Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-19 CorrespondenceCITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org May 19, 2020 ATTACHMENTS: Item Number: 8.a. Description Jeffery Ford - Prairie restoration Dave Scott - Willow Creek Park; Lack of public input; Public records request Terri Macey - Scott Park Prairie Reconstruction -- Yes! Greg (& Nancy -Jeanne) LeFevre - In Support of Prairie Planting in Iowa City Greg LeFevre - Plans for new prairie establishments in Iowa City announced; revised location maps available Gary Jarvis - parks prairie project Rachel Vondrak - Willow Creek Park grass Judith Pfohl - Neighborhood prairies Pam Nims - Park Plans Patricia Benson -Additional comments on the Parks Department prairie plans Patricia Benson - Park Plans Kellie Fruehling From: Jeffery Ford <jlford36@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 6:23 PM To: Geoff Fruin; Council Subject: Prairie restoration Dear Mr Fruin and Council Members, I understand you are facing some concern about placing prairie in a variety of city parks. I want to encourage you to follow through with your plan. Prairie in combination with trails and education material is a great way to educate our children and grand children about the riches of diverse habitat. While your goals address climate change primaryly I believe exposure of children to prairie and its wild life encourages more positive awareness of the environmental issues we all face both in terms of habitat loss and climate change. I have witnessed several parks with mixed amenities be very successful with integrating prairie into their portfolio. Go for it. By the way while you are at it, I would encourage you to put in wetland prairie in City Park in its wettest and most flood prone areas. Cheers Jeffery L Ford This email is from an external source. Kellie Fruehling From: David Scott <koopers.pop@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:02 PM To: Council Subject: Willow Creek Park; Lack of public input; public records request Hi, I'm not sure how the city council is able to enter a contract without disclosing it to the public, and I'm very confused about how you are approving an action when you have just stated on the record that your constituents did not know what was approved. Please note that, at the very least, we will be filing an open records request for the contract you entered into without public comment for the prairie grass, and all documents and email related to it; which will include all email from staff. I am absolutely amazed that you know that folks are unaware of this and you are moving forward regardless. We know that most of our neighbors (your constituents) still do not know this is happening. Any neighbors who wish to be part of this action will be welcome. Dave Scott Kellie Fruehling From: Terri J. Macey <tjm1895@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:37 PM To: Council Subject: Scott Park Prairie Reconstruction --Yes! I recently read of a proposal by the city council to create some prairie habitat at Scott Park and would like to express my support for such a project. I use the park paths most days and can think of nothing better than replacing some of the the vast expanses of lawn with prairie grasses that would support native birds and insects. I applaud your efforts to address the effects of climate disruption in as many ways as possible. I hope there will be enough public support for you to pursue this project. Sincerely, Terri Macey 1366 Oxford Place Iowa City This email is from an external source. Kellie Fruehling From: Greg LeFevre <ghlefevre@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 8:51 PM To: Council Cc: Greg LeFevre Subject: In Support of Prairie Planting in Iowa City I RI X Dear Iowa City Council, I would like to voice my support for the plans for the prairie restorations in Iowa City parks. I live right across the street from Villa Park, and I think this would be a great feature for our neighborhood. I am writing this letter because you probably have only heard negative feedback from people, but please do know that we, as well as several of our other neighbors, are quite excited about this. There are many green thumbs in our neighborhood, and several expressed excitement and interest in native plants for pollinators. I for one would also be enthusiastic about volunteering at our future neighborhood prairie (I even used to be a restoration volunteer crew leader for the National Park Service), and know many prairie plants. It would be great to have a "friends" group for our neighborhood prairie restoration to volunteer. Prairie (Iowa's pre-Columbian dominant ecosystem) restoration serves so many purposes. Right now, much of Villa Park is just a large unused place for the city to mow and for occasional stormwater overflow, but it would be a great place to walk, take kids, and have as a habitat. Also, while it will require some maintenance, it will save money and GHGs in the future by not having to mow a large area that is not used for soccer fields or anything. When we moved to Iowa City, we wanted to live next to one of the more natural parks like Hickory Hill, but could never find a house there and so moved here; this would be such a neighborhood amenity. The prairie restoration would increase property values and become the new heart of our neighborhood, bringing a blend of the new playground with a natural habitat. As someone who is there at the playground all the time with my kids (except now when it is closed), the remaining grassed area is not used for sports or anything. Finally, I want to say that Applied