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