HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-11 Info PacketC 1
-~.:.®~~
"m'C'~r ~`` ~
1 ~Qa~~~
~~-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
March 11, 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum from Councilmember Wilburn: Legislative Update
IP3 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Proposed Ordinance Changing "Bar Entry" Age to
21: Interplay Between Council Action and Referendum
IP4 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development, City Attorney, and
Chief of Police: Downtown Association letter addressing panhandling and other issues
on City Plaza
IP5 Memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney: Iowa City Crossings
IP6 Letter from the Interim City Manager to Linda Schreiber: Thank you
IP7 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Absence
IP8 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Absence
IP9 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Taxicab Editorial
IP10 District Court for Johnson County -Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff vs. The City of Iowa
City and the City Council of Iowa City, Defendants
IP11 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development: Update: Flood-
related activities
IP12 Email from Douglas Elliott, ECICOG: Deadline for Single Family New Construction
Extended to April 12, 2010
IP13 Invitation: Iowa City Community String Orchestra Spring Concert -March 28, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES
IP14 Airport Commission: February 18, 2010
IP15 Board of Adjustment: February 10, 2010
IP16 Parks and Recreation Commission: February 3, 2010
IP17 Parks and Recreation Commission: February 10, 2010
~ _ i
~~®a7
03-11-10
,,,~ City Council Meeting Schedule and ~P1
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas March 11, 20,0
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• MONDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, MARCH 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, APRIL 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, APRIL 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• FRIDAY, APRIL 9 Emma J. Harvat Hall
8:OOa-5:OOp Special Council Work Session (City Manager Search -Recruitment firm interviews)
• MONDAY, APRIL 26 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, APRIL 27 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, MAY 10 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
Special Formal (Continue Work Session if necessary)
• MONDAY, MAY 31
Memorial Day Holiday -City Offices Closed
• TUESDAY, JUNE 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
Regular Formal (Continue Work Session if necessary)
• MONDAY, JUNE 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, JUNE 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, JULY 5
Independence Day Holiday -City Offices Closed
• MONDAY, JULY 12 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
Special Formal Council Meeting (Continue Work Session if necessary)
:..®~~
:'mom ~~
"'"'®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas March 11, zo,o
www.icgov.org
• MONDAY, AUGUST 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, AUGUST 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, AUGUST 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, AUGUST 31 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
2010 C.'~nsus - .Iowa Ci~~ .Moves Fo~wa>^d Whin Yoi~ Sind It Back
www.icgov.org/census
~~.r®(~
~ ~~~~~~~
~~,~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY spy
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 11, 2010
To: City Council
From: Councilmember Ross Wilburn ~ ~^~'"'""-
Re: Legislative Update
Attached is an update on legislative priorities of the Metropolitan Coalition as well as City
priorities that were not part of those of the Coalition. Please keep in mind that things are moving
more quickly as the session progresses toward a planned early adjournment, and the status of
individual bills will change quickly in the coming days.
2010 Legislative Priorities -Update
March 11, 2010
Metropolitan Coalition Priorities
Alternative Revenue:
Hotel/Motel Tax Increase - to 9% or add a $1.50/night fee. SSB3245 enables a
city to impose by ordinance a $1.50 per night local lodging regulation fee. The revenue
would be used first for the inspection, supervision and regulation of hotels and motels
under Chapter 137C -the hotel sanitation code. Any excess could only be used to
support property tax relief. Survived funnel. Ways & Means
ALSO: HF2480 enables the establishment of "Consumption Tax Districts" or sales
tax bonding districts to allow for sales tax increases for funding urban renewal projects.
Survived funnel. Ways & Means
Economic Development:
No changes to TIF. SSB3125 divides out school foundation property taxes for
purposes of urban renewal. Exempts instructional support from TIF -schools get that
revenue immediately. Funnel proof. Ways & Means
Maintain funding for I-Jobs, Vision Iowa, RECAT. Will be addressed by the
legislature in the coming days.
Smart Growth Incentives. SF2265 establishes "smart planning principles ",
guidelines for the adoption of certain comprehensive plans and land development
regulations, and provides for the establishment of a (37 member) smart planning task
force. Survived funnel.
ALSO: HF2322 creates a Workforce Housing Assistance grants program to be funded
and administered by the Iowa Finance Authority. Survived funnel.
Transportation Infrastructure:
Commuter/Passenger Rail (study/fund). The federal government has allocated
funds to study passenger rail service between Iowa City and Des Moines, and between
Des Moines and Council Bluffs.
Road Use Tax There is no bill under consideration to increase Road Use Tax
funding. It is reported that the proposal to fund $SO million of State Patrol operations
from Road Use Tax revenues does not have sufficient support in the legislature to pass.
Nuisance Bars:
Adjacent lots considered part of licensed premises for criminal activity occurring
there. HF788 would accomplish this. This is primarily a city of Davenport initiative
and the Coalition agreed to support it. Survived funnel.
Pension/retirement Issues:
MFPRSI (Municipal Fire & Police Retirement System of Iowa)/
IPERS (Iowa Public Employees Retirement System.
HF2502, the omnibus pension bill, has been referred to the Appropriations
committee. It would make appropriations to the State IPERS system as well as to the
MFPRSI system. The latter could double the amount we pay into the system, to over $3
million over the next four years. The bill is aimed at restoring actuarial soundness to
these funds that have been severely affected by the loss of interest revenue during the
economic downturn. Particularly with the MFPRSI system, cities will bear the brunt of
the financial burden. Survived funnel.
HF2382 provides for a choice of medical care by members of the MFPRSI system who
are injured in the line of duty. Currently, the employer may designate the medical
provider, (for example: through an Occupational Health provider as Iowa City does).
Did not survive funnel.
Fiscal Issues:
Monitor for additional State mandates. This is ongoing.
Scope of bargaining -prevailing wage. HF2420 includes provisions allowing
reasonable reimbursement for employee organization services provided to certain
"executive branch "employees (of the State). It does not apply to local governments as
currently written. This is essentially a `fair share "concept with limited application. Did
not survive funnel.
Historic Tax Credits/Other Tax Credits. There is discussion of cutting all tax
credits by ten percent (10%)
Tort Immunity: [A Davenport initiative)
City immunity from claims re: act or omission arising from alleged dangerous
conditions in public property open for recreation or leisure activities w/o fee (if not act of
malice).
City immunity as above, if fee is paid, if (1) person was trespassing, (2) City
complied with its police level of maintenance & inspection, or (3) alleged injury/damage
is a warned or commonly known risk of the activity resulting in damage/injury.
Water -Flood Plain:
Use restrictions relating to 500 year flood plain. SF2316 would prohibit new
construction or substantial modifications or improvements to "critical facilities " in the
S00 year floodplain unless they are built to continue safe operation and function during a
two-tenths percent flood event or could be safely shut down. Did not survive funnel.
Legacy Issues:
Rivers -long range plan for the State of Iowa Nothing specific to our concerns is
pending.
Water Quality Nothing specific to our concerns is pending.
City Priorities:
Tax Non-Owner Occupied Condos as Commercial: There is no bill under
consideration that would accomplish this.
Alcoholic Beverages: There is no pending legislation to 1) restrict price specials; 2)
address cover charges; or 3) increase fees for beer & liquor licenses.
Cigarette Permits: There is no legislation under consideration to increase these fees.
Other legislation:
SF2324 modifies the process for issuance of a state cable franchise and requirements for
providing service in order to retain a franchise. This bill addresses circumstances
relating to competition under which an existing cable franchise can be terminated by a
cable company in favor of a state issued franchise. Survived funnel. Will be considered
by the House in coming days. Supported by Iowa City and the Metro Coalition.
HF2251 authorizes a property tax exemption for certain vacant commercial property,
providing a sales tax refund for purchase of certain building materials, supplies and
equipment. Survived funnel.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 10, 2010
To: City Council
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Proposed Ordinance Changing "Bar Entry" Age to 21: Interplay Between Council
Action and Referendum
As you have directed there will be an ordinance on your March 23 agenda changing the
"bar entry" age to 21. As you know, final adoption of the ordinance will require three (3)
readings. Under the City Charter a referendum seeking to' repeal the ordinance may be
filed within sixty days after final adoption by the council and all signatures must be
secured during the 60 days after final adoption. Signatures may not be obtained prior to
final adoption.
Given the likelihood of a referendum if Council adopts a 21 ordinance, I thought it best to
inform Council and the public of the interplay between Council adoption and the deadlines
in the Charter for referendum sooner rather than later.
If Council adopts the ordinance by April 8, 2010 and a referendum petition with 2500
signatures is filed within 60 days thereafter (and is subsequently certified by the Clerk)
Council is required by the Charter to either repeal the ordinance or place it on the ballot
for the general election on November 2, 2010. Attached is an illustration of this scenario.
If Council adopts a 21 ordinance after April 8 and a referendum petition with 2500
signatures is filed within 60 days thereafter (and is subsequently certified by the Clerk) the
proposed repeal would not go on the ballot until the regular city election in November of
2011 unless Council chose to schedule a special election at any time more than 120 days
after the filing of the petition.
The filing of a referendum petition would not prevent the adopted ordinance from taking
effect.
Please call me if you have questions.
Cc: Dale Helling, interim City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
N
O
N
A
~,
00
N ~
o '~
o~
D
C7
A
J
N
GO
N
O
H+
O
.~
N
~ ~~
~ 0
N ~
O
~+
O
C ''d ~?
J
N
O
~+
O
g
.n
~~
~•
~~
~~~~
O
d
C~
~'~ .
~0
~~
to
o
'~`~ tv
,~ o
y
0
0
N
Vl
O
~Q~
A~
~D
~D
/~•
F++
C~
a
O
N
M--+
p
O
n
~D
pD
G
~~
O
pD
0
~•
p
"dam
00
O
~+
O
IP4
r
t-,!,1~.p:,~~ C1TY CJF [OWA CITY
~~ ~
Date: March 10, 2010
To: City Council
From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Plar~ni & Community Development ~~ l~
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Sam Hargadine, Police Chief
Re: Downtown Association letter addressing panhandling and other issues on City Plaza
Attached is an October 23, 2009 letter sent to you from the Downtown Association Board of
Directors. The DTA is requesting assistance with the ongoing issue of panhandlers on City Plaza.
