uniquely innovative or informa- tive in was in some way was overlooked. The low, medium and high density methodological structure, paired with the regional breakdown, is an attempt to minimize this risk. 33 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life References 1 Inbit Network (Denewber 2012). Food lucks Motor ktlo the Mainstream. Retched from f".//miwoi.umt.com/wp(oment/uplmds/2012/12/kitigood Ttaks-0apod.pd 2 Imbe Network (December 2012). Food Tracks Motu Into the Mai si mm. Refined bora hap..//mtwor .intuO.com/wpconten!/uplwds/2012/12/iftigoo6Timb4loW.pd 3 Nonan, Rattner, Gal & Camper. Ouly 1011). Sheds d Doe ms: How Otte Cm Ca le Ecommc OliMiumly By Knocking Down Rolectmist Borers to Shot Vereba katituw fa Justice. Removed Iran http//ww .erg[mages/pd_fdder/emnonic_liberp/aK_verdvy/sneewdheans_webhnal.pJ 4 Audwr Lnknasm (law 23, 2011). Enviormeaal and Consumer Health Unit, Amtimlarrs County Health and Huron Services Dep lment. Application fu MwbNe [and Vendor Permit. ReaevedhonhnF//w ,ausgnlexas.gov/sites/defaultAles/Filo/Health/eh_mobddoAendar_english_6_23_ll.pd 5 Cey of Cimarron Depoilmem of Health Moble Food Service Licensing Irdormokm. Retrived from hM.//www.mcinnorohgm/qumlNon�nks%vid/9ED7203(-BM-179AA67CA53AD2114(D(/ShowtAO/O/ 6 hltp.//booh.go*.can/books?hl=en&k=&id=4X)6YMBUMM(&obindWPA78WddWia d+pUc+gDA&ors=6MP8gsK4D&sigh}2MHoRU0GI(n511Ukw6TF6NOMM- orwpage&q-ddidHm%20d%2Oprblic%20goods&f=false 7 Maras, Nancy (Match 29, 2013). Tdephone Interview with Marcy Marcus, Office of the City Marmistmos, Special Brains Permih. 8 Bored an previews with Grace Snide, and Bren Danger Aho the preeemoten Grace sent me an fad back m lubleans in Derham 9ligy, lay (lyra 2013). Telephone krlavew, with by TAN,, (Tref of Staff fa Coundmembw Kwon Hol (AHDnra. 10 Section 110.190 of (ode 8 Internee with Jonathon T. Hors 11 Feeb, lam (lavery 5, 2012). A Red (Ester lack. As Foal Suds Pndi ate, Jensen Bunds Between Moble Vendors Immovable Eoleren Reawed hom h ry://www. rve hon fines.cer/2012-0105/twluurmn/st outs foodnu(k regular ora wd aswi Mad+a axonruwners/ 12 Adho Unknown (Dote Unknown). Proposed Delmore to Mond the City Cab Negating Regulation of Sbeet Vendng and SlimafFvenr Pamits. Secian 54910) of the Damon Cade of Ordnance. Reteved Gom hap://durlwmayw/ich/cb/ccpd/Doamms/Cuaenf o2OTopo/dm(rt2Meat°a20vff d4'a20ordnave`b2006288r12,p6 13 What Unknown (Dole Unknown). Proposed Ordinance to Mord the City Code Regrading Regulation of Sneer Vending and SpecidEverd Permi6: Salim 54910) of the Dahan Code DfOndnmce. Retreved hom hM://dmimmicgov[ialt/tib/ccpd/Dommenh/Cmeeo2OTopRs/dr*r 2Dshmfv2OvmdN'i20a6nmce'o2OD62881120 14 Came, Moble (Fokay 7, 2013). (os Vegas Food Trucks Cot Than Downtown Spaces. Reme ed firm hap://mo ikusim.can/Dfftwwie/bmgogoodimcksdo wntownpakingWos 15 ibby, by (April 2013). Telephone Inervew with by Tcbby, Chef of Staff for (ouainembo Kwonm Hal (Atlanto). 16 Autlw Unknown (July 30, 1986). Rubs of Depta mem of Human Resavcw: PPbli Health, Chapter 290. 514, food Service. Renewed from htp://lwdlhswe.gu.m/pdh/mmmnanid/Food/Dths/FoadServieRdm pdf 17 Mdho Unknown (January 10, 2008). Fnvion timal and(omumer Heellh Unit, Ausknbovis County Health and Human Senoes Depomnam Strong a Food Bmimss. Reamed (mm htV://w".(iWanrshn.org/sbdp/daniocds/stADdbm.pdf 18 Greg(OHober 18,2010). Atlanto Street Food Coalition: Frequently Ued Ouestims. Removed him hip://w ,oionaosbeedood.mm/howenlyosked questions/ 19 Braga, Bron (Murch 17, 2013). Tdedane Imervew welt Bren Botger, Owner of Ordy Burger Ford luck in Durhom. 20 Newman, Mace G. (2012). Food Truck Safety. What s a Commissary? Remeved from hlp://www.bodswdsddy411.can/p/wAa+sKmadswry.htrnl 71 Norman, Frommer, GUN B Kneppen. (2011). Strents of Dreams. How Cmes Con C mte Foam eren Opportunity By Knokng Dawn Pwtatbnist Boners to Street Vending Institute for Jenne. hnp://w.ii.orVmoges/pdf_foldei/mnomic-lbaN/od_vending/sbeenofdrmms_wehfinal od. 72 lad Ragas, K. and Roy. K. 2010 23 City of Portland, Burma of Dwelapment SnViee. (Decernber 7010). Vending Cats on Palma Boperty alp://www.ponandmine crm/bds/undex.dm?a=154593&c=45053 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life 24 The Amaimn Heon kwanow Um 20121. Moble Vendng Nmn %ooh Policy Stommmt. li neved hom htp://www.hmit.og/dc/gtW/learttuhkc,i@wcm/®adv/docanena /dDmlDOdoh6/uun_446658.pdf 25 Kommoya, Mon (Much 2013). Telephone Interdav xnth Mott Kmnmyer, author of Switch Food Truk in Indensi 26 Autha Unknown (Imuory 20, 2012). City of Oaklard: City Admeistmtom Speed Brooms Partite and ktm es. patched hom hop./%ww«2 ockMdret.com/Ga"mmmr/o/ (iry4dmoizaoton/d/SpaioWamih/ 27 City of Oakland 2001. http://16 aitinu icadecorn/fDM1/16308/Ievel2/iRSBUTAPERE_CH5.49PUFOVEPIPR.hon1 28 bid City of Oukdurd. 2001 hrp://lbray.nenicode.mm/HTML/16308/ewel2/RTSBUFAPERE_CH5.49PUFOVEP IW 29 Maws, Narrcy (March 29, 2013). [mail coriesprimeme wish Nmcy Marcos, Oeice of lie Ciry Administrators, Spedd Business Pamirs. 30 hnp://aimce.hmsn#wads.mm/mvifonmaniol/greowimce/ioDd&wl.hrm 31 Cityof Cinimon Mahle Food Vending Piot Progrmr Rapal fmmae Spmm Zone; .2011. Retch form hHp://a"p.mann*aQmw/Wehbp/ws/cmrKi/puNt/skid/ B1ob/33865.pdfp wmoIJ4DD94DB39C972CCDB4251 IE2AB1DBI F? 32736 32 Ciry of Mena. 2012. bp://www.lnedowniowndmvet.com/(DDBbg/?p=2422 33 Ihd Ragas, K. and Roy, K. 2010 34 Ritshie, Rmhel. 2010. hnD://www.PordmdmonihrymoA.mm/eNmddruk/foodcaniM/ortkla/mrR greeby0910 35 Rogers, Kelly and Kelley Roy (Deeanha 19, 2010). Poniard Food Cots: Cotaig a the Pedesfim. Remov fmm htp://"&w amuig.og/ms m/wNmdm/fmd/pd/TPDpofimdfmdampdf 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW I Washington, DC 20004 I (2021626-3000 I www.nlc.otg AI I . -- 4. S 4. 'aM►_ r— q • i bo�4� i CITY OF IOWA CI 7 MEMORANDUM Date: March 12, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager Re: Food Truck Vending Earlier this year the City Council received recommendations on changes to the City Code that would expand vending options for food trucks. The recommendations were made after discussions with the two food truck vendors that completed last year's pilot program in Chauncey Swan Park. The attached ordinance allows for the operation of food trucks in parking areas of city streets. Restricted vending areas would include the downtown zone, residential areas and within 150 feet of any restaurant. In order to operate from a parking space, food trucks will have to receive an annual permit from the City. The permit criteria will be dictated by administrative rules, which will be presented to the Council at the third reading of the ordinance along with a resolution setting the fee. The administrative rules will also stipulate a limit to the number of permits that can be issued. As envisioned, the ordinance and accompanying administrative rules will allow food truck vending between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. They will also permit food trucks to occupy a one or two-hour hour metered space for a maximum of three hours while operating. If parking is already permitted for periods longer than three hours the food trucks can operate in accordance with those parking limitations. Food trucks will be required to pay meter fees while operating. Storage of food trucks will not be permitted on city streets or in city parking lots. Staff believes the recommended framework will allow food trucks to successfully operate while not detracting from the strong brick and mortar food economy that exists downtown and in other parts of the community. Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 9-4-16: FOOD TRUCKS: A. Definitions: Page I of 4 DOWNTOWN ZONE: The areas illustrated on the map in subsection H of this section. FOOD TRUCK: A motorized vehicle specially equipped to prepare and sell food items to the general public. OPERATE: To offer for sale food and beverage items to the general public; it does not mean either loading or unloading food or beverage items in bulk or other materials. RESTAURANT: As that term is defined in section 10-3-1 of this code. TRUCK PERMIT: Written authorization by the city to operate a food truck on public right of way as provided in this section. B. Prohibited: No person may operate a food truck on public right of way without a food truck permit as provided herein. C. Permit: An application for a food truck permit shall be filed with the city manager or designee on a form provided by the city. The permit shall require the permittee to pay on behalf of the city all sums which the city shall be obligated to pay by reason of any liability imposed upon the city for damages of any kind resulting from use of public property and the public right of way, whether sustained by any person or persons, caused by accident or otherwise and shall defend at its own expense and on behalf of the city any claim against the city arising out of the use of public property and the public right of way. 3. The permit shall require the permittee to obtain insurance in an amount determined by the city's risk manager. 4. The city manager or designee shall grant or deny the application for a permit in writing within thirty (30) calendar days after the application being filed. The city manager or designee shall grant the application and issue a permit if the requirements set forth in the administrative rules have been met. 5. The applicant may appeal the denial in the same manner as mobile vending permits in title 10 of this code. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php 10/27/2016 Sterling Codifiers, Inc. Page 2 of 4 6. The city manager or designee, or city council if issued following an appeal, may revoke a food truck permit as provided in the administrative rules. A permittee may appeal the revocation in the same manner as appealing the issuance or denial of a permit. 7. The administrative rules may limit the number of permits granted. 8. Permits shall be issued for one year. 9. The permittee shall not offer tobacco or alcoholic beverages for sale. 10. The sale, transfer, or assignment of a permit is expressly prohibited. D. Location: No person shall operate, and no permittee shall allow a food truck to be operated, on public right of way in the following locations: 1. Inside the downtown zone; 2. Within one hundred fifty feet (150') of an entrance to a restaurant; 3. In a residential zone, as defined in the zoning code; or 4. In a loading zone. The administrative rules may expand the areas where a food truck is prohibited from operating. E. Allowed Operation: Notwithstanding any other provision in the code, a person may: 1. Operate a food truck in two (2) metered spaces if the parking meters for both spaces are operational. Operate for up to three (3) hours in a metered space with an established time period of two (2) hours or less if the meter is operational. 3. Back a food truck into and park and operate it in an angled stall. F. Fees: Fees for food truck permits shall be set by resolution of the city council. G. Rules: The city manager is authorized to establish administrative rules not inconsistent with any ordinance to carry out the provisions of this section. A copy of said rules shall be on file with the city clerk and available on the city's website. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php 10/27/2016 MEN 9-4-16 H. Downtown Zone: I C VIVV 1" a 200' "Downtown Zone" Food Truck Restricted Areas (Ord. 15-4618,4-21-2015) June 2015 Iowa City Official Memo Iowa City Mobile Vending Association 10/11/16 Re: City Council Briefing The Iowa City Mobile Vending Association (ICMVA) seeks to enhance the Iowa City street food culture by encouraging relationships throughout the community --offering citizens amazing food options, while fostering alumni, minority and woman owned entrepreneurs, economic space and a opportunity to grow a small business. Proposal: To begin immediately, 90 day gjlot pro etam allowing 6-10 licensed food trucks a temporary ban for the vending hours of IOpm-3am in the downtown district, in agreed upon locations at the administrative discretion of the City Manager. • Provide the Iowa City Manager broad discretion to carry out the pilot project and to give him the leave to modify the terms of the project as he sees fit • The ICMVA recommends there be a total of 6-10 mobile food vendors • The ICMVA recommends that the following locations of operation be examined: o Linn St, from Burlington St to Iowa Ave o Clinton St, from Burlington St to Iowa Ave o Dubuque St, from Washington St to Iowa Ave • The ICMVA encourages permitted "food truck parking" zones administered by the City. Note: Madison, WI has over 100 permitted fixed locations. • The ICMVA would like to develop a trash remediation plan with the DTA and the City of Iowa City • The ICMVA would like to discuss any public safety issues, such as with fire or police • The ICMVA would like to work with the Iowa City Downtown District as much as possible to respect the concerns of downtown business owners --honoring the 100 ft buffer zone, and working to identify key areas to avoid --as well as key areas to focus. • After 90 days, reassess the situation --discuss Spring 2017 ordinance possibilities. *The following proposal was originally presented to the Iowa City Downtown District, multiple business owners and the City Manager in mid-September* • STATEMENT: On 4/21/2015, the Iowa City Council enacted Iowa City Code 9-4-16, better known as the "Food Truck Ordinance." Section D(1) of the Food Truck Ordinance prohibits licensed food trucks from operating in the "downtown zone" defined as: Furthermore, the Administrative Rules Governing Food Trucks in Section 5 entitled Operational Policies limits the hours of operation for food trucks to 7AM-9PM. • PROPOSAL: The signatories propose that the ban of operation in the downtown zone by licensed food trucks be lifted, in a very limited fashion, and that the hours of operation in the Administrative Rules be extended under the following terms and conditions for the reasons to follow: O Licensed food trucks should be allowed to operate in the downtown zone during limited times of the day, specifically, the late night shift of 10PM-3AM. • REASONS IN SUPPORT: 0 The core reason food trucks were restricted from the downtown zone when passing the Food Truck Ordinance was to prevent food truck competition with existing brick and mortar restaurants, out of deference to the existing restaurants. 0 A majority of brick and mortar restaurants in the downtown zone close between IOPM-I1PM (SEE: this link . 0 As such, the competition between food trucks and brick and mortar restaurants during the hours of IOPM-3AM would be nearly non-existent, as very few remain open past 10 or 11 PM. 0 This a very limited lift of the ban on food trucks in the downtown zone • ACTION REQUESTED: O Full vote of the Iowa City Council to amend Q 94-16(D)(1) to lift the ban on food trucks in the downtown zone during the limited hours of 10PM-3AM. O Amendment of the Administrative Rules, Section 5 by the City Manager to extend the hours of operation for food trucks to 3AM Anthony Browne Mobile Vending Association of Iowa City Elizabeth Wohlford The Box Lunch Otmane Benjilany O's Grill Tito Francisco & James Wachutka Flip N' Chop Food Truck Robert and Kelly McLean Island Vybes Leslie and Brian Triplett Dumpling Darling Rory Brown Dublin Underground Tom Banta ICAD Group, Blue Zones Supporters Kyle Sieck Local Burrito Heather Sitzmore The Pink Umbrella Bakery Patrick Rashed Caribbean Kitchen Nick Whetro Ich Liebe Dich Mac 'n Cheese Bryan Asklof Nodo Veronica Tessler Yotopia Kate Moreland ICAD Group ICDD + Immediate Area Restaurant Operating & Kitchen Hours I 17= 10p7 KEY I Opening Soon (Tune Unkownl Kitchen Closing Kitchen Closing 1 TCDD Arsa Closing Time Time 6 Closing Time Closing Time Time 1 6 Alias Word Grill 10:00 PM 10:00 PM sa 225 Zombie Burger OPENING SOON 2 87 Bluebird Diner 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 27 98 Bashi Chinese Cuisine 10:30 PM 10 30 PM 3 24 Bo James 2:00 AM 10pm & 11 pm 28 OC China Star 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 4 155 Brothers Bar & Grill 290 AM 9pm & 10pm 29 94 Dumpling Dating 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 5 OC Buffalo Wild Wings 1.,00 AM 100 AM 30 25 Food Republic 1090 PM 10:00 PM e 35 Clinton Street SOUal Club 2:00 AM 12 00 AM 31 191 Formosa Restaurant - Sushi Bar - Lounge 1090 PM 10:00 PM 7 170 DC's Sports Bar 2:00 AM ?777? 