Ecological Services is a great choice, one of the premier restoration firms in the country, so I am confident it will be very well done. I want to support this wholeheartedly! I actually didn't learn about it until hearing some rumors/ negative light, so perhaps a bit more education and outreach is warrented. Thanks, Greg (& Nancy -Jeanne) LeFevre 337 Macbride Road, Iowa City Kellie Fruehling From: Greg LeFevre <ghlefevre@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:04 PM To: parksandrecreation Cc: Council Subject: Re: Plans for new prairie establishments in Iowa City announced; revised location maps available Dear Parks and Recreation Department, I just received this email today, and was extremely disappointed to see that the prairie plans for Villa Park were completely removed! I am SO disappointed! I have only lived here a relatively short time (we bought the house here 3.5 years ago), but I only learned of the prairie plans for Villa Park about a week ago, and now in the revised map, Villa Park has been completely removed from the proposed prairie restoration list. What was the rationale behind eliminating this? We live very close by, but didn't get information on plans or inputs for changes like we did for the new playground- -otherwise you would have heard from many more enthusiastic supporting voices! I had just learned about it from a neighbor and learned more on the city website and in fact had started talking to my neighbors about how great it would be for our small kids to be able to explore in there, and we'd discussed forming a "Friends" group to help maintain the new neighborhood prairie. I worked in restoration ecology for over a decade, and in fact we just removed part of our front lawn this year to put in a prairie garden, as did one of our other neighbors. We could be happy volunteer and know many native plants (and invasive plants to keep out). I was a restoration crew leader for the National Park Service as well where I used to live. We were so excited ... why did this change to eliminate Villa Park from the prairie plans? I live across the street from it, and no one uses it for recreation; it is either too steep or soggy to play sports, and the kids all gather at the nice new playground. People just use the area to walk through to go to the grocery store. If some people didn't want it, could it have been made smaller or something rather than totally eliminating this site? Thank you for any additional information. Kind regards, Greg LeFevre 337 Macbride Road, Iowa City On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:18 PM parksandrecreation <parksandrecreation@iowa-citv.org> wrote: Dear Iowa City Resident, Thank you for your interest in the 2020 Prairie Establishment Plantings. The Parks and Recreation Department is committed to reaching the City's climate action goals and doing our part to further sustainability in the community. We have updated the Prairie Establishment maps based on feedback received from area residents. A Prairie Establishment FAQs document has also been created with the most commonly asked questions about the project. Those interested in viewing the revised maps and additional information on the project can visit https://www.icgov.org/project/iowa-city- park-projects. For more information, contact us at parksandrecreation@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5100. ® IOWA CITY A UMESto c#TY of LLTERATURE WWW.ICGOV.ORG Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kellie Fruehling From: Gary Jarvis <gpjarvisl @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 2:31 PM To: Council Subject: parks prairie project Dear Iowa City Council members: I write in opposition to the above project, specifically as it pertains to Scott Park. My home is adjacent to Scott Park. I have observed increased use of the park as housing construction has boomed the past few years. The uses include a multitude of turf grass related activities. (e.g.-kite flying, pick-up soccer games, frisbee, interval running, baseball catch, sun bathing, to identify a few.) Most activities engaged in at Scott Park afford opportunity for nearby families to obtain the benefits of physical activity and exercise. The space Scott Park provides for such activity is especially important as the aforementioned population growth near Scott Park is made up of muiti family and higher density single family housing. As the new Hoover Elementary School is just east and south of Scott Park, it is reasonable to conclude new housing construction will continue near Scott Park. Indeed, a new subdivision near the intersection of Scott Blvd. and American Legion Rd. is in the planning stage. This project materially and permanently alters the nature of Scott Park. It reduces the space available for recreational activities by approximately 65%. In closing, when my family moved next to Scott Park, it was literally on the eastern boundary of Iowa City. Clearly this is increasingly no longer the case. Scott Park represents precious recreational space. I respectfully urge the Council to maintain the open areas on the eastern end of the park south of Court st. and near the dog park as areas available for turf grass related activities. Sincerely, Gary Jarvis Kellie Fruehling From: Rachel Vondrak <rachel-lynn1 @hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 6:15 PM To: Council Subject: Willow Creek Park grass Hi! Please don't plant tall prairie grass over this beautiful park. It's such a great area to play pick up soccer for many, let my dog run around, and just a peaceful sunny area. We love this park and would hate to see