They are requesting several changes and additions to the existing Aggressive Solicitation
Ordinance, and increased enforcement of this ordinance. They have also requested a change to the
Smoke-Free Ordinance for City Plaza. A City staff committee with members from the Department of
Planning and Community Development, the City Attorney's Office, the Parks and Recreation
Department, and the Police Department has met to discuss the DTA's requests.
Changes to the Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance
Please remember that while the DTA's focus is on panhandling, the Solicitation Ordinance applies to
all requests for an immediate donation of money (e.g. Dance Marathon, firefighters). Staff is meeting
with the DTA on Friday, March 12 and will give Council any necessary updates prior to your March
22 discussion.
The DTA proposes to prohibit solicitation in City Plaza and to increase the restrictions on soliciting
within 10 feet of an entrance or exit from a building to 25 feet, and include a restriction prohibiting
solicitation within 25 feet of a crosswalk. Together, these restrictions would essentially prohibit
solicitation in the downtown area. The City Attorney continues to have reservations regarding the
constitutionality of such a ban.
The City of Lawrence, KS recently rejected a complete ban on downtown panhandling, reportedly
due to concerns about such a ban's constitutionality. Kansas City, MO passed an ordinance in 2007
that prohibits all "active" panhandling (oral solicitation for an immediate donation of money) in certain
areas such as Country Club Plaza. Staff has confirmed, however, that after negotiations between the
ACLU and counsel for the Kansas City Police Department the police department directed its officers
not to enforce the ordinance because of concerns about its constitutionality.
In addition, most cities that have banned panhandling in a particular area still allow "passive"
panhandling (e.g. sitting, standing, performing music or singing with a sign that indicates that a
donation is being sought). Iowa City's current ordinance prohibits only aggressive panhandling and
panhandling within restricted spaces, and therefore, makes no distinction between active and
passive panhandling. It is not clear to staff if the DTA's proposal to expand the restrictions includes
passive panhandling. If so, the City Attorney's concerns are magnified.
A number of cities still have laws on the books that ban all panhandling but it appears that many are
not enforced, likely due to their questionable constitutionality. Staff is aware of more recent complete
bans in cities in Florida (e.g. Gainesville). However, such bans in Florida are not instructive. Florida
is within the jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, the only federal appeals
court that has upheld a complete ban on panhandling in an entire geographical area.
In looking at other cities, staff has found helpful a memo from the City of Lawrence, KS that
summarizes and compares municipal panhandling ordinances. The memo is attached for your
information.
Language on signs and distance between panhandlers
Page two of the DTA letter addresses several additional issues related to panhandling downtown,
including the display of obscene, profane, or abusive language on signs, two or more panhandlers
working in the same location, and distance requirements for crosswalks. It is the opinion of the City
Attorney that the ordinance may be amended to address these issues but that the required distances
must be consistent with the other distances in the ordinance.
Licensing of panhandlers
It is not clear from staff what the DTA hopes to accomplish by adding a requirement that solicitors be
registered with the City. The City Attorney advises that such a regulation could be crafted. However,
because such a regulation places a "prior restraint" on speech (i.e. governmental permission before
engaging in speech activity), the ordinance must ensure that the license is issued within a
reasonable time, that the licensing decisions are based on narrow, objective standards so as to limit
the discretion of the decision maker and avoid the danger of censorship, and there must be an
opportunity for prompt judicial review. Presumably, the reasons for such an ordinance would be to
prevent bad behavior such as fraud, aggressive panhandling and recidivism. Given the lack of
citations to date and the staff time involved in administering such a scheme, staff believes that
additional discussion with the DTA would be helpful in order to determine if the benefits outweigh the
costs.
The cities of Bettendort, IA and Cincinnati, OH require panhandlers to obtain licenses from the City.
In each city the licensing agent is a social worker who sees that persons requesting licenses are
directed to the appropriate social service resources.
Smoke-Free Ordinance
The request that the Pedestrian Plaza be declared smoke free between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10
p.m. as suggested in the DTA's letter is possible to implement, but becomes a Police Department
enforcement issue. The Police Chief concurs with the DTA's conclusion that existing Police
Department staffing is not adequate to aggressively enforce both the Aggressive Solicitation and
Smoke-Free Ordinances in the Pedestrian Plaza. In particular during late evening hours,
enforcement of these ordinances is a much lower priority than enforcing more serious alcohol-
related offenses. Greater police presence downtown and specifically in the Pedestrian Plaza
becomes a budgeting and prioritization issue for the City Council.
In addition, Council should consider the impact a smoke free Pedestrian Plaza would have on the
areas outside the plaza and determine whether there are additional areas that should be smoke free.
As you may remember from your earlier discussions, it is the City Attorney's opinion that it is within
the Council's authority to prohibit smoking on city sidewalks.
Meter donation programs
Under the "additional requests" section of the DTA's letter, there are several suggestions related to
parking meter donation programs. Parking meter donation programs attempt to get persons to not
contribute to panhandlers and instead give their money to out-of-service parking meters that are
placed throughout downtown. The funds collected are turned over to social service agencies who
deal with homelessness. We have researched these programs and believe that it would be possible
to implement such a program in Iowa City if that is the City Council's desire.
There is documented evidence that panhandling is a significantly more lucrative proposition in
college and university towns. Studies have shown that in most cities between 10 to 50% of the
2
population will give to panhandlers, and that in college and university towns this percentage is closer
to 50 to 60%. These studies document that panhandlers can earn as much as $10-$15 per hour in
college towns. Evidence shows that although many towns have panhandling laws, in many
communities these laws are not enforced.
There have been varying reactions to parking meter donation programs in cities throughout the
United States. Denver's program is frequently held up as an example of a successful program.
Denver's program is run by the Mile High United Way and is a visible part of Denver's ten year plan
to end homelessness. Out of service parking meters are placed in various locations downtown and
each meter has a specific sponsor. Approximately $100,000 is raised annually and provides a
revenue stream to local social service organizations that deal with homelessness. The majority of
the revenue is generated from the meter sponsorship program. Revenue donated to the meters
raises approximately $15,000 per year.
In Chattanooga, TN the "Festive Meters" parking meter donation program is combined with a public
art program where local artists design and paint the meters. The City notes that the meters do not
completely dissuade panhandlers from locating downtown. Both Denver and Chattanooga say there
has been a noticeable reduction in the number of panhandlers downtown since the meter programs
and associated campaigns to discourage people from giving to panhandlers were implemented.
In Gainesville, FL, a university community similar to Iowa City, a proposed meter donation program
was not implemented after there was disagreement about how expansive the program should be. In
Portland, OR the "Real Change, Not Spare Change" meter donation program was not successful
after the Portland Business Alliance did not feel that the City was willing to go far enough in
conducting an anti-panhandling program. In Seattle, WA a proposed meter donation program failed
entirely when the City Council was not willing to implement it due to political opposition on the part of
community advocates for the homeless.
Parking Meter Donation Program proposal for Iowa City
If the City Council wishes to begin a parking meter donation program, we would suggest beginning
with six to ten parking meters placed throughout the Pedestrian Plaza area. These meters would be
clearly identified for persons to contribute to local social service programs that aid the homeless
rather than directly to panhandlers. Council may wish to provide input on how aggressively the anti-
panhandling message should be.
We would attempt to obtain sponsorship for the meters, and would ask the City's Public Art Advisory
Committee for input on combining the meter donation program with a public art component. We have
discussed this proposal with the Executive Director of Shelter House, and she is supportive of a
meter donation program that would raise awareness and supplement, but not replace, support to
local homeless service providers.
Police enforcement
Police Department records indicate that they have investigated 31 incidents related to aggressive
panhandling since the Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance was enacted in 2008. Of those 31 calls,
none of the police reports indicate that the subject involved was charged. Police Department
enforcement of the Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance generally involves responding to a specific
complaint call, and is typically disposed of by a warning being issued. At any given time there are
typically one or two officers on duty in the Central Business District, out of a total of six officers on
duty city-wide. It is not uncommon for officers on duty downtown to be called out of the area on
another matter.
We believe the DTA's concerns will not be addressed adequately by simply modifying the existing
ordinances to be more stringent. Enforcement remains the issue. Police Department staffing is not
adequate to aggressively enforce the Aggressive Solicitation and Smoke-Free Ordinances on the
Pedestrian Plaza. The existing ordinances are primarily enforced on a complaint basis, and they are
not a priority compared to more serious alcohol-related offenses. This is a budgeting and
prioritization issue for the City Council.
Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District
The DTA concludes in their letter that they are "ready, willing and able to assist in carrying out the
requests submitted in this letter." As has been discussed on other occasions, a way for this to be
accomplished is through a Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID).
The concept of a SSMID is that property taxpayers in a specific geographic area, in this case
downtown, petition the City to establish a special taxing district. The funds collected through the
SSMID are used for improvements within the SSMID. A common application of SSMID funding is to
enhance the level of service provided by the City, whether that be maintenance, enhanced security,
or beautification of an area. The key aspect of this strategy is that the petition requesting the SSMID
must be generated by property tax payers within the proposed SSMID. This is not an initiative that
the City can pursue without such petition.
The annual funding required for a police officer is approximately $75,000. Chief Hargadine recalls
from his former position in Columbia, MO that there was funding from local businesses for downtown
police foot patrols. Cedar Rapids has had a downtown SSMID for many years. It is used to fund
public art and streetscape improvements, and to augment the city's downtown maintenance efforts.
Conclusion
To summarize, at your March 22 work session let's plan on discussing the following specific decision
points to address the issues raised in the letter from the Downtown Association:
1. Do you wish to amend the current Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance and if so, how? This
includes consideration of an ordinance that prohibits all solicitation in a particular area and
obscene, profane or abusive language on signs.
2. Do you wish to adopt an ordinance that requires solicitors to obtain a Solicitor's License from
the City?
3. Do you wish to declare the entire Pedestrian Plaza Smoke-Free from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.?
4. Are there areas downtown that are outside the Pedestrian Plaza that you wish to declare
smoke free?