32 23 Osaka Japanese 10pm &10:30pm tOpm &10.30pm a 159 Donnelly's Pub 2:00 AM 10 30 PM 33 OC Pro Lka 222 9 88 George's Buffet 2:00 AM 1 00 AM 34 OC Seoul Grill 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 10 180 Greze 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 3s OC Sushi Kicchen 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 1185 Hamburg Inn #2 11:00 PM 1100 PM 36 219 Szechuen House tOpm &10:30pm 10pm &10 30pm 12 22 Hearth 126 9:30 PM 9:30 PM 37 220 Thai Flavors 9:30 PM 9:30 PM 1s OC Jimmy Jacks OPENING SOON 30 44 Takanami Sushi Bar—Teppan Grill Spm & 10m lipm & tOm 14 11 Mk Ws Irish Pub 2:00 AM 1100 PM 39 91 Taste of China 990 PM 9:00 PM 15 CC Noodles & Company 1090 PM 10:00 PM 40 141 Uncle Sun 9:30 PM 9:30 PM 1s 94 Pop's Ofd and New Bar-e-0lle 1090 PM 10:00 PM 41 Crepes De Luxe, cafe 9:00 PM 9:D0 PM 17 13 Pullman Bar & Diner 12:00 AM 12 00 AM 42 21 One Twenty SIX 9:30 PM 9:30 PM to 130 Quinton's 215 2:00 AM 10:00 PM 4.1 109 Motley Cow Cafe 9:151111,11 9:15 PM 1a 187 Share Wine Lounge & Small Plate Bistro 1190 PM 110x1 PM 44 90 Oasis Falafel 9:00 PM 9:00 PM n 36 Short's Burger & Shine 11:00 PM 1100 PM 45 190 Bread Garden Market 1090 PM 10:00 PM 21 65 Sports Column 2W AM 9:00 PM 46 143 Bubble Karsoke Cafe 11:30 PM 1130 PM 22 40 Summit 290 AM 7:00 PM 47 OC Bubblepop 272 772 23 68 Teddys Burgers 9:00 PM 9:00 PM W OC Cookies & More 890 PM 6:00 PM x1207 The MITI Restaurant 2:00 AM 2 00 AM 4a 31 Cortado Coffee & Cafe OPENING SOON 2s 48 Yacht Club 2:00 AM 2 00 AM ao 103 High Ground Cafe 11:00 PM 11 OO PM Kitchen Closing Kitchen Closing TCDD Area Closing Time Time TCDD Area Closing Time Time 51 128 Java Heise 1290 AM 12 00 AM 76 5 Basta Pimila Ristorante 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 52 38 Mdlys Cupcakes 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 77 124 Forbidden Planet P mahs 8 Video Arrade 12:00 AM 12 00 AM 53 205 No 18 Karaoke & Bubble Tea + 72v 76 28 Mesa Pica 2:00 AM 2 00 AM 64 12 Prairie Lights Cafe 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 79 20 Moonrakers 9:30 PM 9:30 PM 55 209 Starbucks 11:00 PM 1100 PM so 73 PagliaPs Plea 11:00 PM 1100 PM so OC Tspoons 7:00 PM 7:00 PM a1 78 Pi7ia Pit 12am & 2am 12am & 2am 57 80 Brix Cheese Shop & Wine Bar 10pm-12pm 10pm-12pm az 43 The Pizza POD 222 'm sa 45 Swaggers Bagels 7:00 PM 7:00 PM as 1 Cactus Mexican Grill & Coming 12,W AM 12 00 AM 59 OC Ebert & Gerberts 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 84 213 Cactus 2 11:00 PM 11 00 PM so 129 Heirloom Salad Company 9:00 PM 990 PM e5 OC Chlpotle 201 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 61 18 Jimmy Johns 3:OOAM 3.00 AM as 105 EI Banditos 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 62 118 Mama's Deli 5:00 PM 5:00 PM e7 178 EI Patron• -Mexican Kitchen & Tequila Bar 10:00 PM 10:00 PM as 8 nodo 6:30 PM 6:30 PM so 205 Moi Authentic 3100 AM 3.00 AM 6t 225 Northside Bistro 10 W PM 10:00 PM se 158 Mondo's Saloon 1 W AM 10:00 PM as 150 Pepper lax Grill 10W PM 10:00 PM 90 29 Panchero's Mahican Grill 290 AM 2.00 AM 60 3 Pte Pt 2:30 PM 2:30 PM e1 99 Devotay 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 67 119 Subway 10 W PM 10:00 PM 92 132 Iowa Chop House 12:00 AM 12.00 AM ee OC Tic Tac Tae Caf6 I" 'm es 16 Which Wich 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 7o OC Wraps & Rolls 'm o22 71 151 Aspen Lea( Frozen Yogurt 11100 PM 11100 PM 72 17 ColdStone Creamery 11:00 PM 1100 PM 73 161 Yotopla: Iowa City's Original FmYo 11 pm & 12am 11 pm & 12am 74 Airliner 2:00 AM 10:00 PM 7$ 149 earoncinl 10:00 PM 10:00 PM Kitchen Closing s Imrredlats Sumoundsrg Arae Ciogng Tuns Time ss The Vine 2:00 AM 11 pm & tAm 9a Mosley$ 2:00 AM 10:00 PM 100 Sanctuary Pub 2:00 AM 11 00 PM lot Papa JoMs 3:00 AM 3 W AM toe Falbos 3:00 AM 300AM 103 New Pi Cc -Op 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to Brewlab 12:00 AM 12 00 AM 100 DP Dough 4:00 AM 400AM 100 Fair Grounds Cafe 8:00 PM 8:00 PM 107 Bardot 2:00 AM 11 00 PM toe Augusta 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 100 Trumpet Blossom Cafe 9:00 PM 9:00 PM 110 Sam's Pizza 12:00 AM 1200AM 111 Marcos Grilled Cheese 112 Gyro Cart 113 Tam Cart 93 185 Joseph's Steakhouse w 133 India Caf6 as 10 Masala se 14 Z'Mariks Noodle Caf6 97 Yacht Club a Recentiv Closed restaurants 2 Gooacents silos a Whiteys Ice Cream 4 Pizza on Dubuque s Spartys Gyros a Orange Leaf 7 Gid Capital Brew Works a Cheba Hut e Glavannis 10pm and 11pm 10pm and 11pm 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM "0 PM 9:00 PM 2:00 AM 200 AM 4 lat CIN OF IOWA CITY ONBCO CRY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS October 26, 2016 November 15th, 2016 1. Airport master plan presentation 2. Determine 2017 legislative priorities December 6th, 2016 1. Public Works facility tour and master plan overview (start time TBD) Strategic Plan / Budget Related Topics: 1. Provide timely and appropriate input on the ICCSD's planned 2017 bond referendum 2. Significantly improve the Council and staff's ability to engage with diverse populations on complex or controversial topics 3. Set a substantive and achievable goal for reducing city-wide carbon emissions by 2030, and create an ad- hoc climate change task force, potentially under an umbrella STAR Communities committee, to devise a cost-effective strategy for achieving the goal. 4. Identify and implement an achievable goal to reduce disproportionality in arrests 5. Identify a substantive and achievable goal for the provision of affordable housing in Iowa City and implement strategies to achieve this goal 6. Determine scope of Council identified housing market analysis of core neighborhoods 7. Determine scope of Council identified complete streets study 8. Discuss expectations for working with the ICCSD, Kirkwood Community College, Iowa Works, labor organizations, and others to explore the feasibility of an industrial arts/crafts facility in Iowa City Other Topics: 1. Discuss marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions 2. Review the Child Data Snapshot (IP2 2/18) and discuss related strategies with local stakeholders 3. Discuss creation of an ad-hoc committee on social justice and racial equity 'b IP9 an®im� CITY OF IOWA CITY O� www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL October 27, 2016 James A. Throgmorton Mayor Col. Craig Baumgartner, District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Clock Tower Building Kingsley Botchway P.O. Box 2004 Mayor Pro Tem Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004 Rockne Cole Terry Dickens Dear Col. Baumgartner: Susan Mims Pauline Taylor On behalf of Iowa City and in support of other residents of Johnson County, we are John Thomas writing to request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue its process of updating the Coralville Lake Regulation Plan. The outflow from the dam affects residents of Iowa City, adjacent cities, the University of Iowa and other parts of Johnson County, in addition to communities downriver through Louisa County. The provisions of the current plan have been in place since 1995. Our area experienced historic floods in 1993 and 2008 as well as significant flooding in 2013 and 2014 and multiple other occasions—including last month's flooding events upriver and downriver—when the lake levels have required emergency action and modifications to the outflows in order to avoid serious floods. As we have experienced, and learned from, multiple flooding events, the Corps of Engineers has been a great partner and has shown a willingness to be flexible in the management of the reservoir in order to assist the affected communities. However, the present regulatory tools provided to the Corps are very outdated and do not reflect current information, planning assumptions or experience. It is critical that the Corps be provided the necessary resources to examine the flood protection reservoir management plans upon which so many Iowans rely for protection. Along with other local entities, we in Iowa City feel USACE should complete its study using dollars from its federal share of taxpayer -provided tax revenue. However, if necessary, Iowa City and other local entities would be interested in exploring a cost-sharing partnership with the USACE to complete this study. USACE can reduce the cost of the study by taking advantage of the GIS data and previous studies (flood boundaries, etc.) that have already been conducted by the Iowa Flood Center, Johnson County, and the State of Iowa. Sincerely, council@iowa-city.org 410 E. Washington Street G Iowa City, IA 52240 Jes A. Throgmorton, Mayor Phone: (319) 356-5041 Fax: (319) 356-5497 TM International Automotive Components October 21, 2016 Mayor Jim Throgmorton 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Throgmorton: IP10 IAC Group North IAC law. 2500 Hwy 6 ■ Iowa City, IA, USA Phone 319.338.9281 ■ www.iacgroup.com This notice is issued in compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and Iowa Code § 84C. International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. (IAC), located at 2500 Highway 6 East, Iowa City, IA 52240 will experience a reduction in its workforce between December 23, 2016 -January 6, 2017 as a result of a significant loss of business. The layoff is expected to be permanent The full list of affected eniployees isattaghed. (Lisp cz n~5 mx 4;Je urJ.t C/ere wl2'/ The bargaining unit employees are represented by the Teamsters Local #238, which is located at 5000 J St. SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404. Its principal officer is Gary G. Dunham. The union representative of the employees has received timely notification of the layoff. Employees who are not represented by the union have been individually and timely notified. The employees subject to the collective bargaining agreement may have bumping rights as set forth in that agreement. Employees who are not subject to the collective bargaining agreement do not have bumping or transfer rights. If you have further questions or need additional information, you may contact me at (319) 688- 6425. Sincere' C� Ron Udell Human Resources Manager International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. 3745974.1 i� C-� -n C -) -G N r � .<m m a M E5:7 _ r Affected Hourly Employees Represented by Union Jo Titl c`s+- -stsvice PerQrr1-3 Ir)'ectionU5 e ac Foriix0 eratdr Finish O rator Store Room Attendant Finish -Containment Injection Operator Service Person Vinyl Compounder Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Service Injection Service Injection SPC Pour Head Operator Packer Injection Operator Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Packer Apprentice -Tooling Mechan Injection Operator Packer Finish Operator Quality Technician Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Apprentice -Pour Head Mech Shipper Injection SPC Finish Operator Finish Operator Journeyman, Maint Mechani Finish Operator Packervn I n'ection,Servi ce`re �ffjqctiori:UP S' ,rljelection = e leer r�r ne , P'�0 r ead Mech G ` O 3745923.1 0 0 -ln'ectio=e Ylt"e Nish =jeraf& - ren i e-Tqp it Mechan —Igfectior Opo ectio eYato',C LPaur HeW O -eiator Packer o Injection Operator Slush Operator Packer injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Process Technician Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Maintenance Oiler Injection Service Injection Operator Slush Operator Pour Head Operator Journeyman, Injection Mol Injection Operator Service Person Pour Head Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Service Apprentice -Electrician Injection Operator Injection Operator Packer Store Room Attendant Journeyman, Injection Mol Journeyman, Tooling Mecha Vac Form Operator Pour Head Operator Process Technician Journeyman, Electrician Injection Operator Materials Coordinator Process Technician Receiver Finish Operator Injection Service Finish Operator Receiver Group Leader, Production Injection Service Injection Operator Injection Operator A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Apprentice -Machinist Injection Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Journeyman, Pourhead Mech Injection Operator Finish Operator Service Person A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Service Person Hand Spray Operator Injection Operator Apprentice -Tooling Mechan Injection Operator Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator In'ectionr PC Finish O ratoF=% i 'sh-Crta*h t h O 6rator-'�- Me tion id era Recker i— ci Y � U .n - 3745923.1 N 3745923.1 0 N 3745923..l :n f T &In'gC. old Set Brat7erator —atoreratoreratoreratorerator Outside Truck Driver Affected Hourly Employees Not Represented by Union Contin Finish Hand Service SPC Person Operate Service Finish O erator Process Technician Service Person Service Hand Pour Finish 3745923.1 Service Person Injection Operator Injection Operator Continuous Improvement Te A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Infection Operator Injection Operator In'ectlon Service Injection operator Packer Injection Operator Quality Technician Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Packer Packer Finish -Containment Hand Spray Operator Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Receiver Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Pour Hedd'Q erator Pour Head -O eraol lbig tion ODerAG2 IpIpTion 'erft In'e tion $ervidOl_-- `" 37#53.1 O Hand Spray Operator Finish -Containment Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish -Containment Injection Service Finish Operator Finish -Containment Injection Service Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Finish Operator Sewing Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Service Injection Service Injection Service Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Service Finish Operator Packer Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Packer Pour Head Operator Finish 8 eratop nct ge^� ctioheratpr— oe ln'bctio eiatbr3 tj o 3745923.1 3745923.1 4� G� N N Injection Service Injection Operator Packer Injection Operator Finish Operator Service Person Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Packer Injection Service Outside Truck Driver Journeyman, Electrician Injection Operator Injection Operator Group Leader, Production Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Quality Technician A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Injection Operator Injection Operator Service Person Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Receiver Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Opprator Finish OpZrator ._: ♦Wish Oatilt; i 5 h O per at&D NN&h O erator" i— R ' h O mtoD— L) Finish operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Affected Employees Not Subject to Collective Bargaining Agreement Job Title Quality Technician II Technician II Supervisor Production II Process Engineer I Supervisor IT Accounting Analyst III Tooling Engineer I Technician II Quality Technician II Technician II SR Materials Staff Associate Supervisor Production II SR Manager Engineering Process Engineer I Quality Technician II Technician 11 Manufacturing Engineer I SR Materials Staff Associate SR HR Staff Associate Tooling Engineer 11 Supervisor Production I Tooling Engineer II Process Engineer I Tooling Engineer II Supervisor Production If Supervisor Production I Process Engineer I Quality Engineer 11 Supervisor Materials II Quality Technician 11 Supervisor Production 11 Human Resources Manager SR Md 4ials Slaff Associate Supervisor M jiYenance I rr P' fiction 1 1 Pco 'ction 11 3745923.1 it A. c film 0 c-+ 3745923.1 TM International Automotive Components October 24, 2016 Mayor Jim Throgmorton 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City Iowa 52240 IAC Group North IPI 1� A, low Dear Mayor Throgmorton: cn rrr. Enclosed please find an updated notice that is issued in compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and Iowa Code § 84C. International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. (IAC), located at 2500 Highway 6 East, Iowa City, IA 52240 will experience a reduction in its workforce between December 23, 2016 -January 6, 2017 as a result of a significant loss of business. The layoff is expected to be permanent. The full list of affected employees is attached. Lis* ok vu� s'x �i- 'f'.4 614/ elvre iu& / N,0114) The bargaining unit employees are represented by the Teamsters Local #238, which is located at 5000 J St. SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404. Its principal officer is Gary G. Dunham. The union representative of the employees has received timely notification of the layoff. Employees who are not represented by the union have been individually and timely notified. The employees subject to the collective bargaining agreement may have bumping rights as set forth in that agreement. Employees who are not subject to the collective bargaining agreement do not have bumping or transfer rights. If you have further questions or need additional information, you may contact me at (319) 688- 6425. Sincerely, Annette Ma lei<idorlfi/ Director, Human ResoureNorth America International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. 3745974.1 ro O Iowa City, IA, USA o'. Phone 319.338.9281 ■ www.iacgroup.com crs Dear Mayor Throgmorton: cn rrr. Enclosed please find an updated notice that is issued in compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and Iowa Code § 84C. International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. (IAC), located at 2500 Highway 6 East, Iowa City, IA 52240 will experience a reduction in its workforce between December 23, 2016 -January 6, 2017 as a result of a significant loss of business. The layoff is expected to be permanent. The full list of affected employees is attached. Lis* ok vu� s'x �i- 'f'.4 614/ elvre iu& / N,0114) The bargaining unit employees are represented by the Teamsters Local #238, which is located at 5000 J St. SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404. Its principal officer is Gary G. Dunham. The union representative of the employees has received timely notification of the layoff. Employees who are not represented by the union have been individually and timely notified. The employees subject to the collective bargaining agreement may have bumping rights as set forth in that agreement. Employees who are not subject to the collective bargaining agreement do not have bumping or transfer rights. If you have further questions or need additional information, you may contact me at (319) 688- 6425. Sincerely, Annette Ma lei<idorlfi/ Director, Human ResoureNorth America International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. 