it covered up with tall grass. Thanks for your considerations Rachel Vondrak This email is from an external source. Kellie Fruehling From: Judith Pfohl <judypfohl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:21 AM To: Council; Zac Hall; Tyler Baird; Marcia Bollinger Subject: Neighborhood prairies Ar RIIK An environmentalist contacted my Saturday about who to contact at the city with his ideas. I suggested City Council, Parks, City Manager, and Neighborhood Coordinator. NextDoor has removed my access, so when you have an updated park plan I would appreciate a copy sent to tyncae.neighborhoodCabgmail. com. Thank you, Judy Pfohl 2229 Abbey Lane Kellie Fruehling From: Pam Nims <pamnims@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:37 PM To: Laura Bergus; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor, John Thomas; Mazahir Salih; Bruce Teague; Janice Weiner, Geoff Fruin; Juli Seydell Johnson Cc: Council Subject: Park Plans Attachments: IMG_2996.JPG; IMG_2997.JPG; IMG_2998.JPG I RISK Council, City Manager Fruin, and Director Seydell Johnson, I've taken some time to read through the materials and revised maps provided on Tuesday of this week. I appreciate the effort that has been put into these materials. As I have noted in my prior communications, I and many others appreciate that you made changes to several parks in the plan based on feedback. While I don't work in the public sector, I know quite well what it's like to spend significant amounts of time preparing a plan and being vested in its implementation only to be met with resistance and critique. It is easy to become defensive. Sometimes you have to take a step back and analyze the situation to see if perhaps the process employed was flawed and if important input was not obtained. Such a process can be time consuming, but the resulting outcome and future relationships are always the better for it. In reading the documents provided in addition to news reports, I am struck by the fact that there not only appears to be no acknowledgement that something different should have been done, but instead a steadfast response that gives me and other constituents the impression that significant, material changes can be made to their parks without input from the very people that use them. Let's take Willow Creek park as an example. That park is a total of 27.2 acres according to city documentation. That acreage would include the creek and forested areas that are not usable. The original plan had 9.7 acres being converted to prairie. Villa Park was slated to be converted in its entirety. To characterize such conversions as maintenance is disingenuous. I would never suggest nor am I suggesting that the parks department engage neighbors in small things they do in parks. That happens every year and every day, as it should. Let's not pretend that what was planned (and is still planned for many parks) is not a material change to constituents. I also have a few specific comments that I would like addressed: • In reviewing the Willow Creek map, why has the area at the southwest end of the park been removed from the planned prairie plantings? Is there a different plan for this area? That area has already had significant tree removal and is not an area that is used for recreation other than running, walking, and biking the trails that go through there — which would be unaffected by prairie plantings. I've attached a few pictures from my morning walk today of the area in question. This area is also difficult to mow. • Questions remain about how prairie plantings will be maintained. It's great that there is a lot of prairie experience on staff. However, that doesn't answer the question of what the plan is for maintenance. Will the city be relying upon volunteers to maintain these plantings? Are there enough city resources to maintain the prairies? • Unrelated to the prairie, will the Willow Creek playground area be completed soon? We see children playing in that area regularly — everything from climbing playground equipment to skateboarding. The "fence" to keep them out isn't much of a fence these days as it is totally flat on the ground in places allowing for easy access. Is there a safety concern here? In closing, I ask that you engage community members through the forums that were used successfully in the past (e.g. city -created neighborhood associations, NextDoor, public forums, etc.) when material parks changes are considered. I would also ask that constituents who object to the plan not be painted as anti -prairie, or uneducated about climate matters. It is not only inaccurate but ends up pitting people against each other when in fact we share the same goals. We are fortunate to live in a city full of people who are vested in public spaces and our neighbors, as well as the broader world around us. Working together on tackling such issues will enrich our city even more. Thank you. Best regards, Pam Nims 2241 Abbey Lane L6 067- WNW A.— -46 tv MA 41 f L - `- `�� '� Mfr= - - •e.. .. -_ -. -.. - .- - �:•�+' "`t :•+'� Y;Vr +.'_• .s •ygxX _�r �..s :ii - s �K ''+r'c•,,,_: a:.+ -�t�rr - - _ M �� �-'� - it ; �, • • �• .+� ��.�:. V ,i T' �&. —Sse o -.