5. Do you wish to implement a parking meter donation program? We would not intend to debate
the specific provisions of such a program at your March 22 work session. If there is a
majority of Council in favor, we will bring a specific program back to you for consideration.
6. Do you wish to install additional signage in the Pedestrian Plaza regarding smoking, littering
and panhandling?
7. Do you wish to increase lighting in the downtown area?
Bring your thoughts to the March 22 work session.
Attachments
cc: Dale Helling
Mike Lord
Mike Moran
Wendy Ford
Linda Severson
p p d d i r/ m e m/DTA-I ette r. d oc
4
Memorandum
Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Legal Services
TO: Toni Ramirez Wheeler, Director of Legal Services
FROM: Scott J. Miller, Staff Attorney
Date: November 19, 2009
RE: Comparison of Municipal Panhandling Ordinances
Introduction
Aggressive Pan.ha_ndling
Licensure of Panhandling.
Regulation of Panhandling in Set Geographic Areas
Total Bans and__Loite_rng_Enforcement
Public._Education Campaigns
Selected Cities..
Municipal Code Reference
Intro uction
Page 1 of .
F~ ~ ~~
As part of the ongoing review of our panhandling ordinances and downtown issues, I was asked to provide
comparative information regarding other cities' approaches to regulating panhandling. I have reviewed the
municipal codes of several cities in an attempt to provide the requested information. This process is somewhat
difficult, as selecting the cities to sample and compare is always imprecise and subject to debate.
The main problem with this sort of comparison is the sheer number of municipalities in the nation. For
example, according to the 2000 census estimates there are almost 400 United States cities with populations
greater than 100,000 people. Any of those cities, or smaller cities like Lawrence, is free to take an
individualized approach to panhandling regulation. Nonetheless, after reviewing secondary sources, the laws of
u
a number of cities that were selected because they bear some similarity to Lawrence and many other cities
that were otherwise examined in the course of my research some trends appear to emerge. I will discuss some
of the general approaches that have been adopted and then provide specific information about the group of
cities specifically chosen for comparison. Please note that cities do not all refer to the actions in question in the
same way. Panhandling laws may also be referred to as begging or soliciting laws in some jurisdictions. For
the purposes of this document, all the terms are synonymous.
Aggressive Panhandling
Predominantly, cities that choose to regulate panhandling adopt aggressive panhandling ordinances. Man'
cities enact no other laws that supplement their aggressive panhandling bans, but others do adopt addition
panhandling related laws. For the purposes of this memorandum, the term aggressive panhandling refers t~
laws similar to the one that Lawrence currently has in place. These laws prohibit certain offensive any
intimidating actions that a panhandler might try to use to increase the effectiveness of his or her plea such a
following the person solicited down the street, becoming abusive if a request is refused or touching the persoi
solicited. These laws also usually impose distance restrictions on panhandling in some areas where the act i
http://www.lawrenceks.org/web_based_agendas/2009/12-15-09/12-IS-091~/ls memo~anhandling... 12/29/200'
Memorandum Page 2 of .
especially intrusive or intimidating such as near ATMs, public transportation facilities and sidewalk dining areas.
In addition to those cities discussed in the analysis of the group of selected cities below, the following cities are
examples of ones that have aggressive panhandling laws: Dallas, Texas; Raleigh, North Carolina; Indianapolis
Indiana; Dayton, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Cleveland; Ohio; Atlanta, .Georgia; Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Memphis, Tennessee; and Boston, Massachusetts. Of course, this list is not exhaustive.
Virtually all of the cities surveyed exclude the act of passively sitting with a sign asking for donations in some
manner from their regulations but a few do recognize that aggressive acts with written signs could constitub
aggressive panhandling and Austin, Texas applies distance and time limitations to all panhandlers.
Licensure of Panhandling
[?]
None of the selected cities discussed below engage in the full scale licensure of panhandlers. Several other
cities have attempted panhandling licensure, but no general consensus on licensing seems to have emerged as
it appears to have with aggressive panhandling regulation. Memphis, Tennessee, for example, requires a
license for panhandling in certain geographic areas, but does not require a license for passive panhandling.
Dayton, Ohio and Greensboro, North Carolina require a free license for panhandling but also do not license.
passive panhandling. Bettendorf, Iowa licenses all panhandlers and the licensing agent is a city social worker
who ensures that all licensees are di ected to appropriate social service resources. This allows anyone who
encounters a panhandler with a license to know that the panhandler has been offered social services. Kansas
City, Missouri has limited licensing for solicitations on public streets.
Raleigh, North Carolina has an ordinance prohibiting panhandlers from begging without governmental
permission. Because the ordinance does not address many necessary aspects under the United States Supreme
Court's prior restraint analysis, the ordinance may not survive legal challenge. Other jurisdictions have already
had their ordinances struck down by courts or repealed by subsequent governing bodies for a failure to meet
applicable legal standards. Cincinnati, Ohio's licensing ordinance was invalidated in State v. Dean,. 170 Ohio
App. 3d 292 (2007) for failure to provide for the prompt judicial review necessary to justify a prior restraint. In
Marion County, Florida a panhandling licensing provision was repealed by the county commission after a United
States District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance, finding that
there was a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff panhandler would prevail on his First Amendment claims.
Marion County eventually settled with the plaintiff for $10,000 but also had to contend with a claim for plaintiff':
attorney fees in excess of $150,000.
At least one other city has rejected licensing after discussion. Minneapolis, Minnesota elected not to adopt a
licensing ordinance after the proposal was advanced by its police chief.
Regulation of Panhandling in Set Geographic Areas
Some cities have elected to prohibit active panhandling in specific geographical areas, usually areas of tourism
and commerce. Atlanta, Georgia prohibits active panhandling in its'~tourist triangle" but does not prohibit
passive panhandling in the same area. Fort Lauderdale prohibits panhandling in its beach area through
enforcement of a park regulation. The park regulation allows someone to be expelled for a period of time for
panhandling and if they return they may be prosecuted through trespass laws. Kansas City, Missouri passed an
ordinance that prohibits active panhandling in certain areas like the Country Club Plaza and Westport and the
Central Business District. Passive panhandling is allowed in those areas away from entrances to a building.
Boulder, Colorado has illegalized begging in some areas, such as its downtown area and its pedestrian mall,
within a certain distance of the walls of any building. It, too, does not apply its prohibitions to passive
panhandling.
Although others may certainly exist, I was unable to locate any jurisdiction that has banned both active and
passive panhandling in a set geographical area, except for Austin's 7 P.M. to 7 A.M ban on panhandling in its
http://www.lawrenceks.org/web_based agendas/2009/12-15-09/12-15-09h/Is_memo~anhandling... 12/29/200'
Memorandum
downtown area.
Total Bans and Loitering Enforcement
Page 3 of .
Some cities, like Duluth, Minnesota, completely ban begging. Wichita illegalizes loitering and explicitly includes
begging as a form of loitering. As previously mentioned, Raleigh, Nolh Carolina requires that beggars have
written permission to beg from the chief of police but does not specify what standards apply to the police chief'
decision. There is little doubt that other cities have other, similar laws.
The commonality shared by most of these laws is that they are usually fairly old. Subsequent court cases have
called into question these practices. As previously mentioned, requiring someone to get permission before they
speak and leaving that permission to the unbridled exercise of an official's discretion has been found to violate
the First Amendment. Likewise, total bans on panhandling, an activity protected by the First Amendment, will
not likely survive judicial challenge. That is why most cities with such bans do not enforce them. It has been
reported that in 1991 fourteen major cities still had absolute bans on begging but twelve of them had already
ceased enforcement. The legal problems with loitering laws are amply demonstrated by Pa~achristou v.
Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972).
In short, none of these approaches are considered to be realistic approaches to the problems presented by
panhandling and are not the approaches currently favored by the cities addressing these issues or by the
courts.
Public Education Campaigns
While not an enforcement-related, regulatory approach, one other type of effort should be mentioned. A
substantial percentage of the cities that I surveyed are engaging in or have engaged in public education
campaigns to encourage people to direct their charitable impulses to organizations that serve the homeless
community rather than to panhandlers. This approach addresses the supply side of the equation by pointing
out that many panhandlers are not homeless and that many homeless panhandlers use the money they receive
to feed addictions rather than for more worthwhile needs. Information is provided about the many public
service organizations that provide food and shelter and other resources to the homeless community. Some
cities have attributed beneficial results to these efforts like the reduction of panhandling-related police reports,
which probably also increases citizen satisfaction. Many cities deploy these programs in conjunction with their
legislative efforts.
If you desire further research on this subject, please let me know.
Selected Cities
I will more thoroughly describe the approaches to panhandling taken by the cities I selected for comparison.
Those cities are: Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado; Lincoln, Nebraska; Ames, Iowa; Chapel Hill, North
Carolina; Berkeley, California; Austin, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; and Manhattan, Topeka and Wichita,
Kansas. For the reasoning behind these selections, see Footnote 1.
Boulder has an aggressive begging ordinance. It further illegalizes active begging in certain places, such as it<
pedestrian mall and downtown area, within specified distances to the walls of any building. The distances vary
based upon the area of the city, but are generally between 10 and 15 feet. Passive panhandling is not affected
by the ordinance.
Fort Collins has one of the more unique approaches of any of the cities surveyed. It has an ordinance
prohibiting knowing solicitation of "at risk" individuals and disabled individuals. At risk individuals are those why
are under 18 years of age or more than 60 years old. Fort Collins has also passed an aggressive panhandling
ordinance, including panhandling within a certain distance of certain facilities, like automatic teller machines am
http://www.lawrenceks.org/web_based_agendas/2009/12-15-09/12-15-09h/ls memo~anhandling... 12/29/200'
Memorandum
Page 4 of .
bus stops. Panhandling is also illegal at night, Approaching a person with a sign is considered to be active
panhandling and is regulated, while sitting passively with a sign requesting a donation is not.
Ames apparently only incidentally regulates panhandling in their ordinance aimed at door to door solicitors. It
requires licensure for residence to residence soliciting if the solicitor does not have a permanent presence in thf
city. Soliciting is defined broadly enough to potentially include someone panhandling for his or her own
economic benefit.