3745974.1 ro O u o'. :-5: n o CYS crs C- --� r- 7 Dear Mayor Throgmorton: cn rrr. Enclosed please find an updated notice that is issued in compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and Iowa Code § 84C. International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. (IAC), located at 2500 Highway 6 East, Iowa City, IA 52240 will experience a reduction in its workforce between December 23, 2016 -January 6, 2017 as a result of a significant loss of business. The layoff is expected to be permanent. The full list of affected employees is attached. Lis* ok vu� s'x �i- 'f'.4 614/ elvre iu& / N,0114) The bargaining unit employees are represented by the Teamsters Local #238, which is located at 5000 J St. SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404. Its principal officer is Gary G. Dunham. The union representative of the employees has received timely notification of the layoff. Employees who are not represented by the union have been individually and timely notified. The employees subject to the collective bargaining agreement may have bumping rights as set forth in that agreement. Employees who are not subject to the collective bargaining agreement do not have bumping or transfer rights. If you have further questions or need additional information, you may contact me at (319) 688- 6425. Sincerely, Annette Ma lei<idorlfi/ Director, Human ResoureNorth America International Automotive Components Iowa City, LLC. 3745974.1 J 7 Affected Hourly Employees Represented by Union Jo Titl Ser ice sori ection ergtbf`, Vac Fornix erator Finish O for Store Room Attendant Finish -Containment Injection Operator Service Person Vinyl Compounder Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Service Injection Service Injection SPC Pour Head Operator Packer Injection Operator Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Journeyman, Maint Mechani Packer Apprentice -Tooling Mechan Injection Operator Packer Finish Operator Quality Technician Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Apprentice -Pour Head Mech Shipper Injection SPC Finish Operator Finish Operator Journeyman, Maint Mechani Finish Operator Packer Injection Service Injection SPC Injection Operator Packer Journeyman, Pourhead Mech 3745923.1 Finish Operator Injection SEWice Fitf hi 0 eRor — Apgrqntic . oli"-Mechan In'e-c ion SPC ! I talion rator- our Hea riratOF PacTcer o r_: In'ection erator-- Slush Operator Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Process Technician Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Maintenance Oiler Injection Service Injection Operator Slush Operator Pour Head Operator Journeyman, Injection Mol Injection Operator Service Person Pour Head Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Service l ----------- Apprentice-Electrician Injection Operator Injection Operator Packer Store Room Attendant Journeyman, Injection Mol Journeyman, Tooling Mecha Vac Form Operator Pour Head Operator Process Technician Journeyman, Electrician Injection Operator Materials Coordinator Process Technician Receiver Finish Operator tLI gg pp� �•— BCIIOFK�CCeN1ce--- 4 inish gjyraioF.g- eceive U= Group E&der, Wioduction Injection ervice Injection Operator Injection Operator A rentice-Injec Mold Set Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Apprentice -Machinist Injection Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Journeyman, Pourhead Mech Injection Operator Finish Operator Service Person A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Service Person Hand Spray Operator Injection Operator Apprentice -Tooling Mechan Injection Operator Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Finish -Containment Finish O erator Injection O erator Yacker v I' A ren ise-In'evoold Set Finish erator' Injection Operator Receiver Packer Injection Service A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Materials Coordinator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Hand Spray Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Service Injection Operator Receiver Vac Form Operator Service Person Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Hand Spray Operator Finish Operator Packer Shipper Finish Operator Injection Service Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Pour Head Operator Packer Finish Operator Injection Service A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Vac Form Operator 3745923.1. 3745923.1 ^ Lu LJ42Z �..i Rwrr` r—. �V gg pp� �•— BCIIOFK�CCeN1ce--- 4 inish gjyraioF.g- eceive U= Group E&der, Wioduction Injection ervice Injection Operator Injection Operator A rentice-Injec Mold Set Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Apprentice -Machinist Injection Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Journeyman, Pourhead Mech Injection Operator Finish Operator Service Person A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Service Person Hand Spray Operator Injection Operator Apprentice -Tooling Mechan Injection Operator Packer Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Finish -Containment Finish O erator Injection O erator Yacker v I' A ren ise-In'evoold Set Finish erator' Injection Operator Receiver Packer Injection Service A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Materials Coordinator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Hand Spray Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Service Injection Operator Receiver Vac Form Operator Service Person Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Hand Spray Operator Finish Operator Packer Shipper Finish Operator Injection Service Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Pour Head Operator Packer Finish Operator Injection Service A rentice-In'ec Mold Set Vac Form Operator 3745923.1. 3745923.1 A r ntice[-�oolinR..Mechan t S p e Pe6onr,l-i.=; Is'h-con"tain b r1t- Finn h O toP 9 ection raervi a =' Posh 00 at'i: YL Finish Orator Packer N Packer Slush Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Packer Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Service Person Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Packer Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator 3745923.1 i"nish O at I A renti`- -Ine='aldSet Finish 04Jbrator r-21 Finish rator Finish Operator Lull Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator N i"nish O at I A renti`- -Ine='aldSet Finish 04Jbrator r-21 Finish rator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Affected Hourly Employees Not Represented by Union Job Title Continuous Improvement Te Finish Operator Hand Spray Operator Hand Spray Operator Injection Operator Service Person Injection Operator Injection SPC Service Person Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Service Service Person Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Process Technician Service Person Packer Injection SPC Service Person Injection Operator Hand Spray Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish -Containment Injection Service Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator 3745923.1 m Service Perikn In' ibn O ator In t n O"eratO-. Cont' uous lm�ent Te A''gntica 'ec d Set 1 'pction fterator, -injection euftdK=_ Injection rvice — In'ection Operator Packer Injection Operator -Quality Technician Finish Operator 3745923.1 Hand Spray,O P. r Fial'-Co4ainrpeC I ction era�r T Finish O 'tor Injection gierator In6ection Operator Finish Operator Finish -Containment Injection Service Finish Operator Finish -Containment Injection Service Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection SPC Finish Operator Finish Operator Sewing Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Service Injection Service Injection Service Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Service Finish Operator Packer Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Packer Pour Head Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Injection Service Injection Operator Iniertion Sere 02 In'eM Oppj�todi Pat -t In' ion O Erato c Finis er r Service PerEn Pour Head Operator Injection Operator Packer Injection Service Outside Truck Driver Journeyman, Electrician Injection Operator Injection Operator Group Leader, Production Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Quality Technician A rentice-In'ec Mold Set injection Operator Injection Operator Service Person Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Injection Operator Injection Operator Finish Operator Receiver Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator 3745922.4 3745923.1 Finish Operator Finish Operator Finish Operator Affected Employees Not Subiect to Collective Bargaining Agreement Job Title Qualitv Technician II Technician II Supervisor Production II Process Engineer I -Supervisor IT Accounting Analyst III -Tooling Engineer I Technician II Quality Technician 11 Technician II SR Materials Staff Associate -Supervisor Production II SR Manager Engineering Process Engineer I -Quality Technician II Technician II -Manufacturing Engineer I SR Materials Staff Associate SR HR Staff Associate Tooling Engineer II Supervisor Production I Tooling Engineer II Process Engineer I -Tooling Engineer II Supervisor Production 11 Supervisor Production I Process Engineer I Quality Engineer II Supervisor Materials II Quality Technician II Supervisor Production II SR Materials Staff Associate Supervisor Maintenance I Supervisor Production II Supervisor Production 11 LD N 47� T U 374523.1 C� 0 N Original correspondence received as 4f(8) on 10/18 Marian Karr IP12 From: Kent Ralston Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 3:06 PM To: 'DENNIS BYRNES' Cc: 'City Council Subject: RE: Ref On -Street parking on Ireland Drive and Killarney Road Proposal Hello Mr. & Ms. Byrnes —Thank you for your question. I am not aware of any analysis completed by the Iowa Community School District regarding expansion of their current parking facility. However, even if an expansion is contemplated, this would not change the current need for the City to restrict parking on one side of Killarney Road or Ireland Drive. This is due to the difficulties that the Streets Department is currently experiencing with navigating these corridors and providing services. I do however agree with you that added parking would improve student safety and access to the High School. My hope is that when the new High School is populated, the parking issues in your neighborhood will 'self -correct' as discussed in our previous correspondence. However, if that is not the case, I would think that a discussion on parking capacity at West High would be appropriate. Hope this information helps. Best Regards, Kent Ralston, AICP Executive Director I Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County Transportation Planner I City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5253 From: DENNIS BYRNES [mailto:DBYRNES7915@msn.coml Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 8:37 AM To: Kent Ralston Cc: *City Council Subject: Re: Ref On -Street parking on Ireland Drive and Killarney Road Proposal Mr. Ralston, The parking problem is directly traceable to the parking shortage at the high school. There are acres of open space surrounding the school. Has any consideration or analysis been performed on the part of the high school administration or city officials to convert existing school grounds into temporary or expanded permanent parking to alleviate the shortage? The added benefit of expanded capability in closer proximity to the actual high school would result in improved student safety, access and efficiency. Regards, Dennis and Debra Byrnes ----- Original Message ----- From: Kent Ralston To:'DBYRNES7915 sn.com' Cc: *City Council Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:54 AM Subject: RE: Ref On -Street parking on Ireland Drive and Killarney Road Proposal Hello Mr. & Ms. Byrnes — Thank you for contacting us regarding the proposed parking changes in your neighborhood, your correspondence was forwarded to me for response. In recent years we have received an increasing number of concerns from the neighborhood regarding parking congestion caused by vehicles parked on both sides of the street (directly across from each other) on Killarney Road and Ireland Drive. As you suggest, this appears to be West High students. On multiple occasions, the City has flyered windshields asking drivers to be cognizant of where/how they are parking. As a result there have been some short-term changes in driver behaviors, but never a permanent resolution. Parking issues have reached a point where the City is having difficulties delivering services to your neighborhood. As a result, there is a proposal to prohibit parking on the side of the street where the fire hydrants are located. Parking would remain available on the other side of the street. This arrangement will ensure that City service vehicles and neighborhood traffic are able to safely navigate the neighborhood. In a recent visit to the school parking lot, staff noticed vehicles parked in every space and many more creatively parked outside of designated spaces. It is obvious there is a shortage of available parking at this time. As such, we are also hopeful that the issue resolves itself with the opening of the new high school - and if that is the case, we would be happy to remove the signs if it is the desire of the neighborhood. Please don't hesitate to contact me directly with future questions or concerns, Best Regards, Kent Ralston, AICP Executive Director I Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County Transportation Planner I City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5253 From: DENNIS BYRNES [mailto:DBYRNES7915@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:26 AM To: Council Cc: DENNIS BYRNES Subject: Ref On -Street parking on Ireland Drive and Killarney Road Proposal Council members, As the 3455 Killarney Road property owner, I am very much concerned with the proposal as outlined in Ms Gamm's 9/28/16 letter which notified the affected Killarney/Ireland area residents of the upcoming parking limitations that will affect our neighborhood. The parking congestion mentioned in the letter only occurs during normal West High School hours. Students park on these streets either because of parking space shortages at the high school, and/or to circumvent traffic entrance/exit congestion that occurs while using the school parking facilities. Please note that I personally called the high school enforcement official in February of this year to determine whether the administration could simply inform students to not park in surrounding neighborhoods, in an attempt discourage some or all of the bumper to bumper parking that was occurring on Killarney. I was told there was nothing that could be done but to hang in there as the problem would self correct itself once the new high school is completed in a couple years. In addition, I advocated removing the no parking signs on the non residential eastern side of Dublin to encourage/allow parking in closer proximity to the school, which would potentially solve the parking problem and which would also increase student safety by eliminating multiple road crossings on the part of students navigating from their parked vehicles in the sub division, then crossing busy Dublin street to get to school. Also noted that the largely unused church parking lot located immediately to the left of West High could likewise be used to satisfy parking needs and promote safety during school hours. Unfortunately, the current proposal will simply shift parking congestion from the North side of Killarney and Ireland, into bumper to bumper congestion on the South side of these streets, spilling over into adjoining neighborhood streets in the sub division. This in turn will continue to hamper residential access and services such as mail delivery and refuse collection, not to mention the student safety issues previously addressed, perhaps resulting in even more resources being spent for additional sign installation in the future. In speaking with Ms Gamm on her proposal she mentioned that the current parking restrictions have evolved over time and were piecemealed based on neighborhood surveys that were performed by the city. Prior to spending more resources erecting no parking signs, I would encourage the Council to direct a more comprehensive analysis of the current parking shortage and determine whether the problem will in fact self -correct in the near future, or whether some other alternative may be more effective at solving the parking congestion on Killarney and Ireland. Regards, Dennis and Debra Byrnes 3455 Killarney Road 1 563 320-2538 CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 Finance Department Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. Since the city's investments are mostly between the six month and twelve month range, the yield curve for the 12 month U.S. Treasury Bill has been added to the chart. The rolling average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 0.40% and the 12 month rate was .53%. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 0.57%. (See exhibit A) Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the first quarter of this fiscal year had an average return of 0.79%. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the first quarter were 9 basis points lower than investments purchased at this time last year. The decrease is due to the shorter maturity period of the new investments. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. In the September 21St meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the decision was made to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1/4 to '/2 percent. The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data. (See exhibit B) The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 0.05% in July, 0.05% in August, and 0.05% in September 2016. EXHIBIT A City of Iowa City vs. 6 Month Treasury Bill 0.6 - -- 0.5 L 3 m 0.4 L -*-City of Iowa City d 0.3 -;f-6 Month T-bill a=i t12 Month T-bill 0.2 CD a 0.1 0.0 gyp, t p, V., �c �?Q 4 �m� Cp 4e CP EXHIBIT A 3.0 Federal Funds Rate CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 30 -Sep -16 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE IPAIT IPAIT 27 -Sep -06 $ 1,312,750.00 0.08% HILLS BANK MONEY MRKT 30 -Mar -10 $ 9,000,000.00 0.20% WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ 5,416,694.17 0.15% WELLS FARGO SAV 14 -Apr -14 $ 24,000,000.00 0.25% US BANK MONEY MRKT 22Jun-16 $ 10,000,000.00 0.250 WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ 4,999,750.00 0.150 uICCU CD 22 -Jul -14 24 -Jul -19 $ 2,600,000.00 2.01% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 29 -Apr -15 29 -Oct -17 $ 1,000,000.00 1.02% UICCU CD 26 -Jun -15 25 -Jun -17 $ 844,150.00 0.95% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 18 -Aug -17 $ 775,000.00 0.68% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 30 -Sep -15 30 -Sep -17 $ 15,000,000.00 1.02% FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 16 -Oct -15 29 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.50% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES CD 16 -Oct -15 13 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.57% CBI BANK & TRUST CD 16 -Oct -15 05 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.62% CBI BANK & TRUST CD 16 -Oct -15 12 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.62% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 20 -Nov -15 15 -May -18 $ 499,510.00 1.04% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 08 -Dec -15 09 -Dec -16 $ 2,083,900.00 0.78% HILLS BANK CD 16 -Dec -15 13 -Jan -17 $ 2,000,000.00 1.00% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11 -Jan -16 10 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.91% IPAIT CD 05 -Feb -16 01 -Nov -16 $ 5,000,000.00 0.66% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 450,000.00 0.90% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 2,030,221.00 0.91% TWO RIVERS BANK CD 18 -Mar -16 15 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% TWO RIVERS BANK co 25 -Mar -16 29 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% UICCU CD 08 -Apr -16 07 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.750 UICCU CD O8 -Apr -16 14 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.750 CBI BANK & TRUST CD 05 -May -16 05 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.820 CBI BANK & TRUST CD 05 -May -16 12 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.820 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10 -May -16 10 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.620 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24 -May -16 24 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.920 CR BANK & TRUST CD 10 -Jun -16 12 -Jun -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.810 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 17 -Jun -16 19 -Jun -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.761 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 21 -Jun -16 21 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.610 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 18 -Jul -16 16 -Jan -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.590 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 27 -Jul -16 27Jan-17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.570 CR BANK & TRUST CD 09 -Aug -16 09 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.670 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24 -Aug -16 24 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.780 CR BANK & TRUST CD 02 -Sep -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.710 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 09Sep-16 10 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.650 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 09 -Sep -16 17 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.670 CR BANK & TRUST CD 13 -Sep -16 10 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.700 CR BANK & TRUST CD 13 -Sep -16 17 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.700 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 17 -Mar -17 $ 2,364,542.00 0.670 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 19 -Sep -17 $ 2,364,542.00 0.850 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 16 -Mar -18 $ 2,364,542.00 0.950 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 17 -Sep -18 $ 2,354,542.00 0.950 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 18 -Mar -19 $ 2,364,542.00 1.050 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 15 -Sep -19 $ 2,364,540.00 1.150 CR BANK & TRUST CD 30 -Sep -16 31 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.750 TOTAL $ 153,199,225.17 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 06/30/16 $131,199,225.17 PURCHASES 07/01/16 TO 09/30/16 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 18 -Jul -16 16 -Jan -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.590 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 27 -Jul -16 27 -Jan -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.570 CR BANK & TRUST CD 09 -Aug -16 09 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.670 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24 -Aug -16 24 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.780 CR BANK & TRUST CD 02 -Sep -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.710 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 09 -Sep -16 10 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.650 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 09 -Sep -16 17 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.670 CR BANK & TRUST CD 13 -Sep -16 10 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.700 CR BANK & TRUST CD 13 -Sep -16 17 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.700 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 17 -Mar -17 $ 2,364,542.00 0.670 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 19 -Sep -17 $ 2,364,542.00 0.850 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 16 -Mar -18 $ 2,364,542.00 0.950 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 17 -Sep -18 $ 2,364,542.00 0.950 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 18 -Mar -19 $ 2,364,542.00 1.050 IPAIT CD 16 -Sep -16 15 -Sep -19 $ 2,364,540.00 1.150 CR BANK & TRUST CD 30 -Sep -16 31 -Mar -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.750 TOTAL PURCHASES $ 34,187,250.00 REDEMPTIONS 07/01/16 TO 09/30/16 CR BANK & TRUST CD 09 -Feb -16 08 -Aug -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.82% CR BANK & TRUST CD 19 -Feb -16 24 -Aug -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.78% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 02 -Sep -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.52% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 09 -Sep -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.52% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 09 -Sep -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.71% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 16 -Sep -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.56% IPAIT 27 -Sep -06 $ (187,250.00) 0.03% TOTAL REDEMPTIONS $ (12,187,250.00) INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 09/30/16 $153,199,225.17 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND 9130116 9/30/15 FUND INVESTMENT INVESTMENT TYPE AMOUNT AMOUNT ALL OPERATING FUNDS $130,813,094.17 $111,999,854.17 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND $ 14,187,250.00 $ - BOND RESERVE FUND $ 8,198,881.00 $ 8,199,371.00 TOTAL $153,199,225.17 $120,199,225.17 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION TOTAL $153,199,225.17 $120,199,225.17 9/30116 9/30115 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT DEPOSITORY NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT LIMIT BANK OF THE WEST $ - $ - $ 75,000,000.00 BANKER'S TRUST $ $ $ 20,000,000.00 CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST $ 16,775,000.00 $ 12,775,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ 4,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 CBI BANK & TRUST $ 8,000,000.00 $ - $ 15,000,000.00 HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 11,000,000.00 $ 9,000,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 20,500,000.00 $ 7,500,000.00 N/A LIBERTY BANK $ - $ - $ 25,000,000.00 MIDWESTONE BANK $ 28,480,221.00 $ 26,480,221.00 $100,000,000.00 TWO RIVERS BANK $ 8,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ 7,444,150.00 $ 9,444,150.00 $ 50,000,000.00 US BANK $ 10,000,000.00 $ - $ 65,000,000.00 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES $ 4,583,410.00 $ 6,515,468.14 N/A WELLS FARGO BANK $ 34,416,444.17 $ 42,484,386.03 $ 50,000,000.00 WEST BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 TOTAL $153,199,225.17 $120,199,225.17 r �_.`®oGr CITY OF IOWA CITY IP14 '-'�� MEMORANDUAllM Date: October 25, 2016 To: City Manager, City Council From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending September 30, 2016 Introduction Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of September 30, 2016. The quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and expenditures for fiscal year 2017 through the end of the first quarter, which is 25% of the way through the fiscal year. Below are some of the highlights from this quarter's financial activity. Revenue Analysis This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by Type, on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues would ideally be near 25% of budget since we have completed one-fourth of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals back to the previous year, many of these percentages are below 25%. For the property tax supported funds, such as the General fund, Debt Service fund, and the Employee Benefits fund, their actual revenues are at 11.2%, 7.9%, and 12.3%, respectively. These funds have received a lower percentage of their revenue, because the City's property tax receipts are due twice during the year, October and April, and the City will receive the majority of its property tax revenue at that time. This is not the same for the City's enterprise funds. The City's enterprise funds are primarily supported by service charges which cause their actual revenues to be closer to the 25% mark. For instance, the Water fund is at 21.7%, the Wastewater fund is at 18.6%, and the Landfill is at 32.0%. These funds' revenues may still be under the 25% benchmark due to the accrual of revenues back to last fiscal year or above the 25% due to seasonal variances. Other funds with budget anomalies worth noting: the Other Shared Revenue fund has actual revenues at -.2% due to the return of state grant monies; the Perpetual Care fund has revenues at -44.3% due to the timing of the accrual entry for interest revenue; and the Risk Management fund has actual revenues at 110.9% due to a double -entry for internal charges that will be corrected in October. In addition, Franchise Fee revenue is at -$136,489 or -19% (on page 5) due to the timing of an accounting entry which was corrected in October. The combined total actual revenues for all budgetary funds through September are $42,619,685 or 20.7% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and the anomalies and budget variances can be explained. Expenditure Analysis This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for fiscal year 2016 through September is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 25% of budget at this time of year. Some of the funds have expenditure activity through the first quarter significantly above the 25% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above 25%: • Other Shared Revenue fund is at 35.8% due to property acquisitions from grants. • Wastewater fund is at 75.9% due bond principal and interest payments paid in July. • Water fund is at 57.0% due to bond principal and interest payments paid in July. • Airport fund is at 91.9% due to the purchase of the FBO hangar building. • Risk Management fund is at 41.7% due to workers comp claims and internal charges. Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through September are $58,722,241 or 22.2% of budget. Overall, the City's expenditures through the first quarter have a few major anomalies; however, these can be explained and are not unusual. Conclusion Generally, there are no major concerns to report with the City's fund balances at September 30. Two funds are presented (on page 3) with negative fund balance, the Other Shared Revenue Fund at -$197,119 and the Employee Benefits fund at -187,697. These negative fund balances should reverse following the receipt of grant proceeds and the first installment of property tax revenues. The other fund balances appear healthy. Additional information is available from the Finance Department upon request. City of Iowa City Fund Summary Fiscal Year 2017 through September 30, 2016 Debt Service Fund Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned 5"' Debt Service Fund Year -to -Date Transfers Year -to -Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund Permanent Funds Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance Budgetary Funds 116,266 (221) - - - 116,044 - 116,044 General Fund 10" General Fund $ 48,135,654 $ 5,595,346 $ 2,322,063 $ 12,647,717 $ 3,079,332 $ 40,326,013 $ 22,706,083 $ 17,619,930 Special Revenue Funds 5,455,387 900,618 818,116 1,519,946 - 5,654,175 1,287,299 4,366,876 2100 Community Dev Block Grai 448,892 42,497 - 287,130 81,051 123,209 - 123,209 2110 HOME - 47,680 - 17,808 - 29,872 - 29,872 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 5,767,142 1,893,540 82,650 1,282,689 605,083 5,855,560 - 5,855,560 2300 Other Shared Revenue 152,415 (2,000) - 347,534 - (197,119) - (197,119) 2350 Metro Planning Org of J.C. 302,423 28,905 67,064 142,636 - 255,757 - 255,757 2400 Employee Benefits 1,670,848 883,864 - 385,901 2,356,508 (187,697) - (187,697) 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 1,000,000 567 - - 29,006 971,560 3,054,872 971,560 2510 Peninsula Apartments 124,888 18,369 - 9,974 - 133,283 - 133,283 26" Tax Increment Financing 239,487 190,129 - - - 429,616 236,684 192,932 2820 SSMID-Downtown District - 19,078 - - - 19,078 - 19,078 Debt Service Fund 5"' Debt Service 6,000,281 1,765,303 - 3,073,779 - 4,691,805 1,482,827 3,208,978 Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care 116,266 (221) - - - 116,044 - 116,044 Enterprise Funds 710* Parking 10,742,693 1,549,670 - 778,136 57,091 11,457,136 5,885,583 5,571,553 715• Mass Transit 5,455,387 900,618 818,116 1,519,946 - 5,654,175 1,287,299 4,366,876 720`Wastemter 30,106,670 2,345,983 1,110,864 16,145,489 1,660,407 15,757,622 6,351,327 9,406,295 730' Water 16,240,827 1,972,731 486,240 7,248,702 483,516 10,967,580 2,845,931 8,121,649 7400 Refuse Collection 1,245,110 589,696 - 786,797 - 1,048,009 - 1,048,009 750` Landfill 24,926,190 1,910,111 57,091 1,160,185 - 25,733,207 23,399,662 2,333,545 7600 Airport 572,874 78,988 28,302 342,698 - 337,467 100,000 237,467 7700 Storm water 1,170,823 283,272 - 151,328 60,000 1,242,767 - 1,242,767 79" Housing Authority 6,350,911 2,373,689 - 2,577,555 11,522 6,135,523 3,054,872 3,080,651 Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 21,966,585 12,373,905 3,344,308 6,293,108 - 31,391,689 - 31,391,689 Enterprise Projects 10,232,849 2,044,760 106,819 379,682 - 12,004,747 - 12,004,747 Total Budgetary Funds $192,969,216 $ 36,906,481 $ 8,423,517 $ 55,578,794 $ 8,423,517 $ 174,296,903 $ 67,350,268 $106,946,634 Non -Budgetary Funds Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 66,776 $ 34 $ - $ 6,560 $ - $ 60,251 $ - $ 60,251 Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment 11,749,371 1,414,262 - 889,412 - 12,274,221 10,755,487 1,518,735 8200 Risk Management 3,414,156 1,800,419 - 655,211 - 4,559,363 - 4,559,363 830' Information Technology 2,516,722 332,988 - 315,097 - 2,534,613 567,408 1,967,205 8400 Central Services 667,695 67,459 - 48,372 - 686,781 - 686,781 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 9,902,794 2,005,750 - 1,140,536 - 10,768,008 4,282,539 6,485,469 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 137,107 92,293 - 88,258 - 141,142 - 141,142 Total Non -Budgetary Funds $ 28,454,622 $ 5,713,205 $ - $ 3,143,447 $ - $ 31,024,379 $ 15,605,434 $ 15,418,946 Total All Funds $221,423,838 $ 42,619,685 $ 8,423,517 $ 58,722,241 $ 8,423,517 $ 205,321,282 $ 82,955,702 $122,365,580 3 City of Iowa City Revenues by Fund 4 Fiscal Year 2017 through September 30, 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Revenues General Fund 10" General Fund $ 48,667,850 $ 50,044,369 $ 50,044,369 $ 5,595,346 $ (44,449,023) 11.2% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 989,380 706,000 1,678,012 42,497 (1,635,515) 2.5% 2110 HOME 614,958 421,000 813,343 47,680 (765,663) 5.9% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 8,411,456 7,906,232 7,906,232 1,893,540 (6,012,692) 23.9% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 380,110 - 825,105 (2,000) (827,105) -0.2% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co 298,671 319,369 319,369 28,905 (290,464) 9.1% 2400 Employee Benefits 10,516,769 11,144,971 11,144,971 883,864 (10,261,107) 7.9% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 1,000,000 - - 567 567 0.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 72,243 74,000 74,000 18,369 (55,631) 24.8% 26" Tax Increment Financing 1,030,833 2,276,953 2,276,953 190,129 (2,086,824) 8.4% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 295,284 321,151 317,859 19,078 (298,781) 6.0% Debt Service Fund 5"' Debt Service 13,301,893 13,645,137 14,302,460 1,765,303 (12,537,157) 12.3% Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care 384 500 500 (221) (721) 44.3% Enterprise Funds 710' Parking 11,016,908 5,625,275 5,625,275 1,549,670 (4,075,605) 27.5% 715' Mass Transit 4,582,386 7,120,613 7,196,613 900,618 (6,295,995) 12.5% 720' Wastevster 22,742,715 12,588,588 12,588,588 2,345,983 (10,242,605) 18.6% 730* Water 13,346,893 9,111,655 9,111,655 1,972,731 (7,138,924) 21.7% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,130,252 3,173,900 3,173,900 589,696 (2,584,205) 18.6% 750* Landfill 6,268,826 5,977,982 5,977,982 1,910,111 (4,067,871) 32.0% 7600 Airport 341,499 359,500 359,500 78,988 (280,512) 22.0% 7700 Stonn water 1,173,615 1,516,221 1,516,221 283,272 (1,232,949) 18.7% 79" Housing Authodly 8,819,308 8,501,334 8,501,334 2,373,689 (6,127,645) 27.9% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 16,503,591 19,553,084 40,029,738 12,373,905 (27,655,833) 30.9% Enterprise Projects 1,911,092 2,690,898 3,450,366 2,044,760 (1,405,606) 59.3% Total Budgetary Revenues $175,416,916 $163,078,732 $187,234,345 $ 36,906,481 $(150,327,864) 19.7% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues - Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 25,195 $ - $ - $ 34 $ 34 0.0% Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment 5,912,284 6,379,763 6,379,763 1,414,262 (4,965,501) 22.2% 8200 Risk Management 1,547,056 1,623,145 1,623,145 1,800,419 177,274 110.9% 830' Information Technology 1,870,446 2,150,510 2,150,510 332,988 (1,817,522) 15.5% 8400 Central Services 243,265 269,844 269,844 67,459 (202,385) 25.0% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 7,217,213 8,027,508 8,027,508 2,005,750 (6,021,758) 25.0% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 364,364 382,627 382,627 92,293 (290,334) 24.1% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17,179,823 $ 18,833,397 $ 18,833,397 $ 5,713,205 $ (13,120,227) 30.3% Total Revenues - All Funds $192,596,739 $181,912,129 $206,067,742 $ 42,619,685 $(163,448,091) 20.7% 4 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2017 through September 30, 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Revenues Property Taxes $ 52,020,805 $ 55,330,224 $ 55,330,224 $ 4,682,597 $ (50,647,627) 8.5% Other City Taxes TIF Revenues 1,027,218 2,276,953 2,276,953 190,842 (2,086,111) 8.4% Gas/Electdc Excise Taxes 764,260 746,043 746,043 - (746,043) 0.0% Mobile Home Taxes 65,497 68,265 68,265 16,783 (51,482) 24.6% Hotel/Motel Taxes 1,078,762 1,057,385 1,057,385 - (1,057,385) 0.0% Utility Franchise Tax 874,235 901,690 901,690 - (901,690) 0.0% Subtotal 3,809,972 5,050,336 5,060,336 207,625 (4,842,711) 4.1% Licenses, Permits, & Fees General Use Permits 82,496 104,047 104,047 4,082 (99,966) 3.9% Food & Liquor Licenses 92,738 120,650 120,650 33,791 (86,859) 28.0% Professional