- Kellie Fruehling From: Patricia BENSON <JPBENSON2005@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 20201:06 PM To: Council; Geoff Fruin; Juli Seydell Johnson; John Thomas; Janice Weiner; Pauline Taylor, Mazahir Salih; Bruce Teague; Laura Bergus; Susan Mims Subject: Additional comments on the Parks Department prairie plans AK Good afternoon, & thank you for your consideration of public comments on recent city actions involving our beloved parks. I was pleased last week to learn there was an effort to reduce the number of acres in the park prairie proposal, but I am concerned the removed areas will be converted at some future point without public communication and am still uncertain our city parks are the most appropriate location for prairies, outside of the 2 parks, Waterworks and Terry Trueblood, which were created for such actions. A friend who grew up in Boulder, CO said that city did a wonderful job recreating natural areas on the outskirts of the city without disrupting neighborhood parks within the city. Willow Creek Park may have a secondary park classification of "go wild", which covers the existing wooded areas & the creek, but it's primary classification is as a "play" park. This prairie conversion plan is also an action that points to a larger issue, communication and trust, not simply an issue of prairie vs non -prairie, or one of climate crisis management, which is extremely important. The parks department plans to use a large amount of money to create these prairie areas but felt this was not an action the public needed to provide input for, that it was part of park maintenance. Maintenance on existing prairie in at least one park, Kiwanis, has been nonexistent for well over a year or longer based on the number of invasive plants in that plot and the lack of burning for which a sign was posted last fall (well before the coronavirus pandemic) but has yet to occur. Lack of communication with the stakeholders is the major problem. People who use the parks, residents who selected homes near parks because those were desirable locations for their family's activities, those people deserve to have a say in what happens to their park spaces. I do not believe the parks dept process for observing which areas of parks are most -used is accurate or fair. Counting the pieces of litter found in a given area (it is unlawful to litter, so most is picked up or packed - out) or looking to see which areas dogs use to relieve themselves (my friends I walk with all pick up after their dogs) do not count as acceptable means. Seeing and counting people enjoying a park, looking at the variety of activities being done, talking to people who live in neighborhoods surrounding the park, those are more accurate. Much use is being missed, and based on listed measures observations are not happening when most people are actively using the park (the recent pandemic status since mid-March is a separate issue). Correspondence with only property owners whose property abuts park land directly is insufficient as well. Neighborhoods extend out from the park and are much more than those few households which may actually abut the park itself. I do think there must be other alternatives for climate action than tearing up our parks to plant prairies, or again, planting them away from residential areas in more appropriate areas than neighborhood city parks. Please look into reseeding our wooded areas and provide more trees to benefit the environment. There's room for a variety of ecosystems within a city park and I think it's important to preserve some of all of these ecosystems, which includes woods, grassy open areas, sledding hills, the creek, and perhaps establishment of some small native prairie areas. I have heard education of our youth about the environment is important, but there are more ecosystems than prairies they need to learn about. I want to see better communication between the city parks department, the city, and the neighborhoods (including private owners and renters) around the local parks before major projects are undertaken. Turning a park into prairie will change the essence of that park, along with the neighborhoods near it. This is not desirable by any means unless it is thoroughly vetted with the community involved. Thank you. Patricia Benson 2125 Leonard Circle Sent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone Get Outlook for Android Kellie Fruehling From Sent: To: Cc: Subject: AA RI1 K Nicely done, Pam. Patricia BENSON <jpbenson2005@msn.com> Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:43 PM Laura Bergus; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor, John Thomas; Mazahir Salih; Bruce Teague; Janice Weiner; Geoff Fruin; Juli Seydell Johnson; Pam Nims Council Re: Park Plans If we can get the ability to provide input going forward this will be a great achievement! I also hope criticism of the park's procedures will garner some review, but that may be too optimistic. Patti Sent from my U.S.Cellular@ Smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Pam Nims <pamnims@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:36:39 PM To: Laura Bergus <laura-bergus@iowa-city.org>; Susan Mims <susan-mims@iowa-city.org>; Pauline Taylor <pauline- taylo r@ iowa -city. org>; John Thomas <john-thomas@iowa-city.org>; Mazahir Salih <mazahir-salih@iowa-city.org>; Bruce Teague <bruce-teague@iowa-city.org>; Janice Weiner <janice-weiner@iowa-city.org>; geoff-fruin@iowa-city.org <geoff-fruin@iowa-city.org>; Juli Seydell Johnson <juli-sjohnson@iowa-city.org> Cc: council@iowa-city.org <council@iowa-city.org> Subject: Park Plans Council, City Manager Fruin, and Director Seydell Johnson, I've taken some time to read through the materials and revised maps provided on Tuesday of this week. I appreciate the effort that has been put into these materials. As I have noted in my prior communications, I and many others appreciate that you made changes to several parks in the plan based on feedback. While I don't work in the public sector, I know quite well what it's like to spend