Lincoln outlaws aggressive panhandling, including panhandling near sidewalk dining, ATMs, and bus stops,
among other areas. Panhandling is illegal at night. The ordinance does not regulate passive panhandling.
Lincoln has also engaged in a public relations campaign to promote alternatives to giving to panhandlers.
Chapel Hill has passed an aggressive panhandling ordinance that primarily applies to vocal appeals or written
appeals if the person performing the written appeal approaches the person being solicited and tries to hand the
person a written request for an immediate contribution. Chapel Hill also prohibits all panhandling, active or
passive, in roadways or on the shoulder of roadways. The city has established a nighttime ban on panhandling
and has included distance limitations from financial institutions and public transit facilities. A public relations
campaign to discourage giving to panhandlers has also taken place.
Berkeley enacted an aggressive panhandling ordinance. Originally, it included several distance restrictions but
currently only panhandling near ATMs is restricted. The other restrictions that previously existed in the
ordinance were removed in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Austin has an aggressive solicitation ordinance. It includes distance limitations from several types of places
such as financial institutions, sidewalk dining, crosswalks, public transportation facilities and schools.
Panhandling is banned in downtown Austin between 7 P.M. and 7 A.M. Austin's ordinance is fairly atypical in
that its distance and time regulations apply to spoken or written requests, and passive panhandling does not
appear to be treated differently than active solicitation is. Door to door solicitation is unlawful between 9 P.M.
and 9 A.M. Some groups in Austin are currently making a public relations effort to address panhandling. See
www._downt4wnaustin.com business/resources cleansa~ for more information.
Kansas City, Missouri passed a comprehensive panhandling ordinance in March, 2007. It appears based
upon media accounts that due to legal concerns parts of the ordinance are not enforced. The ordinance flatly
prohibits active panhandling in areas of the city that are centers of tourism and commerce like the Country Clut
Plaza, Zona Rosa, and Westport. Passive panhandling is legal in these areas unless it Is within 20 feet of
building entrances and outdoor dining. It prohibits aggressive panhandling and imposes distance limitations on
panhandling near many places, including within five feet of the edge of a street, on streets without a permit,
near public transportation and by drive-up teller windows. Permits for panhandling on roadways are limited to
no more than two occasions per calendar year and no more than six days per occasion. The permit
requirements include mandatory signage, and require that a uniformed public safety officer be at each
solicitation site. Kansas City's Downtown Council has also engaged in public relations efforts to discourage
panhandling.
Topeka appears not to have passed any panhandling-related ordinances.
Wichita's city code contains longstanding prohibition against loitering, and all begging is declared to be
loitering per se under the ordinance. A public relations campaign concerning panhandling has also been
conducted by the Downtown Wichita Development Corporation. See
httpJ/www.downtownwichita orq/do business-stop~anhandling.php .
Manhattan does not appear to have taken any special steps to regulate panhandling.
Below, please find a table with references to the municipal code sections of the selected cities that regulate
http://www.lawrenceks.org/web based agendas/2009/12-15-09/12-15-09h/ls_memo~anhandling... 12/29/200'
Memorandum
Page 5 of .
panhandling. In addition, a report by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and the National
Coalition for the Homeless entitled Homes not Handcuffs: The Crimina/ization of Home%ssness in U.S. Cities
[3J
(July, 2009) contains a chart at page 165 that, in part, categorizes begging regulations in many more United
States cities.
If more in-depth analysis is required on any of these subjects, please let me know.
Municipal Code Reference
Jurisdiction Munici al ode ections
Boulder Colorado 5-3-7. 5-3-12
Fort Collins, Colorado 17-127
Ames Iowa 17.26 3
Lincoln Nebraska 9.20.080
Cha el Hill North Carolina 11-170
Berkele California 13.37.020
Austin, Texas 9-4-13; 9-4-22
Kansas Ci Missouri 50-8.5
To eka Kansas N A
Wichita Kansas 5.48
Manhattan Kansas N/A
Li:J
The cities specifically selected for comparison were either chosen because of their geographic proximity to Lawrence or because
they are cities with major universities. The university towns were selected because studies have indicated that while 10-60% of the
general population gives money to panhandlers, SO-60% of the college student population does so. See the Center for Problem Oriente
Policing Panhandling Guide, Center for Problem Oriented Policing I Problem Gui es ~ Panhandling at
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/panhandling/ for more information. Perhaps for this reason college towns seem to be at the
forefront of many panhandling debates.
~~a
Ames, Iowa, as part of their soliciting ordinance, requires solicitors without a permanent presence in their city to obtain a permit if
they solicit door to door. The definition of solicitor might be interpreted to include panhandlers if they panhandled door to door.
Kansas City, Missouri has limited licensing for solicitation on streets.
j3l The report may be retrieved at ht>p;//www _nationalhomeless,o ublieationslcrimre~grt/CrimzReport 2009_pdf .
http://www.lawrenceks.org/web_based_agendas/2009/ 12-15-09/12-15-09h/]s_memo_panhandling... 12/29/200'
October 23, 2009
+ia+" , ~~~ ~ "o~ien g n e omorraw
C)owntown Association of lowo Cily
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
The Downtown Association (DTA) Board of Directors unanimously voted to send
you this letter.
The DTA is a nonprofit association of business and community people who pool
their resources to promote downtown. The organization provides leadership and.
undertakes programs to create, promote, and sustain downtown Iowa City as a
unique and economically viable business, entertainment, social and cultural
center. The members of the DTA work hard to promote downtown and the DTA
is very grateful for the help provided by the City Council and City government in
making the downtown one of Iowa City's greatest attraetors.
The DTA needs your help with the ongoing issue of solicitors that greatly affects
the perception of our downtown. With your help, it is an issue that we believe
can be dealt with fairly and effectively. In a nutshell we are requesting specific
changes and additions to the existing ordinances and we need enforcement
of those ordinances. With those tools in hand, we believe we can go a long way
in dealing with the solicitation issue that negatively affects downtown Iowa City.
This issue has also plagued many other cities and we can. take some guidance
from their efforts to curb the negative affects on their communi ies.
$EOUESTED G'HANGES TO THE AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION ORDINANCE
Specifically, the DTA requests the following changes to the "aggressive
solicitation ordinance" of the Iowa City Code (TITLE 8 Chapter 5 Part 2):
In the downtown it is illegal to:
• solicit within twenty feet (25') of the anchored or temporary fencing to
a sidewalk cafe. (current ordinance is 10')
• solicit within twenty feet (25') of an entrance to or exit from any
building (current ordinance is 10')
• solici within twenty feet (25') of the concrete border to the
playground equipment located south of the public library in City Plaza.
(current ordinance is 10')
• solicit. within twenty feet (25') of an automated teller machine.
(current ordinance is 20')
• solicit within twenty feet (25') of the area where a crosswalk meets the
City sidewalk (current ordinance has no such provision. and these are
particularly intimidating areas to pedestrians)
~~~~~~cTl~ ADDITIf1NST0 THE AGGRES$IV,~SOLICITATION ORDINANCE:
Specifically, the DTA requests additions to the "aggressive solicitation ordinance"
of the Iowa City Code (TITLE 8 Chapter 5 Part 2) as follows:
• Add that `"obscene, profane or abusive language" is prohibited on signs
(the ordinance currently prohibits "obscene, profane or abusive language
or gestures toward the person solicited" but is silent about such language
regarding signs.)
• Add a provision that two or mare solicitors may not work in concert in
the same location and there be a minimum of fifty feet (50') between
solicitors.
• add a "No Solicitation" zone to include the entire City Plaza with clear
signage (such zones in other cities have been upheld by the courts)
• add a requirement that solicitors be registered (requiring "solicitor"
licenses in other cities has been upheld by the courts)
RE VESTED ADDITION TU THE SMOKE FREE QRDINANCE~
The DTA requests that the City add to the itemized list of "smoke free" places
(Iowa City Code T[TLE 6 Chapter 10 Part 1) the following:
• the entire "City Plaza" from the hours of Sam to lOpm.
The DTA respectfully requests that the Council institute the following:
L To reduce the success of solicitors, install boxes with appropriate signage to
collect money from the public for people in need (in Denver, Colorado the City
installed 86 old parking meters in the downtown area for this purpose with.
signage that "$1.50 provides a meal for a homeless person". As a result soliciting
is down by a striking 90 percent in Denver).
2. A campaign to educate the public on solicitors. (The Nashville Downtown
Partnership, for instance, has launched a publicity campaign, "Please Help, Don't
Give," which explains through posters that money given to solicitors often
supports drug and alcohol addictions. The partnership asks people to donate
instead to organizations that provide local services).
3. E~~'orcement of penalties for smoking in "Smoke Free" areas and for littering.
The DTA is confident that enforcement of the fines far smoking and littering will
quickly and greatly reduce the number of violations. The current fines are
significant enough to act as a strong deterrent but are meaningless if not
enforced. The DTA believes there is little or no enforcement of the smoking and
littering ordinances. The Iowa City Cade provides for smoking fines of $1.00 1s~
offense; $200 2na offense; and $500 3~~ and subsequent offenses. The Iowa City
Code provides for a fine of $300 for littering on the City Plaza.
4. Installation of adequate signage, especially in the City Plaza, regarding
smoking, littering and solicitation. The current signage is inadequate.
5. Improved lighting in the downtown area.
6. Greater police presence in the Pedestrian Flaza, bus stops and curb-stop
areas.
The DTA stands ready wi~lrng ^~.~ a::de t^ a°~'~r in carrvina o t t~.he reauests
~ hmittPd ;n this letter,
Thank you for your continued. support of downtown, ane of Iowa City`s greatest
assets.
Respectfully submitted,
Leah Cvhen,
President, DTA
Leah Cahen
President DTA
325 E. Washington St. * Ste. 100 * Iowa City IA * 52240 * dtaiowaci~y~gmail.com
March 5, 2~1•
Mick Burkart, Chief Transportation Officer
Iowa Interstate Railroad Ltd.