License 18,700 18,660 18,660 4,085 (14,575) 21.9% Franchise Fees 733,644 720,000 720,000 (136,489) (856,489) -19.0% Construction Permits & Insp Fees 2,102,624 1,463,225 1,463,225 543,968 (919,257) 37.2% Misc Lic & Permits 35,657 36,600 36,600 15,680 (20,921) 42.8% Subtotal 3,065,859 2,463,182 2,463,182 465,117 (1,998,065) 18.9% Intergovernmental Fed lntergovemment Revenue 12,693,466 15,181,625 22,356,506 2,149,040 (20,207,466) 9.6% Property Tax Credits 2,088,758 1,671,368 1,668,076 217 (1,667,859) 0.0% Road Use Tax 8,320,117 7,837,116 7,837,116 1,803,240 (6,033,876) 23.0% State 28E Agreements 2,058,908 1,785,000 1,785,000 - (1,785,000) 0.0% Operating Grants 104,197 89,743 89,743 41,500 (48,243) 46.2% Disaster Assistance 118,068 - 97,071 - (97,071) 0.0% Other State Grants 6,711,203 4,978,045 5,514,452 2,266,895 (3,247,557) 41.1% Local 28E Agreements 1,378,455 1,038149 1,038,149 321,939 (716,210) 31.0% Subtotal 33,473,172 32,581,046 40,386,113 6,582,831 (33,803,282) 16.3% Charges For Fees And Services Building & Development 1,719,875 401,750 437,612 195,102 (242,510) 44.6% Police Services 112,112 44,121 44,121 24,549 (19,572) 55.6% Animal Care Services 10,400 10,000 10,000 3,181 (6,820) 31.8% Fire Services 9,244 9,000 9,000 2,040 (6,960) 22.7% Transit Fees 1,299,179 1,448,900 1,448,900 247,045 (1,201,855) 17.1% Culture & Recreation 761,363 812,093 812,093 179,455 (632,638) 22.1% Library Charges 22 - - 8 8 0.0% Misc Charges For Services 71,270 66,692 66,692 20,182 (46,510) 30.3% Water Charges 9,138,197 8,931,156 8,931,156 1,956,328 (6,964,828) 22.0% Wastewater Charges 12,264,380 12,201,600 12,201,600 2,334,589 (9,867,011) 19.1% Refuse Charges 3,491,480 3,608,800 3,608,800 686,752 (2,922,048) 19.0% Landfill Charges 5,686,853 5,341,722 5,341,722 1,776,553 (3,565,169) 33.3% Storm water Charges 1,167,517 1,477,710 1,477,710 286,792 (1,190,918) 19.4% Parking Charges 5,927,772 5,965,154 5,965,154 1,901,599 (4,063,555) 31.9% Subtotal 41,659,663 40,318,698 40,354,560 9,624,175 (30,730,385) 23.8% Miscellaneous: Code Enforcement 253,174 300,500 300,500 33,104 (267,396) 11.0% Parking Fines 549,575 620,000 620,000 98,390 (521,610) 15.9% Library Fines & Fees 155,519 160,000 160,000 37,925 (122,075) 23.7% Contributions & Donations 609,723 517,519 1,082,519 255,162 (827,357) 23.6% Printed Materials 49,456 44,326 44,326 11,329 (32,997) 25.6% Animal Adoption 14,190 13,000 13,000 2,605 (10,395) 20.0% Misc Merchandise 57,644 53,522 53,522 30,729 (22,793) 57.4% Intra -City Charges 3,112,634 4,003,742 4,003,742 985,140 (3,018,602) 24.6% Other Misc Revenue 739,617 708,915 1,563,599 234,076 (1,329,523) 15.0% Special Assessments 1,615 604 604 8 (596) 1.3% Subtotal $ 5,543,146 $ 6,422,128 $ 7,841,812 $ 1,688,468 $ (6,153,344) 21.5% City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2017 through September 30, 2016 Ij 2016 2017 2017 2017 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Use Of Money And Property: Interest Revenues $ 1,040,598 $ 927,821 $ 927,821 $ (208,782) $ (1,136,603) -22.5% Rents 1,265,519 1,256,057 1,256,057 366,524 (889,533) 29.2% Royalties & Commissions 149,751 113,814 113,814 25,259 (88,555) 22.2% Subtotal 2,455,867 2,297,692 2,297,692 183,001 (2,114,691) 8.0% Other Financial Sources: Debt Sales 23,897,097 16,187,000 28,992,000 12,805,000 (16,187,000) 44.2% Sale Of Assets 7,747,095 993,389 3,083,389 340,250 (2,743,139) 11.0% Loans 1,744,239 1,435,038 1,435,038 327,417 (1,107,621) 22.8% Subtotal 33,388,431 18,615,427 33,510,427 13,472,667 (20,037,760) 40.2% Total Budgetary Revenues $175,416,916 $163,078,733 $187,234,346 $ 36,906,481 (150,327,865) 19.7% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Capital Project Funds $ 25,195 $ - $ - $ 34 $ 34 0.0% Internal Service Funds 17,154,628 18,833,397 18,833,397 5,713,170 (13,120,227) 30.3% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 17,179,823 $ 18,833,397 $ 18,833,397 $ 5,713,205 $ (13,120,192) 30.3% Total Revenues -All Funds $192,596,739 $181,912,130 $206,067,743 $ 42,619,685 $(163,448,058) 20.7% Ij City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund Fiscal Year 2017 through September 30, 2016 7 2016 2017 2017 2017 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Expenditures General Fund 10" General Fund $ 49,198,596 $ 54,585,583 $ 54,960,394 $ 12,647,717 $ 42,312,677 23.0% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 659,901 719,713 1,696,735 287,130 1,409,605 16.9% 2110 HOME 747,816 428,108 801,716 17,808 783,908 2.2% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 5,436,882 5,969,763 5,985,013 1,282,689 4,702,324 21.4% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 446,465 - 970,712 347,534 623,178 35.8% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co. 558,489 616,729 616,729 142,636 474,093 23.1% 2400 Employee Benefits 1,054,857 1,212,865 1,212,865 385,901 826,954 31.8% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 52,501 56,879 56,879 9,974 46,905 17.5% 26" Tax Increment Financing - 42,500 42,500 - 42,500 0.0% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 295,284 321,151 321,151 - 321,151 0.0% Debt Service Fund 5"' Debt Service 15,016,250 15,146,227 15,419,400 3,073,779 12,345,621 19.9% Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care - - - - - 0.0% Enterprise Funds 710` Parking 3,212,740 3,490,001 3,490,001 778,136 2,711,865 22.3% 715• Mass Transit 6,917,901 10,251,640 10,346,640 1,519,946 8,826,694 14.7% 720• Wastewater 10,674,085 10,593,521 21,258,521 16,145,489 5,113,032 75.9% 730* Water 7,686,557 8,558,936 12,724,240 7,248,702 5,475,538 57.0% 7400 Refuse Collection 2,935,579 3,142,730 3,142,730 786,797 2,355,933 25.0% 750* Landfill 4,550,095 4,505,413 4,625,413 1,160,185 3,465,228 25.1% 7600 Airport 408,276 372,709 372,709 342,698 30,011 91.9% 7700 Storm water 738,102 624,077 662,627 151,328 511,299 22.8% 79" Housing Authority 8,334,915 7,655,761 7,655,761 2,577,555 5,078,206 33.7% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 19,479,006 35,452,225 85,483,245 6,293,108 79,190,137 7.4% Enterprise Projects 3,893,109 4,517,923 14,169,410 379,682 13,789,728 2.7% Total Budgetary Expenditures $142,297,407 $168,264,454 $ 246,015,391 $ 55,578,794 $190,436,597 22.6% Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 424,014 $ - $ - $ 6,560 (6,560) 0.0% Internal Service Funds 810` Equipment 5,181,051 4,809,295 5,953,508 889,412 5,064,096 14.9% 8200 Risk Management 1,431,387 1,571,941 1,571,941 655,211 916,730 41.7% 830' Information Technology 1,834,060 2,108,294 2,108,294 315,097 1,793,197 14.9% 8400 Central Services 234,097 251,840 251,840 48,372 203,468 19.2% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 7,934,757 8,002,151 8,002,151 1,140,536 6,861,615 14.3% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 370,061 375,896 375,896 88,258 287,638 23.5% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17,409,427 $ 17,119,417 $ 18,263,630 $ 3,143,447 $ 15,120,183 17.2% Total Expenditures - All Funds $159,706,834 $185,383,871 $ 264,279,021 $ 58,722,241 $ 205,556,780 22.2% 7 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2017 through September 30, 2016 8 2016 2017 2017 2017 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Funds Expenditures General Fund 10" General Fund City Council $ 107,734 $ 109,426 $ 109,426 $ 29,879 $ 79,547 27.3% City Clerk 524,931 536,351 536,351 116,818 419,533 21.8% City Attorney 681,567 738,002 738,002 170,400 567,602 23.1% City Manager 2,154,215 2,522,541 2,522,541 487,364 2,035,177 19.3% Finance 3,598,454 4,243,950 4,243,950 1,542,586 2,701,364 36.3% Police 12,443,824 13,313,329 13,395,570 2,947,245 10,448,325 22.0% Fire 7,486,024 7,876,882 7,969,064 1,887,971 6,081,093 23.7% Parks & Recreation 7,337,290 8,079,336 8,104,336 1,809,680 6,294,656 22.3% Library 6,083,035 6,347,022 6,347,022 1,520,222 4,826,801 24.0% Senior Center 823,993 954,090 994,808 197,060 797,748 19.8% Neighborhood & Development Services 6,614,830 6,892,339 7,027,009 1,416,217 5,610,792 20.2% Public Works 1,342,700 2,317,845 2,317,845 387,409 1,930,436 16.7% Transportation & Resource Management 654,470 654.470 134,866 519,604 0.0% Total General Fund 49,198,596 54,585,583 54,960,394 12,647,717 42,312,677 23.0% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant Neighborhood & Development Services 659,901 719,713 1,696,735 287,130 1,409,605 16.9% 2110 HOME Neighborhood & Development Services 747,816 428,108 801,716 17,808 783,908 2.2% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund Public Works 5,436,882 5,969,763 5,985,013 1,282,669 4,702,324 21.4% 2300 Other Shared Revenue Neighborhood & Development Services 446,465 - 970,712 347,534 623,178 35.8% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc Neighborhood & Development Services 558,489 616,729 616,729 142,636 474,093 23.1% 2400 Employee Benefits Finance 1,054,857 1,212,865 1,212,865 385,901 826,964 31.8% 2510 Peninsula Apartments Neighborhood & Development Services 52,501 56,879 56,879 9,974 46,905 17.5% 26'• Tax Increment Financing Neighborhood & Development Services - 42,500 42,500 - 42,500 0.0% 2820 SSMID-Domtom District Neighborhood& Development Services 295,284 321,151 321,151 321,151 0.0% Total Special Revenue Funds 9,252,195 9,367,708 11,704,300 2,473,671 9,230,629 21.1% Debt Service Fund 5"' Debt Service Finance 15,016,250 15,146,227 15,419,400 3,073,779 12,345,621 19.9% Total Debt Service Fund 15,016,250 15,146,227 15,419,400 3,073,779 12,345,621 19.9% Permanent Fund 6001 Perpetual Care Parks & Recreation 0.0% Total Permanent Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 8 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2017 through September 30, 2016 9 2016 2017 2017 2017 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Enterprise Funds 710' Parking Transportation & Resource Management $ 3,212,740 $ 3,490,001 $ 3,490,001 $ 778,136 $ 2,711,865 22.3% 715' Mass Transit Transportation & Resource Management 6,917,901 10,251,640 10,346,640 1,519,946 8,826,694 14.7% 720' Wastewater Public Works 10,674,085 10,593,521 21,258,521 16,145,489 5,113,032 75.9% 730' Water Public Warks 7,686,557 8,558,936 12,724,240 7,248,702 5,475,538 57.0% 7400 Refuse Collection Transportation & Resource Management 2,935,579 3,142,730 3,142,730 786,797 2,355,933 25.0% 750' Landfill Transportation & Resource Management 4,550,095 4,505,413 4,625,413 1,160,185 3,465,228 25.1% 7600 Airport Airport Operations 408,276 372,709 372,709 342,698 30,011 91.9% 7700 Ste" water Public Works 738,102 624,077 662,627 151,328 511,299 22.8% 79" Housing Authority Neighborhood & Development Services 8,334.915 7,655,761 7,655,761 2,577,555 5,078,206 33.7% Total Enterprise Funds 45,458,251 49,194,788 64,278,642 30,710,837 33,567,805 47.8% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 19,479,006 35,452,225 85,483,245 6,293,108 79,190,137 7.4% Enterprise Projects 3,893,109 4,517 923 14,169,410 379,682 13,789,728 2.7% Total Capital Project Funds 23,372,115 39,970,148 99,652,655 6,672,790 92,979,865 6.7% Total Budgetary Expenditures $142,297,407 $168,264,454 $ 246,015,391 $ 55,578,794 $190,436,597 22.6% Non-Budaetary Funds Expenditures Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 424,014 $ - $ - $ 6,560 $ (6,560) 0.0% Total Capital Project Funds 424,014 - - 6,560 (6,560) 0.0% Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment Public Warks 5,181,051 4,809,295 5,953,508 889,412 5,064,096 14.9% 8200 Risk Management Finance 1,431,387 1,571,941 1,571,941 655,211 916,730 41.7% 830' Information Technology Finance 1,834,060 2,108,294 2,108,294 315,097 1,793,197 14.9% 8400 Central Services Finance 234,097 251,840 251,840 48,372 203,468 19.2% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves Finance 7,934,757 8,002,151 8,002,151 1,140,536 6,861,615 14.3% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves Finance 370,061 375,896 375,896 88,258 287,638 23.5% Total Internal Service Funds 16,985,412 17,119,417 18,263,630 3,136,887 15,126,743 17.2°/ Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17.409,427 $ 17,119,417 $ 18,263,630 $ 3,143,447 $ 15,120,183 17.2% Total Expenditures - All Funds $159,706,834 $185,383,871 $264,279,021 $ 58,722,241 $205,556,780 22.2% 9 1 10-27-16 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DP )P15 Bar Check Report - September, 2016 The purpose of the Bar Check Report is to track the performance of Iowa City liquor license establishments in monitoring their patrons for violations of Iowa City's ordinances on Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) and Persons Under the Legal Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments (Under 21). Bar checks are defined by resolution as an officer -initiated check of a liquor establishment for PAULA or other alcohol related violations. This includes checks done as part of directed checks of designated liquor establishments, and checks initiated by officers as part of their routine duties. It does not include officer responses to calls for service. The bar check ratios are calculated by dividing the number of citations issued to the patrons at that establishment during the relevant period of time by the number of bar checks performed during the same period of time. The resulting PAULA ratio holds special significance to those establishments with exception certificates, entertainment venue status, or split venues, in that they risk losing their special status if at any time their PAULA ratio exceeds .25 for the trailing 12 months. Note, while the resolution requires that bar checks and citations of the University of Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS) be included in these statistics, the DPS ceased performing bar checks and issuing these citations to patrons in May of 2014. Previous 12 Months Top 10 Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations Business Name VisitS Citations Ratio Business Name Visits Citations Ratio Eden Lounge 19 16 0.8421053 Union Bar 99 69 0.6969697 Union Bar 99 75 0.7575758 Summit. [The] 75 29 0.3866667 Summit. [The] 75 52 0.6933333 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 112 29 0.2589286 Sports Column 73 41 0.5616438 Sports Column 73 15 0.2054795 Airliner 22 10 0.4545455 Airliner 22 4 0.1818182 DC's 84 35 0.4166667 Bardot Iowa 18 3 0.1666667 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's) 112 34 0.3035714 Eden Lounge 19 3 0.1578947 Fieldhouse 43 10 0.2325581 DC's 84 13 0.1547619 Pints 33 6 0.1818182 Fieldhouse 43 1 0.0232558 Blue Moose- 24 2 0.0833333 0.2000000 �� 4 Only those establishments with at least 10 bar checks are listed in the chart above. Current Month Top 10 Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations Business m VisitS Citations Ratio Business Name Visits Union Bar 15 30 2.0000000 Union Bar 15 18 1.2000000 Pints 5 6 1.2000000 Sports Column 11 4 0.3636364 Summit. [The] 10 8 0.8000000 Summit. [The] 10 3 0.3000000 Eden Lounge 6 4 0.6666667 DC's 10 2 0.2000000 N DC's 10 5 0.5000000 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 12 n 2 0.1666667 Blue Moose- 7 2 0.2857143 Eden Lounge ' ^=r'6 � 1 -11.1666667 Fieldhouse 5 1 0.2000000 �� 4 -.. i Sports Column 11 2 0.1818182 -ic-) ra -- M s M't- W "exception to 21 ordinance Page 1 of 6 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - September, 2016 Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity Business Name 2 Dogs Pub Monthlv Bar Checks Totals Under2l PAULA 0 0 0 Airliner 4 0 0 American Legion 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 0 0 0 Bardot Iowa 0 0 0 Baroncini– 0 0 0 Basta 0 0 0 Blackstone" 0 0 0 Blue Moose– 7 2 0 Bluebird Diner 0 0 0 Bob's Your Uncle 0 0 0 Bo -lames 2 0 0 Bread Garden Market & Bakery – 0 0 0 Brix 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, (It's] 12 0 2 Brown Bottle, [The]– 0 0 0 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar" 0 0 0 Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlington) 0 0 0 Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert) 0 0 0 Caliente Night Club 1 0 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 1 0 0 Carlos O'Kelly's– 0 0 0 Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 0 0 0 Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 –exception to 21 ordinance Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA Bar 0 Ratio Ratio Under2l Checks PAULA (Prev 12 Mo) I (Prev 12 Mo) 5 0 00 0 0 22 10 4 0.4545455 0.1818182 18 0 3 24 2 C 1 0.0833333 11 0 0 0 112 34 29 1 0 7 1 0 4 3 0 0 3 0 0 0.3035714 II, 0.1666667 X X 0.2589286 7 4 0 T 0 '1 r— M 0 e2of6 oumne» rvanlc IVIU111111y 1 vw1D Bar Under2l PA Checks Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 Club Car, [The] 0 0 0 Coach's Corner 1 0 0 Colonial Lanes- 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 0 0 0 DC's 10 5 2 Deadwood, [The] 1 0 0 Devotay` 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 2 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 0 0 0 Eden Lounge 6 4 1 EI Banditos 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 0 0 0 Englert Theatre" 0 0 0 Fieldhouse 5 1 0 FilmScene 0 0 0 First Avenue Club- 0 0 0 Formosa Asian Cuisine- 0 0 0 Gabes- 2 0 0 George's Buffet 0 0 0 Givanni's^ 0 0 0 Godfather's Pizza 0 0 0 Graze" 0 0 0 Grizzly's South Side Pub 0 0 0 Hilltop Lounge, [The] 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 IC Ugly's 0 0 C India Cafe 0 0 C exception to 21 ordinance ULAI Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks] 5 0 0 1 0 0 84 35 13 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 19 16 3 43 10 1 3 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 0 0 0 0 0 0.4166667 1 0.1547619 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8421053 0.1578947 N O 7 O� 1 )'C N r 1C) J > r 0.2325581 0.0232558 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 3 of 6 Business Name Monthlv Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 h Bai Checks Un Iron Hawk 0 0 0 Jimmy lack's Rib Shack 0 0 0 0 Jobsite 1 0 0 25 Joe's Place 3 0 0 24 Joseph's Steak House- 0 0 0 Linn Street Caf6 0 0 0 Los Portales 0 0 0 Martini's 5 0 0 43 Masala 0 0 0 Mekong Restaurant- 0 0 0 Micky's^ 0 0 0 3 Mill Restaurant, [The]" 0 0 0 Moose, (Loyal Order of] 0 0 0 Mosleys 0 0 0 2 Motley Cow Cafe 0 0 0 Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 Okoboji Grill" 0 0 0 Old Capitol Brew Works 0 0 0 One-Twenty-Six 0 0 0 Orchard Green Restaurant" 0 0 0 Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 0 0 0 Pagliai's Pizza- 0 0 0 Panchero's (Clinton St)- 0 0 0 Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 0 0 0 Pints 5 6 0 33 Pit Smokehouse" 0 0 0 Pizza Arcade 0 0 0 Pizza Hut- 0 0 0 Players 0 0 0 Quinton's Bar & Deli 0 0 0 1 Rice Village 0 0 0 Ride 0 0 0 "exception to 21 ordinance lonth Totals der21 PAULA 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 ! 