significant amounts of time preparing a plan and being vested in its implementation only to be met with resistance and critique. It is easy to become defensive. Sometimes you have to take a step back and analyze the situation to see if perhaps the process employed was flawed and if important input was not obtained. Such a process can be time consuming, but the resulting outcome and future relationships are always the better for it. In reading the documents provided in addition to news reports, I am struck by the fact that there not only appears to be no acknowledgement that something different should have been done, but instead a steadfast response that gives me and other constituents the impression that significant, material changes can be made to their parks without input from the very people that use them. Let's take Willow Creek park as an example. That park is a total of 27.2 acres according to city documentation. That acreage would include the creek and forested areas that are not usable. The original plan had 9.7 acres being converted to prairie. Villa Park was slated to be converted in its entirety. To characterize such conversions as maintenance is disingenuous. I would never suggest nor am I suggesting that the parks department engage neighbors in small things they do in parks. That happens every year and every day, as it should. Let's not pretend that what was planned (and is still planned for many parks) is not a material change to constituents. also have a few specific comments that I would like addressed: • In reviewing the Willow Creek map, why has the area at the southwest end of the park been removed from the planned prairie plantings? Is there a different plan for this area? That area has already had significant tree removal and is not an area that is used for recreation other than running, walking, and biking the trails that go through there — which would be unaffected by prairie plantings. I've attached a few pictures from my morning walk today of the area in question. This area is also difficult to mow. • Questions remain about how prairie plantings will be maintained. It's great that there is a lot of prairie experience on staff. However, that doesn't answer the question of what the plan is for maintenance. Will the city be relying upon volunteers to maintain these plantings? Are there enough city resources to maintain the prairies? • Unrelated to the prairie, will the Willow Creek playground area be completed soon? We see children playing in that area regularly — everything from climbing playground equipment to skateboarding. The "fence" to keep them out isn't much of a fence these days as it is totally flat on the ground in places allowing for easy access. Is there a safety concern here? In closing, I ask that you engage community members through the forums that were used successfully in the past (e.g. city -created neighborhood associations, NextDoor, public forums, etc.) when material parks changes are considered. I would also ask that constituents who object to the plan not be painted as anti -prairie, or uneducated about climate matters. It is not only inaccurate but ends up pitting people against each other when in fact we share the same goals. We are fortunate to live in a city full of people who are vested in public spaces and our neighbors, as well as the broader world around us. Working together on tackling such issues will enrich our city even more. Thank you. Best regards, Pam Nims 2241 Abbey Lane Kellie Fruehling From: stuart pitman <stuartkpitman@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 4:55 PM Cc: Council; Geoff Fruin; luli Seydell Johnson; John Thomas; Janice Weiner; Pauline Taylor, Mazahir Salih; Bruce Teague; Laura Bergus; Susan Mims Subject: comment on Iowa City's revised green space to prairie conversion plan Attachments: Pitman 2nd Letter.pdf AfR,�,,K Please see the attached letter to the Iowa City Council regarding the revised plan to convert 57.3 acres of land to prairie. Late Handouts Distributed —/g—.'2-0 (Date) May 14, 2020 Dear City Council, The City of Iowa City's revised green space to prairie conversion plan is NOT acceptable Stop this project now. Instead, do what should have been done from the beginning: immediately and systematically engage the citizens of Iowa City. The public deserves better than a quick revision. Trust was betrayed as park conversion plans were buried from residents... and even from the City Council. Several from your own ranks did not even know that they had approved this conversion. Your recently published document entitled "Prairie Establishment FAQs" curiously argues how very appropriate it was for the City to subvert direct public engagement on the green space to prairie conversion. Really? It is just common sense for a public project of this magnitude to directly engage ... well, the public. Stop this project and engage us now. You fail to address the evidence that the City of Iowa City does not maintain prairies. Look at the "prairie" in my closest park, Kiwanis. I have not seen maintenance on it—such as prescribed burns—in the past 4 years, other than some periodic mows. However, in the Press - Citizen article yesterday, Ms. Seydell Johnson's comments mislead the public on this point. She appears unaware of the City's years of Kiwanis prairie maintenance neglect, while arguing for its expansion, and blames the current pandemic for the current "prairie" woes. And let us now scale it up: the "prairie" in Kiwanis is roughly 2% of the land that was originally proposed for conversion. You had signed off on a fifty -fold expansion... of this? In light