5900 Sixth Street SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404
Re: Iowa City Crossings
Dear Mr. Burkart:
~ r 1 IP5
-~- ®~,~
~'~~'' ~ ~
~~,~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
City Attorney's Office
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5030
(319) 356-5008 FAX
www.icgov.org
On February 19, 2010, one of our residents reported a blockage at the Greenwood crossing in
Iowa City. It was notable both for the time the crossing was blocked, and because of what she
saw pedestrians there doing in response. She stated as follows:
I work at University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics and drive to work every morning via
Greenwood Dr. Occasionally I have to stop for a train at the railroad crossing and have
been concerned that when the train stops, people (especially students) climb over the
stopped railroad cars to get to the other side. This morning the train blocked the
intersection for 33 minutes (I timed it), and I saw at least 20 people climb over the cars,
some only seconds before it started up again. I have even seen people carry, a bicycle
over the car. This is a very dangerous situation and makes me cringe to see it happen.
I too have personally observed pedestrians climbing over and between railroad cars to break
through the blockage. Although it is inconvenient, cars can drive around the blockage with
minimal effort and delay. However, pedestrians are not as fortunate, and are left with the choice
of waiting an unknown period of time at the crossing, or making the dangerous choice of
climbing through the train.
I believe our previous letters regarding this topic were met with an improvement in avoiding
these blockages. If you could reinforce this message with your crews, and eliminate blockages
over the 10 minute limit, we would be grateful.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~-
Eric R. Goers
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Iowa City Council
Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
John Yapp, JCCOG Executive Director
Sam Hargadine, Iowa City Chief of Police
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Julie Risinger
20 Arbor Hill Circle #39
Iowa City, IA
March 8, 2010
Ms. Linda Schreiber
2725 Highway 109 NW
Oxford, IA 52322
Dear Linda:
03-11-10
IP6
~~®~
~ ~III~~~
-•t.a.._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 5 2240- 1 826
(319) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www. icgov.org
This will acknowledge, with continuing gratitude, your generous donation of 1500 hosts plants to
the City of Iowa City last year, and further, your efforts in again organizing the group of
volunteers who planted the hostas in planters in the downtown area during the summer and fall
of 2009. This will also acknowledge that you have received no goods or services from the City in
exchange for your contribution.
Protecting and maintaining plantings and other public amenities in the downtown area remains a
challenge for City staff in light of the misuse and vandalism that occurs. We thus rely on
assistance from downtown businesses and property owners in helping to keep the Central
Business District clean and attractive. Given that you own neither a business nor property
downtown, your contribution is indeed extraordinary and a reflection of your long history of
personal dedication and service to the Iowa City area community. We at the City look forward to
working with you and continuing this project over the coming summer season.
Thank you again for continuing this project and for your remarkable service to our community.
Sin ,
Dale E. Helling
Interim City Manager
cc: City Council
Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Terry Robinson, Parks & Forestry Superintendent
mgrlassUltrs/schreiber04-15-09.doc
Downtown Area Plant Project 2009 Fall Report -Final
Volunteers for the Downtown Area Plant Project have cleaned and hung their gardening tools for the last
time this year. In preparation for winter, volunteers scurried to complete plantings, trim hosta plants and
pick up leaf debris and litter in the planter beds along Washington Street. Beds in the Pedestrian Mall
were trimmed and cleaned in late September.
A total of 1,500 hosta plants along with a smattering of sedum, iris and day lilies were installed in the
Pedestrian Mall and along Washington Street in 2009. All hosta and blooming plants were donated to the
City by the Schreiber family.
The 2009 growing season started Earth Day with a small contingency of volunteers representing private
citizens and employees of Quality Care, The Nature Company, and the Downtown Association of Iowa
City for donated time and energies to clean plant beds in the Pedestrian Mall.
From spring into fall 2009, Linda and friend Connie Cuttell installed 900 hosta plants. And, to cap the
2009 project off, 600 more hosta were put in place during two night digs in September (Sept. 10 and
Sept. 29). (These plants were established in three planter boxes along Washington Street and in several
planter boxes in the Pedestrian Mall on both College and Dubuque streets.) This Herculean effort was
accomplished with assistance from Carol Sweeting, Iowa City Public Works Public Information /
Education /Volunteer Coordinator, and help from nearly a dozen Hope House volunteers, under the
supervision of Mike Quinlan, Community Work Crew Leader for Community Corrections,
The goal of the Downtown Area Plant Project has not changed since the project launched in 2008 when
Linda and Steve Schreiber donated and planted 400 hosta in beds in the Pedestrian Mall and along
Washington Street: beautify and enhance the downtown area by creating and maintaining a natural,
growing green environment -one that serves as a relaxing refuge from the hustle and bustle of daily life.
In addition to planting this year, volunteers helped city crews water plants throughout the summer when
rainfall wasn't sufficient to maintain the plants in the downtown area.
Now, volunteers are cultivating cooperative financial support for the project. Sponsorship includes
contributing and supporting champions in addition to the founding partners. This fall, area banks
operating in the Central Business District and the Downtown Association of Iowa City were invited to
contribute funds to provide annual plants in the 2010 growing season. To date more than $1,200 has
been pledged to the project to add and grow the number of blooming annual plants in the downtown area.
Volunteers created a powerpoint to introduce DTAPP to area service clubs, businesses individuals to
foster additional support and financial backing for the Downtown Area Plant Project to supplement public
resources to expand nature's beauty in the downtown area.
We are very grateful for City of Iowa City's Dale Helling, Wendy Ford and Sherri Thomas' permission to
plant, ongoing encouragement and cooperation. We also appreciate the Downtown Association of Iowa
City's nurtured support along with endorsements from other businesses and organizations that contribute
and benefit from the Downtown Area Plant Project. Sponsors to date include:
Founding Partners
City of Iowa City
Downtown Association of Iowa City
Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce
Contributing aponsors
Community Foundation of Johnson County
Hope House Community Corrections
MidwestOne
Quality Care, The Nature Company
US Bank*
Wells Fargo
Sttp~or-tirrg SPorrsars
Iowa City Press-Citizen
Mondonaro's Fresh Food Concepts
Project GREEN
University of Iowa
Downtown Area Plant Project - 2009 Final Report
By Linda Schreiber & Connie Cuttell
October 2009
*updated February 2010
~:,,®~ C[TY OF [01NA C[TY IP7
~ ~~~~~~~
~E~Q
DATE: March 11, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Absence
I will be out of the office next Thursday and Friday, March 18-19, and back in the office on
Monday, the 22"d. Staff will have my contact information.
cc: Eleanor Dilkes
Dale Helling
U/absence.doc
r
~~~®~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY IP8
~'~~~~ A N D ~ M
~E~QR
Date: March 10, 2010
To: City Council
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Absence
I will be out of the office from March 15 through March 19, 2010 and back in the office on
Monday, March 22nd. My staff will know how to reach me.
cc: Dale Helling
Marian Karr
e leanor/mem/absence. doc
~~.®ai
~nl~'~,~
. ,~~,~~
IP9
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk~~
RE: Taxicab Editorial
On Tuesday, March 9, the Cedar Rapids Gazette published an editorial regarding regulations for
taxicabs in Iowa City. Their conclusion suggested requiring meters and posted fares. City Code
currently requires posted rate cards, and annual inspections check to ensure they are posted. I
have sent the following response to the Gazette.
I wanted to clarify some misinformation that appeared in your editorial this morning.
Although taximeters are not required in taxicabs currently in Iowa City, rate cards are. City
Code Section 5-2-7 states "Each taxicab shall have prominently displayed a fare rate, hours
of operation and complaint procedure card visible to all passenger seats, and each driver
shall provide a copy of said card to a passenger, when requested. A copy of the fare rate,
hours of operation and complaint procedure card shall be filed with the city clerk."
All taxicabs are required to have an annual inspection by March 1 of each year. We just
completed that process and all taxicabs were checked to ensure compliance in accordance
with our Code. At the time of inspections all vehicles approved did have the rate card
posted.
Your suggestion that Iowa City should require posted fares (rate cards) is already contained
in the Code.
Please contact me with questions.
Further Council discussion on taxicab regulations is schedueld for this summer.
IP10
r~_
~:~~:
In the District Court for Johnson County r, .--~
.
, ;..
-;, -` . ` C
~1
„~ c.~ ;
Plaintiff's Reply Brief `-, %;
~~ ..~ <
f
;,
,~ ,;
,
Resisting Defendants Cross Motion - : ~~
,~~~,
~
~ s
~
~#.
%
for Sua~nnary Judgment
Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff ) EQCV070796
vs. } Plaintiff's
The City of Iowa City-and the ) Resistance to
City Council of Iowa City, ) Defendants'
r..a
Defendants ) Cross-Motion °
o ~~
Q~ignt
For Summary`
.,,
Y e-i .~7 ~
n Z
x~
~ ~
+e
3 n
•
` ~
~ ~
Plaintiff resists Defendants' Cross-Motion forcSun~y
~:.:: ..
Judgment on the three issues presented therein. In-`contest
to Defendants' cross-motion, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on Count one is based on a series of Iowa Supreme
Court cases stating that the time for determining the
sufficiency of a protest petition is the time at which it
was filed, which in this case was March 10, 2009. The
Defendants have admitted that Plaintiff's Petition was filed
March 10 and at that time comprised more than 20% of the
land within 200 feet of the proposal as it stood at that
time. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
does not depend on a series of facts that occurred after
March 10. However Defendants argue that the time for
determining the sufficiency of the petition was the close of
the hearing, which occurred four weeks later on April 6.
There is no dispute of the events leading up to March 10,
but there is considerable question about the facts and their
implications beginning March 24 and continuing through May
~.~: ~ c ~ 1
5, the date the City formally determined the sufficiency of
the petition.
C=oss-Motion A
Defendants cross motion A argues that "City Council
properly considered the timely-submitted protest petitions
in determining that the threshold for super-majority vote
had not been reached." The "Council's reasonable
interpretation of this language (of 414.5) is that it
applies to the zoning change or repeal proposed at the close
of the hearing." Defendants cite absolutely no legal
precedent for this position. Plaintiff cited three Iowa
Supreme Court decisions stating that the time for
determining the sufficiency of a petition is the time at
which it was filed and not the close of the hearing: ,~
Seibert v. Lovell, 61 N.W. 197, at 199 (Iowa, 1894) , ~Warc~v.
--
--
-~
~
~. ~
Unincorporated Town of Clover Hills, 38 N.W.2d 109,~t^1~ .