0 0 Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo( I (Prev 12 Moi 0 0 0 0 0.0697674 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 N O Q� n o n 1-G J 0.1818182 0 0 Page 4 of 6 Business Name Ridge Pub Riverside Theatre- Saloon- Sam's heatre"Saloon"Sam's Pizza Sanctuary Restaurant, [The Shakespeare's Sheraton Short's Burger & Shine - Short's Burger Eastside Sports Column Studio 13 Summit. [The] Sushi Popo Szechuan House Takanami Restaurant- Taqueria Acapulco TCB Thai Flavors Thai Spice Times Club @ Prairie Light! Trumpet Blossom CafE Union Bar VFW Post #3949 Vine Tavern, [The] Wig & Pen Pizza Pub - Yacht Club, [Iowa City] - Yen Ching Z'Mariks Noodle House "exception to 21 ordinance Ci Monthiv Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l Checks PAULA Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 0 0 0 0 < M A. +r1 S 0 0 0 r�� Page 5 of 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 4 73 41 15 0.5616438 0.2054795 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 8 3 75 52 29 0.6933333 0.3866667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 29 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 30 18 99 75 69 0.7575758 0.6969697 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r,a Ci rn 0 �r v < M A. +r1 S r�� Page 5 of 6 Off Premise Monthlv Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio Checks Checks (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Totals 109 58 30 1 813 284 177 1 0.3493235 0.2177122 0 0 46 0 8 94 0 0 Grand Totals 76 271 exception to 21 ordinance Page 6 of 6 N FO J 0 r^ exception to 21 ordinance Page 6 of 6 IP16 Subject: FW: Webinar: The Use & Benefit of STAR Certification From: STAR Communities [mailto:info=starcommunities.org@mai120.at151.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of STAR Communities Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:54 AM To: Brenda Nations Subject: Webinar: The Use & Benefit of STAR Certification ���STATR WEBINAR The Use and Benefit of STAR Certification Tuesday, November 1st, 2pm ET Ity Rating System, which evaluates environmental, economic, and social sustainability. But certification is only the first step towards creating more sustainable communities. In this webinar, staff from Dubuque, IA; Evanston, IL; and Iowa City, IA will share how they have leveraged their STAR certification results and begun the transition to implementable results. The panel discussion will give audience members a deeper understanding of the use and benefit of sustainability certification, the relationship between sustainability performance metrics and community planning and policy making, and ways to engage community leaders and residents in creating a more sustainable community. Presenters: • Cori Burbach, Sustainable Community Coordinator, City of Dubuque, IA • Catherine Hurley, Sustainability Manager, City of Evanston, IL • Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator, City of Iowa City, IA • Aaron Lande, Member Relations Manager, STAR Communities (moderator) From: City of Iowa City <CityoflowaCity@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:57 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: City Council Listening Post SHARE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. 10WACITY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: October 27, 2016 Contact: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Phone: 356-5041 City Council Schedules Listening Post The fifth City Council listening post will be held in the lobby of the Senior Center, 28 South Linn Street, on Tuesday, November 15, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Two Iowa City Council Members will attend each listening post and those two Council members will report back to the entire Council. Members of the community are encouraged to stop by and meet with Council representatives to discuss any community issue. No formal agenda or presentation is planned. The City Council of Iowa City approved the 2013 Equity Report Action Plan and five areas of focus for relationship building. The plan outlined top priorities and new initiatives developed by City staff and Council to promote racial equity and diversity. One of the new initiatives is to host listening posts in various locations throughout the year. Other listening posts are planned in other areas later in the year. For additional information, questions, or suggestions on future locations for listening posts please contact City Clerk Marian Karr at Marian-Karr(a)iowacitv.orc, 319-356-5041; or Equity Director Stefanie Bowers at Stefanie-Bowers(a)iowa-citv.org, 319-356-5022. Questions? Contact Us C.I11' Ot (011'A lylTl UNESCO CRV OF UTIRATURt STAY CONNECTED: f fI U A in U Late Handouts Distributed From: City of Iowa City <CityoflowaCity@public.govdelivery.com> o .3 Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:26 PM (Date) To: Marian Karr Subject: Update: Riverfront Crossings Park Information Open House O SHARE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web Page. 10WACITY Date: 10/26/16 Contact: Juli Sevdell Johnson Phone: 319-356-5110 Update: Riverfront Crossings Park Information Open House Update: The meeting time was left out of the original release for this meeting. The meeting will be held from 5-6:30 p.m. An informational open house meeting to discuss Phase 1 of the proposed Riverfront Crossings Park will be held Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2016, from 5-6:30 p.m. at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center, 220 S. Gilbert St. Phase 1 will focus on wetland creation.This meeting will showcase the most recent draft of the park design as well as look at the history of the site, the work that has been completed thus far, and the ecology information related to the site. Participants will be invited to peruse the information and provide verbal and written feedback. The public is encouraged to attend. Plan information will be available starting Monday, Oct. 31 at www.riverfrontcrossingspark.com. 1 ! � -'C�lrrqtt Questions? Contact Us CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CHN Of EITERAIUQ STAY CONNECTED: SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences I Unsubscdbe I Help MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Jann Ream, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy Bird, Steve Long RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of City Code Section 14-5B, Sign Regulations: Section 14- 3C, Design Review; and Section 14-9C, Sign Definitions to implement amendments related to the Iowa City Downtown District Storefront Design and Signage guidelines, and the Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) Supreme Court decision. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00002, a request to rezone approximately 4.57 acres of property located at 1225 and 1301 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and (P-1) to Riverfront Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG) and to amend the conditional zoning agreement for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street, be approved subject to a revised conditional zoning agreement for the property at 1201 S. Gilbert Street and a new conditional zoning agreement for the properties at 1225 S. Gilbert Street and 1301 S. Gilbert Street or alternatively, a conditional zoning agreement that addresses all three properties, as outlined in the "traffic and pedestrian circulation" section of the Staff Report dated October 6, 2016. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Consider approval of amendments to City Code Section 14-5B, Sign Regulations: Section 14- 3C, Design Review; and Section 14-9C, Sign Definitions to implement amendments related to the Iowa City Downtown District Storefront Design and Signage guidelines, and the Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) Supreme Court decision. Miklo introduced Jann Ream to the Commissioners, Ream issues all the sign permits for Iowa City so she is the foremost expert in the sign code and was instrumental in putting these amendments together. Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 2 of 15 Ream stated two things came together to bring these amendments in front of the Commission. One, about a year and a half ago the City worked with the Downtown District to hire an outside design consultant to help come up with retail design and signage guidelines for the Downtown District. Two, at the same time there was this Supreme Court decision relating to signage stated that cites could not use content based signage to regulate. Ream said that with those two things coming together it was a rather comprehensive review and rewriting of quite a bit of the City's Sign Code and this is likely the largest Sign Code package amendment the City has brought before the Commission in awhile. Ream noted there are quite a few changes, some of the Commissioners may not be aware of how the Sign Code was organized before but Ream will try to go through this step by step. Ream showed the Commissioners illustrations from the Iowa City Downtown District that were designed, reviewed and accepted as the final guidelines. The objective is to create an avenue downtown to promote creative new signage that is appropriate to the scale of the downtown buildings and a pedestrian oriented clientele. The goal was to eliminate those types of signage that are really more appropriate for buildings that are in auto -oriented areas. The downtown is very different and a unique situation that is pedestrian oriented. The consultants that were hired and other studies all emphasize the need for creative, pedestrian -scaled storefront signage in a downtown setting. Ream stated one of the first major changes is that plastic trim cap letters and cabinet signs where the entire face is internally illuminated would be prohibited. Ream showed examples of such signage to the Commission. Ream stated this will be a big change and will require quite a bit of education and discussion with downtown business owners to make them understand this is not the most appropriate signage for their business. Freerks asked about grandfathering current signage and Ream declared that all current signage will be grandfathered. Ream noted that in the previous ordinance the City has two types of canopy signs, canopy and canopy roof, and really the only difference was where the letters were mounted on the canopy. So part of this process was the result of a simpler signage ordinance. The City was able to eliminate a lot of sign types and combine a lot of sign types. The canopy roof sign would be eliminated as a separate sign type, and would be included in the general canopy sign designation. A canopy sign could be mounted to the top, face of a canopy. Rather than a square footage limitation on size (12sf), the size would be regulated by a maximum letter height (24 inches) for signs mounted to the top of the canopy and by the length of the canopy (no more than 90%). Ream noted that awning signs are a different type and the City ordinance would prohibit that much signage on an awning. Ream declared the next one is a big change, fascia signs are mounted to the face of a building. Fascia sign size would be reduced from 15% of the s i g n wall to 1.5x the length of the street facing facade. So, for example, a storefront with 25ft of street facing facade, would be allowed 37.5 sf of signage. This change would only apply to the CB zones. The other commercial zones would remain at 15% of the sign wall. This 1.5x the length is found in most Codes throughout the country, it is not a new concept and looking at the current signage in the Downtown District, most of the current signage fits this standard. Currently storefront projecting signs are allowed up to the first story. They are pedestrian - scaled, but underutilized downtown. In terms of trends in signage, Ream stated they are finding nationally projecting signs are coming back into vogue and are an appropriate storefront signage from a pedestrian visibility standpoint. In addition, some of the new larger buildings are Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 3 of 15 proposing projecting signs and the City wanted to be able to allow them under certain circumstances. Therefore, projecting signs would be divided into three categories: Storefront, Upper level and Banner. The storefront projecting signs would be reduced in size from 12sf to 9sf but there would still be an allowance for a storefront projecting sign to be larger if the storefront is taller (has a ground to ceiling height of 18ft or more) and the sign is vertically proportioned. Storefront signs are allowed on the first floor facade up to the bottom of window sills on 2nd floor. Upper level projecting signs can be placed anywhere above the ground floor but below the top roofline or cornice of the building. They can be larger than storefront projecting signs - size is proportional to the height of the building. These would be allowed under certain circumstances. Banner projecting signs are proposed to be allowed on large multi - tenant buildings such as Old Capitol Mall and size is proportional to the building. Ream shared examples of each of these with the Commission. Next Ream discussed window signs. The current ordinance just allows window signs that cannot be more than 25% of the storefront window, and can't obstruct views into the store. The Consultants in their guidelines prohibit window signs or only allow them in first floor windows, and Ream doesn't see that being an issue. Ream stated that currently the City prohibits painted signs, a business is not allowed to paint a sign directly onto a fagade. This is especially important for brick facades. However, the proposal is to make some allowance for these types of signs when incorporated into a wall mural on non -street -facing facades, such as an alley or along the side of a building. A wall mural can be very effective in brightening up these types of areas and make them less dreary. Additionally having the wall murals can discourage graffiti on those alley walls and side walls. Ream noted one change, that really doesn't have anything to do with the Downtown District, but the City has had request from some of the large manufacturing facilities, is that currently directional signs are only allowed up to three square feet and in Industrial zones, the size of directional signs would be increased to 15 square feet per side. This is proposed to address existing operational issues with semi -truck deliveries in industrial zones, and the limitation on directional signs causing difficulty with out-of-town drivers being able to find delivery locations. Freerks asked if those directional signs would be illuminated and Ream replied they would not. There could be ambient light or landscape lightening. Ream noted a few things, not necessarily related to sign categories that they are proposing. Larger integral signs, some are downtown already (such on the Jefferson Building), can be used to create a sense of identity for a whole building. Freerks asked for more detail on integral signs and if they are allowed in other areas, such as RS -5. Ream replied that they have always been allowed up to two square feet in a residential zone, so if one wanted to have a stone plaque indicating a historic home on their house they could. Integral means the sign is part of the building and generally letters carved into stone blocks. Reams continued and said that the City has never allowed animated signs in any way, but thought for the storefront projecting signs (that will be small, nine square feet) that if there was some sort of interesting sign and some rotation that could give it a little interest then the City will allow that. One other change, for window signs the City will allow electronic changeable copy which is specifically to allow changing signage for a movie theater listing different movies and Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 15 times every week Parsons asked if the current bank signs (Midwest One and US Bank) would be conforming, they flash the time and temperature. Reams said that time and temperature signs have always been allowed and are regulated separately. Reams continued with the second part of the Sign Code amendments which are related to the Supreme Court decision and the relation to content based signs now being declared unconstitutional. The Court decision was based on a town in Arizona that regulated temporary signs and depending on what the sign said, determined if the sign could be placed in city right- of-way. There was a church that was advertising their church services that received fines while other organizations and businesses were not fined. As Iowa City went through the sign ordinance and all of the sign categories they realized they had a lot of content based sign types. For instance the City has real estate signs, development signs, construction signs, going out of business signs, etc. So the question is how to regulate such signs, as they are legitimate signs. What the City decided was to make them all temporary signs and rather than categorizing them by what they denoted or advertised, it was stated that in certain situations these types of signs, in certain sizes, would be allowed for certain lengths of time. Therefore it became time, place and manner rather than the content of the sign. For instance, instead of calling something a real estate sign, now the ordinance would allow for a parcel sign located on a lot or parcel when the lot is being advertised for sale, up to 4 square feet in size for residential zones and up to 32 square feet in other zones. Ream stated they went through each of those types of signs to find a way to accommodate them in the Sign Code without them being defined by their content. Hektoen noted that it was a very broad Supreme Court decision and there were dissenting opinions and concurring opinions, it was a very convoluted decision. Therefore there has been some subsequent litigation trying to figure out what it all means. Since the breadth