of the above, I ask that this entire project be put on hold for a period of 1 year for the purpose of public engagement. Stuart K. Pitman 2127 Abbey Lane Kellie Fruehling From: bradgrupe@mchsi.com Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 3:28 PM To: Council Subject: Park projects Ar RI!SrK Councilors - . r Late Handouts Distributed 5—ig-a-0 (Date) I find it interesting that the city awarded the contracts for park improvements at Scott, Napoleon, and Fairmeadows Parks to the same general contractor (All-American) that was awarded the Willow Creek Park improvement project last year. The original completion date for the Willow Creek project was October 15, 2019 according to the city project documents. It's now May 16, 2020 and the Willow Creek project is still not done. Perhaps that contractor was the only bidder but it doesn't seem particularly good practice to award a contract to a contractor that is seven months overdue on a previous project. It certainly hasn't been a well-managed project. Thanks for reading - Bradley Grupe Kellie Fruehling From: Pam Nims <pamnims@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 1:08 PM To: Laura Bergus; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Mazahir Salih; Bruce Teague; Janice Weiner; Juli Seydell Johnson; Geoff Fruin Cc: Council Subject: Re: Park Plans Late Handouts Distributed S- r I- RIK (Date) Hi Geoff, Thank you for the note and taking the time out of your weekend to respond to my email. The engagement you mention below with the neighborhoods surrounding Willow Creek and Kiwanis parks and the associated improvements was a positive experience. I recall getting many communications from our neighborhood association contact and even when I wasn't able to attend meetings I could funnel my family's feedback through her. We received updates from meetings, as well of a listing of plans for the parks. You'll be happy to know that we mentioned how positive those engagements were and pointed out the improvements to John and Pauline when we met to tour the parks a few weeks ago. It is exactly that type of engagements I was hoping for in the future in the closing of my email. I'm pleased to hear that there are added budget dollars and other changes to support prairie maintenance. I think everyone that has ever had a job in a large organization knows exactly what it's like to have a proejct launched with not enough resources allocated to maintenance. Initiatives can fail regardless of the expertise of the staff who are working hard trying to ensure success without these types of support in place. Again, thanks for the note. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 10:37:04 AM CDT, Geoff Fruin <geoff-fruin@iowa-city.org> wrote: Ms. Nims, Thanks for reaching out with your concerns about our prairie project. We regret the project caused angst in the neighborhood and in hindsight additional neighborhood public engagement beyond what we did at a city-wide level for our natural area and climate action plans would have been beneficial. The Parks and Recreation department routinely engages neighborhoods on our park projects and did so with recent improvements to Willow Creek and Kiwanis, including the completed trail improvement, new Kiwanis restroom, and the ongoing Willow Creek playground, shelter and restroom replacement. We will continue to engage the neighborhood with future planned improvements to the park. We understand the Willow Creek playground, shelter and restroom project is behind schedule and have been working with the contractor to get this completed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, they were unable to meet project deadlines before cold weather set in last fall / winter. Much of the remaining work, including the poured in place rubber playground surface requires warm weather for installation, which is now being completed. We hope these amenities will soon be open to the public — understanding that all city playgrounds are currently closed and restrooms are locked due to COVID. The revised prairie areas were developed after considering the feedback from neighborhoods. Going forward the prairie areas will be maintained by City staff and supplemented from private contractors, and engaged volunteers. The City has been preparing for added maintenance responsibilities for several years and have made changes to staffing, added budget dollars for contractual maintenance and purchased new equipment that will all help our prairie management efforts. You are welcome to call me if you want to have a discussion on this project. I can be reached at 356-5010. Thank you, Geoff Fruin City Manager From: Pam Nims <pamnims@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:37 PM To: Laura Bergus <Laura-Bergus@iowa-city.org>; Susan Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>; Pauline Taylor <Pauline- Taylor@iowa-city.org>; John Thomas <John-Thomas@iowa-city.org>; Mazahir Salih <Mazahir-Salih@iowa-city.org>; Bruce Teague <Bruce-Teague@iowa-city.org>; Janice Weiner <Jan ice -Wei ner@iowa-city. org >; Geoff Fruin <Geoff- Fruin@iowa-city.org>; Juli Seydell Johnson <Juli-SJohnson@iowa-city.org> Cc: Council <Council@iowa-city.org> Subject: Park Plans Council, City Manager Fruin, and Director Seydell Johnson, I've taken some time to read through the materials and revised maps provided on Tuesday of this week. I appreciate the effort that has been put into these materials. As I have noted in my prior communications, I and many others appreciate that you made changes to several parks in the plan based on feedback. While I don't work in the public sector, I know