~
~ ~~
(Iowa, 1949) ; and Cook v. McNeal, 602 NW2d 353, at ~; ~
~ ~~
(Iowa, 1999) . ~`~ ~:
~..,..~ _
~
~Piat~-~'on
If the Defendants truly believed that the deter.
~ N
of the sufficiency of the protest petition was to made at
the close of the hearing, then that determination should
have been made on or about April 6, when the hearing was
closed. P. 245 Writ. But Defendants did not determine the
sufficiency of Plaintiff's petition on or about April 6.
They did not determine the sufficiency before the first vote
or before the second vote on the ordinance two weeks later.
Defendants formally determined the sufficiency on May 5,
nearly one month later. P 353 Writ. Defendants' contention
that they believed that the determination of sufficiency was
to be made at the close of the hearing does not square with
what they actually did.
If the Defendants truly believe that the determination
2
of the sufficiency of the protest petition was to made at
the close of the hearing, Defendants' behavior on another
matter during the same May 5 council meeting needs to be
explained. Mayor Bailey and City Attorney Dilkes made the
following statements about a similar protest petition
concerning a different rezoning ordinance being considered
that night. This exchange occurs before the public hearing:
Bailey: Any question for Christina at this Point? Okay.
All right, um, Eleanor, did you have any comments
for us before vre proceed into the public hearing?
Dilkes: Uh, the Mayor asked me to clarify at this point,
um, it's my understanding that we have more than.
200 of the property owners within, or the
property within the district, um, have protested
the rezoning, and therefore, you...it will not pass
unless 6 out of 7 of you vote in the affirmative.
Bailey: Okay, and at this time, before we hear public
comments .1 Attachment 1
Dilkes' statement clearly illustrates that the Defendants
determined that the sufficiency of the protest petition in
that case before the opening of the hearing, not at the
close of the hearing as Defendants now argue.
Because the filing of a protest petition restricts the
jurisdiction of the city council to control land use within
its borders, one would expect that the handling of protest
petitions would be a formal matter, with written policies
and procedures for receiving, authenticating and determining
the sufficiency of a petition. Judge Robinson's Writ of
Certiorari included an attachment specifically requ~tinc}
that the city return a copy of its written policies :.mod =o -~--^°
~ _ ~ ~ ~~._
.~
~}
~ ~~ ~
c_:~ ;~~~
t~. ~?
1 Transcription of the Iowa City Council regular formal meeting of Ma~}'y5, 2QQ~.
See also City Council Agenda, Regular Formal, May 5, 2009 - 7PM, page 3, Item-'5.
3
procedures for handling protest petitions. Item 3,
Attachment to The Writ. The Defendants either have no
policies and procedures or they chose not to produce them.2
The record before this Court therefore contains no evidence
that the that Defendants had any formal policies and
procedures for handling protest petitions.
Not only do the Defendants not have formal policies and
procedures for handling petitions, but the Defendants'
actual handling of petitions varies from petition to
petition as we have seen above. Their handling of petitions
varied even within this case. Note that the petition filed
May 4 was file stamped, but the one at issue in this case
was not. Compare pages 361-378 with 142-157 of the Return to
the Writ.
In conclusion, the Defendants lacked policies and
procedures for determining the sufficiency of a protest
petition. They handle protest petitions differently, file
stamping some and not file stamping others. And they
determine the sufficiency of petitions before the public
hearing, at the end of the public hearing and weeks after
the public hearing ended. The Defendants handling of
protest petitions has been arbitrary.
It is not necessary to show why the City behaved
arbitrarily in handling Plaintiff's protest petition, simply
that it did. That coupled with the complete lack of any
cases supporting the Defendants' petition is sufficient to
deny their cross motion for summary judgment on Count 1.
However, this proceeding is in equity. The record
consists not just of Return to the Writ of the Defendants'
choosing, but any documents in the city files relevant tcT'
~ ~ 1
~~ ~ -.~:.
'"'°` j
r~ ~ ~ /'~ F
~ ~ .~'
a See Paragraph Attachment to the Writ of Certiorari Judge RobinsonM
~c~° ~ ~ ~~
4 ~~' ~,.
~` N
the handling of Plaintiff's protest petition. The following
information was specifically requested in an attachment to
Judge Robinson's Writ of Certiorari, but the city chose not
to include these documents in their Return to the Writ.
Plaintiff attaches four documents that are clearly relevant
but not included in Defendants Return. These documents shed
light on why the determination of sufficiency was never made
until weeks after the hearing closed, why the timing of
determination was different between the two cases dealt with
at the Council meeting on May 5 and why the original protest
petition was never file stamped.
The following exchange occurred five weeks after
Plaintiff's protest petition had been filed and ten days
after the first vote. On April 16, Christina Kueker, city
planner, responded to a question about the protest petition
from Larry Jewell, a fellow petitioner:
Larry, Was a protest petition filed with the City
Clerk? We have no record of a protest petition
being submitted for the current rezoning.
Attachment 2
Bob Miklo, City Planner, to Larry Jewell, April 20:
Larry, Christina is out of the office this
afternoon. She forwarded your email to me regarding
the petition. I could not find a copy of a petition
in our files. Do you have a copy that you could
email to me or give to Jeff Davidson at the meeting
tonight? Bob Attachment 3
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, to Larry Jewell, April 21:
Mr. Jewell, The City Clerk has reviewed N
the record
of the March 10 meeting and located the rezoni
~~
protests that you submitted on March 10. Thom ~ } ~
protests are currently being reviewed by the 4-,-~ i ~-
planning staff to determine whether they are ~:"~ ~ ~
~~
sufficient to trigger a requirement that the ~ ~ ~°
~`
rezoning pass by a super-majority of the counc~
. .Please accept my apologies for the co nfusion wi t
the protests Attachment 4 -
5
Marian Karr, City Clerk, to Larry Jewell, April 21:
Mr. Jewell, I wanted to personally apologize for
the confusion over the rezoning protests filed at
the City Council Meeting on March 10. I can assure
you that the procedure in my office for accepting
correspondence at Council meetings will be handled
differently in the future. Attachment 5
Larry Jewell delivered the original protest petition to
Eleanor Dilkes, city attorney, when he presented it at the
public hearing on March 10. From March 10 to April 21, the
Defendants were completely unaware that a protest petition
had been filed. This explains the delayed determination of
sufficiency as well as the reason the petition was never
file stamped. Had the Defendants not lost the protest
petition, it would have been sent to the City Planners
shortly after March 10, when it would have been found
sufficient because it could only have been measured against
the original 80 acre tract (the 60 acre tract was not yet
conceived). Defendants may not rely on their own negligence
to determine when and whether rights conferred by Iowa Code
414.5 are respected.
Negligent loss of a petition is one thing, but attempts
to conceal the error compound the wrong. There is evidence
that Defendants measured the discovered petition against
both the 80 and 60 acre tracts, yet they reported only one
measurement to the Council. That they measured it ain
the original 80 acre tract can be inferred from the y~ ~ ~ ~
~
admission: ~'~' r-
-=~ c~ ~~
Defendants admit that owners of 20% of land wi~i4~ ~
200 feet from the area originally proposed to ~=
rezoned did submit a protest petition at the M~~li°•
10, 2009, City Council meeting during the publ c N
hearing on the proposed rezoning. D Ans., Ct.l, No 4
On May 5, the formal determination sent to City Council
stated simply that the March 10 protest petition comprised
6
only 17.10 of the property within 200 feet of the rezoning
proposal and was therefore insufficient. It said nothing
about the loss of the petition, that it might be measured
against the original proposal instead of the revised
proposal, or whether there was any precedent for the
determination made. Why information was omitted is
uncertain, but if the petition were found to be
insufficient, then the loss of the petition could be
reasoned to be nothing more than a harmless error. The loss
of the petition, along with the realization that if the
petition were insufficient, the error would be harmless,
could have biased those making the determination into
selecting only the measurement actually reported on May 5.
There is no evidence the loss of the petition was disclosed
to city Council. And, except for the private apology in an
email to Mr. Jewell, Defendants never acknowledged the loss
nor apologized to the other 13 landowners.
The loss caused this proceeding to be seriously flawed.
Instead of promptly correcting the problem to ensure that 14
surrounding landowners and petitioners were dealt with
fairly and their 414.5 rights protected, the Council was
either unaware or dismissive of the complexity of the
situation and proceeded to rezone sixty acres for which they
might lack jurisdiction under 414.5. Millions of dollars in
development have subsequently been spent on a site
potentially rezoned without jurisdiction. Fourteen adjacent
landowners have been denied their 414.5 rights and
irreparably harmed. Any future rezoning process of ~~,.s
--~.
~
a
area will be distorted by potential city liability fl
-~'h~,
~
.
developer, who has already spent millions. Finally;~~is~
~ ~;
protracted Certiorari action resulted. The May 5 m~cr.~ =~
'
` ~?
°
obscured a complex legal problem created by the cit ~Ss N
sv
mishandling of the Plaintiff's protest petition. What began
7
as simple negligence evolved into a suppression of
information with far reaching damages.
Finally, Plaintiff does not argue in any way that a
rezoning proposal cannot be changed during a hearing. It is
often necessary and appropriate that changes be made. But
if a protest petition has already been filed, the supra-
majority vote for passage remains whatever changes are made
during the hearing process. What Defendants' are arguing is
that changes after a petition is filed should invalidate a
petition. The Iowa Supreme Court is clear that subsequent
events do not change the sufficiency of a filed protest
petition. If, after a petition is filed, the city wants to
be pass a measure by less than a supra-majority vote, a new
proceeding would clearly be necessary.
The above facts, determined in a light most favorable
to the nonmoving Plaintiff, are ample grounds to deny
Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment on Count 1.
Cross-Motion III
grfie,~.~..,~ 6
Defendants, having adapted ordinance 14-8D-5(G), now
argue that they did not have the authority to do so. ~
Defendants wish to have it both ways after Plaintiff rel~d
on 14-8D-5(G) to file a late petition and to bring phis ° ,~
action of certiorari . Estoppel is a reasonable ands'--~ %'' ~°-
~' -~. ~-
appropriate equitable remedy for such reversals. =.