of decision is still being defined, the City took a very conservative approach. Ream asserted it really did help streamline and clean up the Code. Hektoen stated the Court said in their decision that aesthetics can be compelling and significant but not always. Therefore the City is taking a conservative, cautious approach. Ream elaborated and said that was one of the reasons to eliminate all references requiring design review for signage as that often involves some subjectivity. Freerks noted that the City does have restrictions for lighting and noise, and Ream agreed stating that is then how the City will address design issues. Ream continued and acknowledged that political signs would basically be unregulated. The City's policy in the past was to not regulate political signs, the only stipulation was to say they could not be in City right-of-way. With regards to residential leasing signs, that type would be eliminated. This type of sign advertises the name and contact information of the company who owns or manages a property. A Residential Leasing Sign is a sign permanently affixed to the building and it does not advertise a particular unit for sale or lease. It is only allowed in multi- family residential zones and commercial zones and only on buildings of eight units or more. This sign type was created several years ago as a compromise with apartment owners and management companies in order to eliminate all of the signage on single family, duplexes and small unit buildings (original single family houses that had been converted into multi -family buildings). Previously, these types of signs were considered real estate signs and were allowed on any building. An issue raised in the past by the Northside Neighborhood is that these signs were permanent and detracted from the residential character of the neighborhood. So this new Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 15 sign type was created and its use was restricted. This sign type is truly content based and no accommodation could be found that could allow it to remain as a sign type. "For rent' signs would still be permitted under the temporary sign rules and regulations, but would then only be used when an actual dwelling or dwelling units on the property were for rent. Freerks asked how the Residential Leasing Signs would be weeded-out over time. Ream said the current ones will be grandfathered in, but if the building changes hands it will be considered non-conforming. Freerks asked if the signs become rusty or damaged, can they be removed and not repaired. Reams replied that there is an ordinance in the Sign Code that states signs must be maintained and if they become obsolete they have to be removed, and the City will just approach that as situations arise. Reams stated that private signs in the public right-of-way will continue to not be permitted. Currently the City has a very tolerant policy for charitable organizations (run for the schools, March of Dimes walk, etc.) and the City will have to not allow that tolerant policy anymore. Therefore the City will work with the organizations to make them understand those signs cannot be in the right-of-ways. The impact on this new ordinance will be felt in the Downtown District. There are obviously some signs that are non-conforming, but they will be grandfathered in. Overtime as businesses change, the nonconforming signs will be replaced with conforming signs. The City hopes to partner with the Downtown District and business owners on education and obtaining the correct signage. Ream stated by eliminating all the content based signage the City will bring the Sign Code into compliance with Supreme Court law. Freerks asked about temporary signs, no more than 14 days and 2 occasions a year, noting that some signs people do put in their yards for a good portion of the year (school cross country, etc.), not in the public right-of-way, that can be an important communication tool. Ream noted that it will be a matter of enforcement and City Staff enforcement. Even under the current Code those type of signs are not to be permanent, so as long as the homeowners are not keeping them up permanently that is what the City is looking for. Freerks asked about flags in residential zones. 'In table 5-B-1 it was eliminated (public flags were stated as no permit was required) but some of the later tables it stated one was allowed. Ream said public flags were eliminated completely because citizens are always allowed to fly a public flag, and in the commercial zones they are stating they can have one additional flag (such as company flag). Signs asked about the trim cap and cabinet signs and if those were only being eliminated in the Downtown District or city-wide. Ream replied that they are only being eliminated in the Downtown District. Signs asked the same question in regards to pole-mounted banners. Ream stated they eliminated all those because a sign is only a sign if it is readable and legible from a city right-of-way. Therefore things like menu boards for restaurants, pole-mounted banner signs in private parking lots of shopping centers, were eliminated from the sign code because you can only see them once you are in the parking lot or drive-thru lane, so are not considered signs and are therefore not regulated. In the entire time Ream has been doing sign enforcement she has never issued a permit for those types of signs. Hektoen stated they are not by definition considered signs. Ream stated the City's compelling interest is what can be seen from public ways, so they aren't saying businesses can't have banners on poles, the City just isn't regulating it. Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 6 of 15 Freerks asked about realtor signs and if there was a time limit on those signs. Ream said the limit is for as long as the property is for sale. Freerks noted that some buildings may have for lease signs up for years if some portion of the building is constantly for lease. Ream stated that is okay, as long as there is space available in the building for lease. Dyer asked about the illustration Ream showed for the temporary sign for property for sale, would that also apply for property for lease. Ream said lease is the same as for sale. Freerks opened the public hearing Nancy Bird (Executive Director, Iowa City Downtown District) first expressed her appreciation for this thoughtful conversation and review and a special thank you to Ream, Karen Howard and John Yapp who all worked closely with the Downtown District through this process. Bird acknowledged this process was very important and that there is a lot of data that indicates if one changes a sign so it is more visible on the street, it improves the business operations. Bird stated they currently have 335 businesses downtown and when someone comes into town as a visitor and cannot see down the street, and all the signs are flush against the buildings, it is losing opportunities for those businesses. It is the goal of the Downtown District to help support all the businesses and to retain them and keep them downtown and improve the environment. Signage is a really interesting thing because as Ream mentioned there are changes in the signage world. There are a lot of things that a long time ago were cut down (which the City did) due to fear of a world of restaurants and bars and all that signage. But things are turning and the Downtown District really wants to make sure they can capture the essence of the downtown identity by looking for local artists and local sign fabricators to get really authentic and creative signs out there. Bird noted that when they first approached the City with this project the Downtown District put their own funds out there and the City matched it. Bird stated that she feels good that parts of this new Sign Code will improve other parts of the City as well. Bird stated their three primary goals (1) to encourage best practices which are included, the consultant not only had a signage background but also an urban design and retail background and understood how important it really is for businesses to extend their brand out into the streets. (2) Allow room for creativity, this is not an auto -oriented environment, it is pedestrian - oriented environment which means the signage downtown has special needs. (3) Flexibility in knowing that one sign may not be right for all places. Flexibility is always the challenge for regulations, one blanket regulation that has to apply to everybody, so it was important to see how design guidelines could help support the process. On that note Bird stated the Downtown District is very appreciative of the Code efforts today, they feel they are really strong and are going to (in tandem with the design guidelines) really encourage more opportunities that aren't available now (especially with the projecting signs) so it really compels one to walk down the street. Bird noted that when a regulatory environment changes, it doesn't just happen so Bird forward information to the Commission about a new program called "Cosign' that they applied for earlier this year and they have accepted the Downtown District to look at the program. What will happen is the Downtown District will get applications from several businesses (10-15) to join this program, then get designers involved and look for fabricators and see what kind of built signs that they can create within this Code. Bird asserted that the Code right now is really important and this program will really encourage other businesses to renovate or re -do their signage based on the result of others they see. The importance of the Code at this juncture is to work with City Staff and this program so the businesses comply. In that vein the design review component continues to be important because there is a path forward for design review. Bird noted one of the things that was recommended is that while currently the City uses a third party consultant to look at development projects in the Gap Analysis (the National Development Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 7 of 15 Council) and it is a process that has worked really well for the City because it allows them to utilize and support professionals that understand that environment. It is not someone local so there is not a conflict of interest and the staff can rely on unbiased feedback to drive those projects. This is the same kind of process where a third party consultant could provide for signs that may not fit "in the box" provided by the sign regulations and take a look at a sign that maybe (because of its location, not content) would be appropriate in certain settings. Bird shared with the Commission an exhibit that showed three examples of what a rooftop signage looks like. It is not in the current Code right now, and probably shouldn't be added because it is not something you would want to proliferate all over downtown, but there are really cool opportunities in other cities where they have allowed this in certain circumstances. Bird stressed this is not about the content, and noted there is a piece of the Supreme Court case that states it is similar to a when a building has unique aesthetics. Signs can be the same. The content can be read differently but where the sign is located matters and what it can look like matters. Bird recognizes that the legal advice from the City is there to ensure no risk for any kind of litigation. Bird would encourages this Commission to think about it a bit differently and to say it is good input and it might open the door for some sort of risk but it would be worth it because she feels there are some opportunities for the Cosign program to see some very cool wayfinding signage that is a little "outside of the box" the City currently has. Bird again thanked the Commission for allowing her to speak and noted it is true that signs change over time but the whole point of opening up this conversation with the City was to reduce the amount of times the local businesses would have to come to Staff to make a call about amending the Sign Code again. That is a ton of time for Staff and can create then a Code that is layered and layered and then really doesn't work. Now it is streamlined, but with a design review process it would eliminate the need to amend for individual ideas (such as the rooftop sign) that is not in the Code. Bird hopes the Commission's consideration can be passed onto Council and then this discussion of how design review can happen could be considered in a future amendment process. Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs stated he tends to agree that not having some mechanism in place for alternatives sounds like it will lead to problems very quickly. Theobald moved to approve City Code Section 14-51B, Sign Regulations: Section 14- 3C, Design Review; and Section 14-9C, Sign Definitions to implement amendments related to the Iowa City Downtown District Storefront Design and Signage guidelines, and the Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) Supreme Court decision. Martin seconded the motion. Signs stated he liked the idea of third party design review, doesn't really understand it or how it would work but having lived in Iowa City for a long time now he has seen the evolution of signage changes (like fashion) and sees the advantages of being a little fluid. Freerks stated she is okay with adopting this as it is now, and it will be okay to revisit because new things do come about and need amended. She does feel this is a lot more streamlined and is not sure how design review would work, but likes the idea of having lots of opportunities for creative signage in the downtown area and across the area as a whole. Freerks asked Ream if the Staff discussed rooftop signage. Ream said they did not discuss rooftop signage a whole lot, not in this particular context, and there is an entire history of rooftop signage. Freerks Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 8 of 15 acknowledged that one thing she has learned over time that allowing something that is perfectly manageable in one spot can be absolutely hideous and awful in another and feels that design review doesn't always catch that because people feel they are obliged to be able to have something when it is allowed. Freerks believes rooftop signage would have to be an issue on its own due to so many concerns (illumination, height, residential areas around, etc.). It's not to say it can't occur but it needs more conversation. Hektoen noted her concerns with design review is in looking at whether the City is going to pass strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny you must really justify the Government's interests in the regulation and the City can't say if it looks a certain way the regulation then doesn't really matter. It is really difficult to go to a court and justify the regulation when the City allows deviations from it. The interest is much less compelling or tailored when deviation is allowed. So the question then becomes why do we even have that regulation and should we just eliminate it. Hektoen said that design review really undermines the interest the City is trying to promote with the regulation. Hensch stated that sounds logical and agrees with what Hektoen said but the definition of Iowa City is this dynamic small metropolis that is being creative and does this then stifle how Iowa City is defined. Theobald feels this updated Sign Code allows for that creativity better. Freerks agreed stating there are a lot of possibilities here and if there is something someone doesn't see then bring it back to the City for discussion. Ream noted that some of the more commonly requested creative designs are three dimensional signs and those will now be allowed by this proposed Sign Code. So there is flexibility added into the proposed ordinance. Martin expressed that she really enjoyed hearing about the collaboration the City had with the Downtown District and feels this looks very nice and understandable and is excited to see what happens with this. Signs noted that he feels they did a very good job of eliminating the content based issue. He wanted to note he is very intrigued by the rooftop idea and can think of many cities where such signs are iconic to that city (such as the Traveler's umbrella in Des Moines) and it defines those areas and feels there could be a place for rooftop signage in Iowa City. Hensch asked if this sign policy allows for things that don't fit neatly "into a box", is there any discretion. Ream said if the City can't fit it into a category then it doesn't work and that is when the City would have to come back to the Commission for amendments. Dyer asked if the new sign on the Midwest One Bank fit into this new Sign Code. Ream replied that yes it would. It would be classified likely as an integral sign. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 15 REZONING ITEM (REZ16-00002): Discussion of an application submitted by 1225 Gilbert, LLC & 1301 Gilbert, LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert District (RFC - SG) zone for approximately 3.25 -acres of property located at 1225 S. Gilbert Street and approximately 1.3 -acres of property located at 1301 S. Gilbert Street. Howard began the staff report noting that there is part of the description that should have been included which is "to amend the conditional zoning agreement for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street' that is the former Nagle Lumber site. Howard explained that the application was subsequently amended to include that because it is all part of the same redevelopment plan. Howard showed a map of the area which is the very southern portion of the Riverfront Crossings District. The area where the wastewater treatment plant was has been demolished and turned into green space for the future Riverfront Crossings Park. Ralston Creek is on the western portion of the subject properties for the rezoning. Howard noted that S. Gilbert Street is not a very pedestrian oriented street currently, but the Riverfront Crossings plan is all about transforming these areas into a walkable neighborhood with a riverfront park instead of a sewer plant. The area is currently low-density, land intensive commercial uses (lumberyard, nursery, etc.) with front parking lots and not a lot of defined traffic circulation. Howard pointed out an older building that has been vacant for a while but is now being repurposed into a craft brewery with a restaurant. That project will need to be incorporated into the redeveloped area in a manner that best meets the vision outlined Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The property at 1301 S. Gilbert and a portion of the property at 1225 S. Gilbert are currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1). The westernmost portion of the property at 1225 S. Gilbert Street is currently zoned Neighborhood Public (P1). Since this property is not currently owned by a public entity, it is unclear when or why this area was zoned Public. Regardless, the requested rezoning is an opportunity to clear up this matter. The property at 1201 S. Gilbert (former Nagle Lumber) was conditionally rezoned to Riverfront Crossings South Gilbert (RFC -SG) last year before the idea of repurposing the building at 1225 S. Gilbert into a brewery was proposed. The subject rezoning includes a request to amend the conditional zoning agreement to shift the required pedestrian street alignment north to allow the existing building at 1225 S. Gilbert to be repurposed as a brewery. Howard stated the subject properties are located within the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings, so rezoning the properties to this designation would be consistent with the plan. Howard shared an excerpt of the regulating plan that is in the Zoning Code for this district, some of the parameters for this zoning are that on the primary streets the buildings have to be built oriented towards those streets and built close to those streets. There are two pedestrian streets that lead over to the new park that are also listed as required primary streets and the Ralston Creek frontage is also considered a required pedestrian street. With regards to the Comprehensive Plan, Howard explained that the South Gilbert Subdistrict master plan objectives talk about capitalizing on Highway 6 access and visibility in this location, leveraging the riverfront area of the new park, improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and restoring and enhancing conditions along Ralston Creek. The development character of the new neighborhood should be a mix of residential and commercial uses in this location, having urban frontage conditions (meaning the buildings are built close to the street with parking located behind), and a street and block pattern that emphasizes connections to the park and providing public access to the park. The maximum building height in this zone is 6 stories, but an airport overlay zone affects the allowed building heights in some locations on the property. Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 15 Howard read from a section from the sub -area plan (that was adopted in 2011) that specifically focuses on enhancements to the public realm, which includes the streets and public open space and how the buildings frame that space. This section of the plan describes the improvements to the public realm that will be necessary to create the walkable pedestrian oriented environment that is envisioned for this area. Currently pedestrians and bicyclists are an afterthought. The existing environment is an uninviting place for pedestrians. The plan states that the design of the public realm including streets and the placement of buildings will greatly affect the quality of place for Riverfront Crossings. Pedestrian comfort and safety should be placed at a premium during the design phases. The circulation pattern should continue the gridded network of streets already in place while connecting to the larger trail network along the Iowa River. To connect residents and visitors along the Gilbert Street corridor to the park, east/west connections with pedestrian bridges across Ralston Creek should be developed. Consideration should be taken to provide amenities for pedestrians including landscaping, street furniture and other amenities. Howard pointed out that the form -based code with the new required east -west pedestrian streets is intended to provide a means to implement the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Currently these properties do not have a street grid in place and traffic and pedestrian circulation is confusing and undefined. First Street used to extend from Gilbert Street west to Ralston Creek, but was vacated and sold to Aero Rental. Second and Third Streets also do not extend west to Ralston Creek. In order to have urban development and a walkable neighborhood, smaller blocks with new street extensions over to the creek will be necessary. New smaller blocks will provide more street frontage that will increase the development potential for the properties as well as improving connectivity and pedestrian orientation for a new neighborhood to grow in the future. Howard reiterated that while this is a rezoning application it should be noted that a subsequent subdivision platting will need to occur to establish these new required streets. Otherwise the properties will not be able to develop as envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Martin asked about the current speed limit on the southern part of Gilbert Street. It is currently 30 m.p.h and wondered if that would be reduced. Howard was uncertain about the speed limit, but that would be something to look into in the future as this corridor redevelops into a more urban, high density neighborhood. Howard showed another map from the Riverfront Crossings Plan that indicated all the pedestrian connections that would be beneficial to a new neighborhood. Moving onto Gilbert Street itself Howard showed a cross section of Gilbert Street envisioned in the plan and it shows a wider right-of-way for better pedestrian movement, comfort, and safety, and an attractive street frontage for new businesses. Dedication of land for this wider right-of-way will be necessary. Street trees are a very important buffer for shade and pedestrian comfort and safety, and should not just be an afterthought. The street cross section in the plan also indicates parallel parking along Gilbert Street, which would activate businesses and buffer the pedestrians from the travel lanes along the street. There is also a desire to accommodate bicycles along Gilbert Street and there would be parallel north -south bicycle routes through the park as well. Next Howard showed a map showing the green space and the pedestrian streets to access the green spaces. Howard explained that not only are these pedestrian streets for access to the park, but also could be used for stormwater management more appropriate to this urban setting rather than providing a stormwater basin in this area, more typical of lower density areas of the city. Green space along the pedestrian streets could be used as stormwater management to Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 11 of 15 capture the water in bioswales and then direct it over to the creek. The City will be investing considerable resources to restoring Ralston Creek in this area so there is a need for careful stormwater management plan for the private development so that run-off will not degrade the stream corridor over time. Howard notes the plan does mention quite a few options for green infrastructure that might be appropriate for this setting. The developers have indicated an interest in exploring these options. Howard discussed the concept plan the developer submitted with their application which shows a basic street and building layout that is generally consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Plan. One of the variations from the plan, however, is the repurposing of the building at 1225 S. Gilbert into a brewery, which makes it necessary to shift the pedestrian street north. Staff notes that the benefit of shifting it to the north is that it will align with Second Street, which usually benefits traffic circulation and creates a logical street pattern. Howard showed the Commissioners several views of the concept plan. In summary, Staff is recommending approval with a number of conditions: (1) Dedication of 40 feet of land along Gilbert Street, some additional land may be necessary near the intersection with Highway 6 to accommodate turn lanes. These improvements must be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the brewery at 1225 S. Gilbert Street. (2) Dedication of 30 feet of land along Ralston Creek as measured from the top of the bank prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the brewery. The City anticipates working closely with the property owners during restoration of Ralston Creek to ensure that existing and future development is enhanced by the creek and park improvements. (3) Prior to issuance of a building permit for any new building on any of the subject properties, a subdivision plat must be approved that establishes a private street that extends west from Gilbert Street to the 30 -foot Ralston Creek pedestrian street. This street should align with 2nd Street and have a minimum 60 -foot right-of-way for the pedestrian street portion and 80 feet for the vehicular portion to provide adequate space for on -street parking. In addition, the subdivision plat should establish a 30 -foot wide cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street in a manner that will provide safe and adequate traffic circulation and access to parking according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan. At the time of redevelopment this public cross -access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00002, a request to rezone approximately 4.57 acres of property located at 1225 and 1301 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and (P-1) to Riverfront Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG) and to amend the conditional zoning agreement for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street, be approved subject to a revised conditional zoning agreement for the property at 1201 S. Gilbert Street and a new conditional zoning agreement for the properties at 1225 S. Gilbert Street and 1301 S. Gilbert Street or alternatively, a conditional zoning agreement that addresses all three properties, as outlined in the "traffic and pedestrian circulation" section of the Staff Report dated October 6, 2016. Hensch asked how the issue of the 100 or 500 year flood plains will be addressed, since this is at the delta of Iowa River and Ralston Creek. Parsons commented that it looked like on the maps that all the buildings were located outside the 100 year flood plain but a few buildings were in the 500 year flood plain. Howard agreed that buildings will have to be built above the 500 -year flood plain. She noted that none of the subject buildings were flooded in 2008 and the Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 15 flood plain generally follows close to the eastern edge of the creek. The park will generally be lower and will help provide additional flood capacity. Hensch asked if the railroad truss that goes over Ralston Creek would be taken out. Howard said that is a question the City has for the park consultants. They need to examine that from an engineering and park design standpoint. Crandic Railway doesn't want it as it is an unutilized spur, so they said the City could have the bridge if they wanted it or they can take it out. Freerks stated that the developer's plan was moving in the right direction, but noted a concern that in the original Riverfront Crossings concept plan it appeared there was a stronger pedestrian draw from Gilbert Street into the area that will be public park land. She doesn't feel this concept reflects that, so she hoped that they would continue to refine this aspect and hoped to see it better defined when they bring in a subdivision plat. Signs agreed and said he was struggling because the concept of reusing an existing building from an environmental and sustainability standpoint is excellent but it then seems like the north half of the plan follows the Comprehensive Plan and then it's lost on the south half because of the building remaining and the way the traffic will be rerouted. Someone driving by on Highway 6 will just see a big parking lot. Freerks said proposed concept doesn't carry the pedestrians from Gilbert Street to the park as well as what is shown in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Howard said that will need to be addressed in the subdivision process. Once the streets get laid out it will become apparent where the sidewalks should be and where the parking should be located. Freerks just wanted to make sure since a lot of public money is going into to be invested in this area, so there needs to be good access for the public to get to the park and not just those that will be living in the area. Signs commented on the width of Gilbert Street and that there would be 50 or 60 feet added to that corridor. Is that coming from these properties? Howard said that the plan showed most of the additional right-of-way would be from the west side of the street because of the larger properties and greater likelihood these would redevelop first. On the east side of the street there are a lot of smaller properties so being able to acquire and consolidate properties enough to redevelop would be a lot tougher. Signs questioned then what happens with the Aero Rental building, since it is already close to the street, will that hinder when this streetscape can be redone. Howard agreed that will likely be an issue. The Gilbert Street improvements are not yet in the 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan, but will likely be included as part of the discussion this year due to the pending redevelopment. It is up to the City Council to decide how they wish to allocate the City funds to the various projects around the city. Howard believes this redevelopment will be completed in phases taking into account the Gilbert Street improvements may not happen right away. Parsons asked about the idea of parallel parking on Gilbert Street and he is wondering outside of the downtown area, where else on a major street in Iowa City is parallel parking allowed. Howard believes there are quite a few arterial streets that have on -street parking. Freerks opened the public hearing. Steve Long (HBK Engineering) spoke representing the owner. He acknowledged that the partnership is excited to be part of Riverfront Crossings and also being part of the planning process. He appreciates the City inviting them to be part of that process. Long noted that it was seven years ago tomorrow that there was a large public kick-off for Riverfront Crossings planning effort and now the idea of what could really happen here is materializing. Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 15 Freerks closed the public hearing Hensch moved to approve REZ16-00002, a request to rezone approximately 4.57 acres of property located at 1225 and 1301 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CIA) and (13-1) to Riverfront Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG) and to amend the conditional zoning agreement for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street, be approved subject to a revised conditional zoning agreement for the property at 1201 S. Gilbert Street and a new conditional zoning agreement for the properties at 1225 S. Gilbert Street and 1301 S. Gilbert Street or alternatively, a conditional zoning agreement that addresses all three properties, as outlined in the "traffic and pedestrian circulation" section of the Staff Report dated October 6, 2016. Signs seconded the motion. Parsons stated he likes the idea of pedestrian connectivity and feels the placement of the buildings and all that will come into place when they come up for review. He really likes (a) the restoration of Ralston Creek as an asset to the area and also (b) blending Gilbert Street into the area, right now it is just kind of a four -lane speedway to people to get from one place to another Cutting off those small driveways and making it a four -lane landscaped street with a median will really make it an asset to the area. Martin commented that she is loving where this area is going, but as a bicyclist the idea of all the parking spaces along Gilbert Street frightens her as cars will be backing in and out, so conceptually she is not seeing super pedestrian or bicycle friendly and hopes it will be improved as the plan is refined. Hensch believes this is all very exciting especially the idea of Ralston Creek redevelopment, particularly the overview of Riverfront Crossings park. This will be a premier area that will have a lot of interest for people to live, recreate and shop in that area. Signs agrees with everyone and likes the direction this project is going, and appreciates the development group's willingness to dedicate space to this nice new street and to orient their buildings to the park and the Ralston Creek walkway area. The fact that one group is looking at such a large area at one time is a great way to start a major redevelopment in that area. Dyer likes the idea but commented it scares her that it is one builder and that all the buildings may then look the same. Different owners might have different visions. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 1, 2016. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 14 of 15 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo shared a flyer for two upcoming learn at lunch events being sponsored by the Human Rights Commission. Howard noted that the City has invited Jeff Speck, a nationally recognized urban designer and advocate for walkability, to speak in Iowa City on October 24. More information will be provided at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Hensch seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015-2016 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 10/15 1115 11119 12/3 117 1/21 2119 3/3 3/17 4/7 4121 515 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 814 911 10/6 DYER,CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X — — — — — — FREERKS, ANN X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X PARSONS, MAX X X O/E X X X X X 0/E X X X X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK i -- i — i -- — I — — — — -- I -- -- X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE I X I X I X X I X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member