quite well what it's like to spend significant amounts of time preparing a plan and being vested in its implementation only to be met with resistance and critique. It is easy to become defensive. Sometimes you have to take a step back and analyze the situation to see if perhaps the process employed was flawed and if important input was not obtained. Such a process can be time consuming, but the resulting outcome and future relationships are always the better for it. In reading the documents provided in addition to news reports, I am struck by the fact that there not only appears to be no acknowledgement that something different should have been done, but instead a steadfast response that gives me and other constituents the impression that significant, material changes can be made to their parks without input from the very people that use them. Let's take Willow Creek park as an example. That park is a total of 27.2 acres according to city documentation. That acreage would include the creek and forested areas that are not usable. The original plan had 9.7 acres being converted to prairie. Villa Park was slated to be converted in its entirety. To characterize such conversions as maintenance is disingenuous. I would never suggest nor am I suggesting that the parks department engage neighbors in small things they do in parks. That happens every year and every day, as it should. Let's not pretend that what was planned (and is still planned for many parks) is not a material change to constituents. I also have a few specific comments that I would like addressed: • In reviewing the Willow Creek map, why has the area at the southwest end of the park been removed from the planned prairie plantings? Is there a different plan for this area? That area has already had significant tree removal and is not an area that is used for recreation other than running, walking, and biking the trails that go through there — which would be unaffected by prairie plantings. I've attached a few pictures from my morning walk today of the area in question. This area is also difficult to mow. • Questions remain about how prairie plantings will be maintained. It's great that there is a lot of prairie experience on staff. However, that doesn't answer the question of what the plan is for maintenance. Will the city be relying upon volunteers to maintain these plantings? Are there enough city resources to maintain the prairies? • Unrelated to the prairie, will the Willow Creek playground area be completed soon? We see children playing in that area regularly — everything from climbing playground equipment to skateboarding. The "fence" to keep them out isn't much of a fence these days as it is totally flat on the ground in places allowing for easy access. Is there a safety concern here? In closing, I ask that you engage community members through the forums that were used successfully in the past (e.g. city -created neighborhood associations, NextDoor, public forums, etc.) when material parks changes are considered. I would also ask that constituents who object to the plan not be painted as anti -prairie, or uneducated about climate matters. It is not only inaccurate but ends up pitting people against each other when in fact we share the same goals. We are fortunate to live in a city full of people who are vested in public spaces and our neighbors, as well as the broader world around us. Working together on tackling such issues will enrich our city even more. Thank you. Best regards, Pam Nims 2241 Abbey Lane Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 4 0, Kellie Fruehling From: Mary Murphy <mg9425@mediacombb.net> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 3:04 PM To: Council Subject: New Prairies Dear City Council, (Date) I am writing to thank you for your consideration of the many comments submitted about prairies and for your support of the City proactively communicating with honesty and forthrightness with the neighborhoods and people who live in them. Over the years, my children have played in many of Iowa City's parks. We have also made sure our children are exposed to natural areas. We understand the benefits of prairies. As I have watched this issue unfold, I recalled Iowa City's 2030 Comprehensive plan, which stated the following: "According to the 2010 Census, Iowa City experienced a decline in residents between the ages of 35 and 54 years of age—an age cohort that we might think of as the "family" years. The number of residents age 35 to 44 shows a decline of 13.5%, while the number of residents age 45 to 54 dropped by 6.9%. The only other group to experience a decline was the number of children 10-14 years of age, which dropped by 8%." (Page 11 of IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved from https: //protect- us.mimecast. com/s/j QckCG6AgNi8NjvH KJXdF?domain=www8. iowa-city. org) These percentage drops are alarming and demonstrate how easily a city's demographic base can change. Hopefully, the new census will show a reversal in the decline of residents in the "family years" and "children 10- 14 years of age." However, even were these percentages to increase, more compact development and the increase of multi -family housing in Iowa City highlight the need for room for active play for both children and adults around their places of residence. Open neighborhood areas that support activities including structured and unstructured play are often valued by residents, especially those in the "family years." Further, having a mix of public landscapes often attracts potential buyers to a neighborhood. Residents in the family years are often