Defendants' argument of preemption is misplace ~~ Ica
-.-- ~
Code 414.5 is a statute authorizing the grant of ~, N
jurisdiction to city councils to amend their zoning ~
ordinances, and limit's that jurisdiction in cases involving
protest petitions. In dealing with jurisdiction, it does
not address the ability of the council to set its own rules
for what constitutes passage of an ordinance. In fact, Iowa.
8
Code 414.4 does address that issue and clearly gives wide
latitude to the city councils to make their own rules
regarding passage of an ordinance that do not clearly
conflict with state law:
The council of the city shall provide for the manner
in which the regulations and restrictions and the
boundaries of the districts shall be determined,
established, and enforced, and from time to time
amended, supplemented, or changed. Iowa Code 414.4
Iowa Code 414.5 deals with the grant of authority, while
ordinance 14-8D-5(G) deals with the number of votes required
for passage by the council. Dealing with separate matters,
there is simply no conflict. And if there were a conflict,
Defendants, having enacted the ordinance, should now be
estopped from arguing that they lacked the authority to
enact it.
Cross-Motion 8
This issue of notice needs to be addressed only if this
Court rules in favor of Defendants on the preceding two
issues. If that happens, then Plaintiff resists Defendants'
cross motion for summary judgment that notice for the 80
acre tract was adequate notice for the 60 acre tract fo~the
reasons below. ~e"~ ~' ""
:ta ~ ~ ~.
~ -~ ~ ~~
Argument w ' ~'° ~,, ~'
._~ ~; ~
Statutory requirements as to notice and heari~ar~
mandatory and jurisdictional, and compliance therewith a
prerequisite to valid action by a city council. Bowen v.
Story County Board of Supervisors, et al, 209 N.W.2d 569 at
572 (Iowa 1973). Proper Notice of a potential zoning change
is mandatory and must be complied with giving the City
Council jurisdiction to act. B.& H. Investments, Inc. v.
9
City of Coralville, 209 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 1973). Issues of
notice are appropriate for review by certiorari. Failure of
proper notice is grounds for voiding a rezoning ordinance.
B.& H. Investments, supra. Iowa Code 414.4.
The purpose of a notice and hearing is to provide
fundamental fairness in resolving the competing interests of
adjacent landowners. The notice for REZ08-00011 induced
adjacent landowners to prepare a protest petition for an
eighty acre tract. On the last day of the hearing, the
Defendants announced that the eighty acre tract would be
reduced to a sixty acre tract. The Defendants then relied
on this last minute reduction to disqualify the original
protest petition. Was this a fair process? If the
Defendants can change a rezoning proposal at the last
minute, shouldn't surrounding landowners be given an
opportunity or amend their already filed protest petition?
Whenever an original notice induces adjacent landowners to
prepare for what was described in the notice, and then what
was described is sufficiently changed so that the protest
petitioners, in retrospect, should have prepared for
something quite different, then the original notice itself
was misleading. When a notice misleads, then new notice
should be required. Plaintiff believes that existing
statutory and case law is consistent with this conclusion.
I. IN CASES INVOLVING PROTEST PETITIONS, IOWA CODE 414.5
REQUIRES A NEW NOTICE AND SEARING FOR ALL CHANGES AND
AMENDMENTS.
Iowa Code 414.5 is clear and unambiguous regard ~ ~,.~;~
new notice and hearing when there n~
are changes invol~ a~ ~--
~ ~ ~
protest petition: "°'f` ~
:~ ~ ~ 3
,
c~ ='? r~
The protest, if filed, must be filed before or~at N
the public hearing. The provisions of section 414.4
10
relative to public hearings and official notice
apply equally to all changes or amendments.'
Immediately preceding this last sentence is a discussion of
the requirements of protest petitions. In that context, the
last sentence modifies the two preceding sentences dealing
with protest petitions. Therefore, 414.5 requires
compliance with the notice and hearing requirements of 414.4
for all cases involving protest petitions, not just some as
Defendants argue. The notice and hearing requirements of
414.4 require "at least seven days notice must be given and
in no case shall the public hearing be held earlier than the
next regularly scheduled city council hearing." Defendants
provided no new notice whatsoever, let alone that which
would meet the express requirements of 414.4. Defendants
thereby violated the notice requirements of 414.4 and the
last sentence of 414.5.
II. CURRENT CASE LAW REQURES A NEW NOTICE AND HEARING
WHENEVER THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO A PROPOSED
REZONING.
In cases not involving protest petitions, when events
subsequent to publication of notice of a proposed zoning
change lead to an amendment that is substantially different
from that which is noticed, a new notice and opportunity to
be heard may be required. Oliveira v. City of Milwaukee~,~
624 N.W.2d 117, (Wis. 2001). Courts have considered twos
~ ~~.
issues in deciding whether a new notice should be "r~`zir~l:
~...
c~ -~. ~ ~-a.a.
=~
~. r°-
~''r'°~'s a~ 6~
If the protest petition was sufficient for the property de~cr=~ea~j
in the notice, but insufficient for the property voted on and~assec~
then the property described in notice and the property described into
the ordinance were in fact two separate changes to the city's zoning
code. The City's differential treatment of the two properties is an
admission that they were separate changes to the zoning code.
Although each bore the title REZ08-00011, they did so at different
times.
11
Was the change substantial and would a new hearing
accomplish anything other than delay? Under both tests, the
changes in this case were substantial.
III. A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IS EITHER ONE THAT AFE'ECTS
DIFFERENT LANDOWNERS OR ONE THAT AFFECTS THE SAME LANDOWNERS
IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
In Oliveira v. City of Milwaukee, 624 N.W.2d 117, and
Herdeman v. City of Muskego, 343 N.W.2d 814, a substantial
change was any change that affects different landowners, or
any change that affects the same landowners in a different
way. Oliveira v. City of Milwaukee, 624 N.W.2d 117, at 123.
In the present case, Defendants used the change disclosed on
the last day of the public hearing to invalidate a
qualifying protest petition filed four weeks before the
change was disclosed. Although this change did not affect
different landowners, it most certainly did affect the same
landowners in a different way: last minute changes to the
rezoning ordinance denied fourteen landowners of their
already filed protest petition and their resulting right to
a three-fourths affirmative vote before the rezoning
ordinance could be enacted. Under the Oliveera and Herdeman
test, a change that invalidates a filed protest petition is
a substantial change.
IV. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, DEPENDENTS OWN STAFF TWI~
ADMITTED THAT THE CHANGE WAS SUBSTANTIAL. ~ ° ,~,,_,~
~c ~ ;a : g
Twi ce the Defendants' own staff admitted that t~r~ ~ -~-
.
- ~
changes in this case were substantial. Addressing
change
City planner Bob Miklo stated: ~~;.~:
,,.
~~ `~
o
, ;,
7
,
we believe this would need to go back to the P~anin~
and Zoning Commission because the, this is a fairl y
sig nificant change from...from what they reviewed. p
167 Return to the Writ
12
Shortly thereafter, City attorney Dilkes concurred with
Miklo:
If you want to make the changes that Bob is...is
discussing, you're going to have to continue the
public hearing tonight, and defer the first
consideration, to...to give, um, Planning and Zoning a
chance to decide whether they want to have a consult
with you. Um, so you're not going to act on it
tonight either way. P 169 Return to the Writ
City attorney Dilkes continued:
My opinion is, is that if you change the CZA, or you
indicate that you want to change the CZA' to make it
outlot D, as opposed to rezoning it, and having the
condition with Slowthower, then you need to at least
given our ordinances have the Planning and Zoning
Commission take a look at that. (emphasis added)
P 184 Return to the Writ
Attorney Dilkes statement "given our ordinances" was
referring to the Iowa City ordinance governing the City
Council public hearing for zoning map amendments:
In those instances when the city council has reached
an informal consensus on a proposed zoning map
amendment or zoning code text amendment that is
contrary to the recommendation of the planning and
zoning commission, the city council will defer
formal action on the matter until a discussion has
take place between the city council and the planning
and zoning commission. 14-8D-5 Code of Iowa City,
paragraph F.2 (emphasis added) Attachment 6
Only a change that is "contrary to" the original proposed
rezoning needs to be sent back to the planning and zoning
commission. On March 20 Attorney Dilkes held the
professional opinion that the change under consideration and
later adopted was "contrary to" the original rezoning N
d
proposal. Any change that is "contrary to" the ori~inal~,
~.; =r
proposal is a substantial change. Two members of t~.;
C', ~
~ ~ ~--
a ~~
The CZA was changed seven days later on March 31 and signe~il..~:..
~::
2. Pp 251-254. _-
13 ~~ N
~~
e
`=~„
Defndants' own staff expressed opinions that the change was
substantial.
V. HAD A NEW NOTICE BEEN PROVIDED, THE SPEECH AT THE SECOND
HEARING WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE REPETITION OF THE FIRST
HEARING: THE SECOND PROTEST PETITION WOULD HAVE BEEN TIMELY
UNDER 414.5 AND ORDINANCE 09-4336 WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED
BY A 5-2 AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.
The final consideration of what constitutes a
substantial change is whether a new notice and hearing would
result in a different outcome or "only in repetitive
statements by the same parties, accomplishing no change in
the final outcome except delay." See Herdeman v. City of
Muskego 343 N.W.2d 814, at 816.5 Plaintiffs have clearly
demonstrated that had a new notice been provided, the
outcome would have changed. The revised protest petition
filed May 4 met the requirements of Iowa Code 414.5 with
respect to the changed rezoning amendment. Pp 361-378 By
s The Herdeman case seems to support Defendants' position. A protest
petition was filed, the area being rezoned was reduced, the measure was passed
4-3, and a new notice and hearing were denied. But there is a fundamental
distinction between Herdeman and this case. In Herdeman, the change made was
the creation of a 180 foot buffer between the protesters' property and that
being rezoned. By so doing, the Herdeman Defendants respected the Wisconsin
statute authorizing protest petitions by protecting the protest petitioners'
legally recognizable interest in adjacent property up to 180 feet. In the
present case, Defendants have not respected the protest petition or its
underlying purpose. They have provided no buffer, paid no respect to the
interests of adjacent landowners, and have attempted to use a process that
undermines the very purpose of Iowa Code 414.5.