busy with their children and do not have time to keep up with what is going on at the City level, making it all the more important for the City to communicate with its residents and neighborhoods using a multitude of formats. Viewpoints on NextDoor can be censored and residents denied access so NextDoor should not be the only or even the major means of communication by City staff. I support the addition of a wetland prairie where the revised map shows it being put in City Park. If the river sandbars come back again, I would support your leaving them mostly as is instead of removing them. I am also glad you are leaving open green space in the area for the University students and others to play. I would be interested in seeing the City's maintenance plan for prairies being put online. Thank you for your service. Mary Mary Murphy 890 Park PI Iowa City, IA 52246 319-400-7464 This email is from an external source. Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Cc: --& e, a. mmockaitis@mchsi.com Monday, May 18, 2020 8:10 PM Late Handouts D1Stnbuted Laura Bergus; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Mazahir Salih; Bruce Teague; Janice Weiner, Geoff Fruin; Juli Seydell Johnson Council — 9 — ZD Subject: Prairie Conversion (Date) I have had the privilege of living next to Kiwanis Park for the past 15 years. The beauty of the park drew us to this neighborhood. I am writing in regard to the conversion of green space to prairie in Kiwanis Park and Willow Creek Park. The Parks and Recreation Division has done a beautiful job of maintaining these parks, with a few exceptions. One exception is the prairie area that is at the south edge of Kiwanis Park. It is approximately 1/2 acre that has been there for about 4 years. The area has been overgrown with seedlings and other invasive weeds for the past few years. This is a very small area, compared to what is proposed (even with the revised plan). If this small area has not been maintained over the years, why should a much larger area be added? There are many areas in both parks that are being overrun by poison ivy and garlic mustard. I would please ask that the removal of those invasive species become a priority before adding another project. As friends of the park have pointed out, there has been almost no engagement with the people who use the park about the proposed prairie conversion. Most of us have been involved with the park by pulling weeds, trimming bushes, cleaning the creek, etc. We have a very vested interest in this area. The surrounding neighbors, and I, pay close attention to what is happening with the park and this entire plan came as a surprise to all of us. The green spaces in these two parks are used heavily by park goers. After the complaints were heard by the City Council, then came the "revision" of the plan from the Parks Division. The problem is that the people who use the park were still not involved in that decision. I would respectfully request that this project be delayed until there can be further input from the people who use the park. Our Neighborhood Association was not engaged regarding this decision. Sincerely, Mary Mockaitis 2035 Abbey Lane Iowa City, IA 52246 mmockaitis@mchsi.com This email is from an external source. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org May 19, 2020 ATTACHMENTS: Description Michael Parker: Restaurants downtown Item Number: 8.b. Kellie Fruehling From: Michael Parker <miketparker@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 11:15 AM To: Council Subject: Restaurants downtown A I think you should consider making streets like Iowa Ave only pedestrian and allow the restaurants to move more tables outside. Mike CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org May 19, 2020 ATTACHMENTS: Description Scott Shephard: Outlot B Item Number: 8.c. Kellie Fruehling From: Scott Shephard <scottdotsheps@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 3:44 PM To: Council Subject: OUTLOT B On 3/6/2020 complaint #23745 was filed with the city regarding homeowner's acquiescing land along OUTLOT B. Julie Tallman was quick to respond with a letter to all homeowners saying "Do not add any more structures or landscaping" Attempts to update the status of that case after it was closed were ignored, so case #24250 was opened on 5/4/20 to inform the city of the continued landscaping. Oddly my complaint was ignored and I left a phone conversation from Julie feeling confused. I requested that I be put in touch with the City Attorney, and she instead forwarded me to assistant city attorney Sue Dulek. In an email chain with Sue, I was even more confused to learn that the city did not have intention on enforcing a letter that they endorsed. In one last attempt, case #24253 was opened to complain of junk in OUTLOT B. This complaint was swiftly closed without consideration of consequences. It is my understanding that OUTLOT B is now endorced by Sue Dulek and the City as a junkyard until Ben Cook deems that there is a blockage to storm water. If I am incorrect in this understanding, please see to it that the current junk mentioned in case #24253 is removed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. In the meantime, you are welcome for bringing this matter to your attention thus allowing you the opportunity to reclaim this land with the letter that was sent. However, if you are going to reclaim the land, you also have to maintain it and not free load off of residents illegally landscaping away the natural prairie of "Wild Prairie Estates" Sincerely, Scott Shephard Sent from my Whone This email is from an external source.