There is another distinction between Herdeman and this case. After the
creation of a buffer, the Herdeman petitioners were outside the protected 7..g~ie
0
and could no longer file a protest petition and compel a three-fourths votes
The outcome of a new hearing therefore would not change. In the pr2 cue, ~~'
Plaintiff and others filed a new protest petition which would have ~mlle~ a
three-fourths affirmative vote, completely changing the outcome of mew .~-
~
~
E
r~, `~
hearing--Ordinance 09-4336 would have been defeated. ~Si
~
j ~ ~
; u
rv
definition that protest petition would changed the speech at
a second hearing; for it would have compelled a three-
fourths affirmative vote; and it would have changed the
outcome. Had a new notice been provided, the 5-2 votes
would have defeated Ordinance 09-4336, not enacted it. Had
a new notice been required, the outcome would have changed.
By all legal and reasonable measures of what
constitutes a substantial change, the changes made on the
last day of the hearing were indeed substantial and
therefore required Defendants to provide a new notice and
hearing. Having made a substantial change, Defendants
failed to provide the notice required by Iowa Code 414.4,
compliance with which is mandatory and jurisdictional and is
a prerequisite to valid city council action. Bowen, supra.
On the issue of notice, Defendants brief claims
"Plaintiff had ample opportunity to canvas the neighborhood
searching for additional neighbors to protest the rezoning
between Council's March 19 (sic 24) meeting, in which the
reduction in the area to be rezoned became eminent
(imminent?), and the second continuation for the public
hearing on April 6." Defendant's Brief p 8. There is not a
shred of evidence that on March 24 the city council as a
body adopted any position that the proposed outlot D would
not be rezoned. Plaintiff finds no public disclosure that
outlot D would not be rezoned before April 6. Return to the
Writ, P 235, 237. Even on April 6, City Planner Davidson
addressed the Council and talked about whether or not Outlot
D would or would not be rezoned. Return to the Writ p 239,
240. Defendants try to suggest that Plaintiff had actual
notice of something that was never clear. Certainly, stiff
recommendations to the council on March 24 and the Ming
~
~~ ~
back and forth by council members about an unsettle~.,~ssy~e ~.^,,,,,.
~ ~
without either a formal vote on the matter or a cle
r, Y
_
r•~~ O ~~'
15 ~°° N
N
statement at the end of that hearing that more than 20 acres
would not be rezoned is not the type of notice that would
meet the requirements of Iowa Code 414. In any event,
Defendants statement raises an issue of fact that, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
(Plaintiff), raises a sufficient question of fact (ie when
did adequate notice occur?) that Defendants' cross motion
for summary judgment must be denied.
Finally, throughout Defendants brief the two related
terms of platting and rezoning are used almost
interchangeably. This case has nothing whatsoever to do
with platting. It has only to do with rezoning. All
comments about platting are simply confusing or
smokescreens.
For the above reasons, there are sufficient questions
regarding whether the changes were substantial that,
interpreted in a light most favorable to Plaintiff,
Defendants cross motion for summary judgment must be denied.
/A yw`
Robe t eman
44 Tu on ce
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Roberthegeman@mchsi.com
391-338-5818
319-530-0553 (cell)
319-668-2491 (fax)
Original filed
Copies served on the defendants at the Office of the City
Clerk of Iowa City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City,
N
Iowa 52240
o °'
~-~~
e 3 ;-~
n ~~ ~ -~.
-~ c . ~' ~
:~€"rv'
c? ~' ~, f
16 r. tv
N
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (PRIVATE)
I certify that PLAINTIFF'S Resistance to Defendants'
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment dated 3/3/2010 was served
on the City Council of Iowa City and the City of Iowa City
by depositing the 2 copies of the original in the US mail
postage prepaid on March 3, 2010, addressed to Office of the
City Clerk of Iowa City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa 52240
t~------
N
C]
Q ~
~ _
Y -"
~
~ ~
v ~
~
~~ ~ "
,,.ye t_.._ as
r~ -.5~.
N
N
19
#Sa
~ailey: Any questions for Christina at this point? Okay. All right, um, Eleanor, did you
have any comments for us before we proceed into the public hearing?
Dilkes: Uh, the Mayor asked me to clarify at this point that, um, it's my understanding
that we have more than 20% of the property owners within, or the property within
the district, um, have protested the rezoning, and therefore, you...it will not pass
unless 6 out of 7 of you vote in the affirmative.
Bailey: Okay, and at this time, before we hear public comments, let's discuss ex-pane
communications regarding this district.
Wilburn: I received contact from Michelle Higley, north Gilbert Street, who, um, was in
favor of the historic preservation (mumbled) didn't feel t hat the, uh, requirements
(mumbled) requirements is, um, is a big problem. So...
Bailey: Okay. Others?
Hayek: Um, bear with me. I, uh, met with John Kammermeyer, uh, on three separate
occasions, uh, William Lake, Judith Pascoe, Eric Gidal, Tom Scott, Wally Copse,
John Backus, uh, spoke to Maura Pilcher, spoke to my father, John Hayek, and
uh, for about seven seconds talked to Mike O'Donnell before this meeting, all of
that took about six or seven hours of my time and it's impossible forme to
disclose all of the contents of those conversations, but people were for and
against.
Dilkes: Can you just summarize?
Hayek: (laughter) Yeah, I mean, L ..uh...Mr. Kammermeyer, Miss, uh, or Mr. Lake, uh,
Mr. Scott, Mr. Kopsa, Mr. Bakas, uh, were...were against, uh, the proposed
district for a variety of reasons having to do with property rights and the appeal's
process and um, everything in between. Uh, Miss Pascoe, Mr. Gidal, uh, Miss
Pilcher, and I guess that's it, were for it, and generally cited the materials and uh,
the Friends of Historic Preservation submission, some of the emails we received,
and many of these people have all communicated in writing to us, uh, I have to
say my father was, uh, probably slightly for it, but more or less agnostic,
um...(laughter) if he's watching (laughter) and uh, and that's it. I mean, I can go
into greater detail, but we have a lot of people here.
Bailey: Okay. Is that sufficient? All right, other?
Wright: I spoke with, uh, David Hamilton, who just had some questions about, uh, some
of the definitions of historic district and he expressed no opinion one way or the
other. Uh, I also received an email from, um, Mark Gilchrist, uh, expressir~
support for the historic district. a
A f ~/
C!m[!y.
...@y '-r ~"4~L~
~_ .F
/~
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cit~un~
regular formal meeting of May 5, 2009. - : v ' c:~
'~~ N
N
Original Message --------Subject: RE: Next City Council Meeting?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 200913:52:33 -0500
From: Christina Kuecker <Christina-Kuecker@iowa-city.org>
To: ICJewells <ICJewells@mchsi.com>
References: <49DF4836.9040504@mchsi.com>
<9E66756AEF38EC4CBOD83937C7664D62084DBOBE@citymaill> <49E4D057.8070702@mchsi.com>
Larry,
Was a protest petition filed with the City Clerk? We have no record of a protest petition being
submitted for the current rezoning. If a protest petition was filed for the proposal in 2006, it is no longer
valid because this is a new application.
Thank you,
Christina
Christina Kuecker
Associate Planner
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)356-5243 ~ a
~"
Christina-kuecker@iowa-city.org ~'-~' ~
~ r
~...
~ ~,.~.
~' ~
o ~ ~' ~'~
~"' N
N
--------Original Message --------Subject: FW: Next City Council Meeting?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:43:55 -0500
From: Bob Miklo <~ok~Nf`iklo@iowa-city.org>
Is@mchsi.com>
Larry,
Christina is out of the office this afternoon. She forwarded your email to me regarding a petition. I
could not find a copy of a petition in our files. Do you have a copy that you could email to me or give to
Jeff Davidson at the meeting tonight?
Bob
From: ICJewells [mailto:ICJewells@mchsi.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:58 PM
To: Christina Kuecker
Subject: Re: Next City Council Meeting?
Hi Christina,
Any update on where we are at with these questions?
Thanks
Larry
IClewells wrote:
Christine,
Thanks for checking further on this. I would like to know as soon as possible if we do not meet the 20~
requirement, including what the total required area is within 200' versus what the total is that have
signed the petition. N
o °
~
ou
Thank
~ ~ ~-
,
y
...Fj ~
°
~~y
i `'S ~
Larry = =~ ~ k ""'
~
-w ~ ,~
'~-~ N
N
L~
Original Message --------Subject: RE: Follow-up Questions From Last Night's City Council Meeting
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:25:58 -0500
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes <Eleanor-Dilkes@iowa-city.org>
To: ICJewells <ICJewells@mchsi.com>
CC: Jeff Davidson <Jeff-Davidson@iowa-city.org>, Bob Miklo <Bob-Miklo@iowa-city.org>, Marian Karr <Marian-
Karr@iowa-city.org>, Sara Greenwood Hektoen <sara-hektoen@iowa-city.org>
References: <49EDC87E.9030101@mchsi.com>
Mr. Jewell,
The City Clerk has reviewed the record of the March 10 meeting and located the rezoning protests that you
submitted on March 10. Those protests are currently being reviewed by the planning staff to determine whether
they are sufficient to trigger a requirement that the rezoning pass by asuper-majority of the Council (6 votes). See
Iowa Code Section 414.5
Please accept my apologies for the confusion with the protests. Typically, protests that are not filed in the Clerk's
office, but rather submitted at the public hearing, are considered to be timely filed and are provided to the
planning staff for review and calculation. I have reviewed the videotape of the March 10 meeting and the letter
you submitted and discussed the matter with the City Clerk. Unfortunately, because the protests were attached to
your letter of concerns and were not identified as zoning protests the Clerk's office did not forward them to the
Planning Dept. We will consider changes in procedure to assure that this does not happen again.
I have reviewed the issues raised by Mr. Hegeman's letter in some detail. I do not agree with his conclusion that
an approval of the rezoning would violate the City Code. My role is to advise the City Council. Had I concurred
with Mr. Hegeman I would have informed the Council and advised them accordingly. Because I did not I was
simply prepared to respond to the Council last night had they asked for my response to Mr. Hegeman's letter.
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions.
Eleanor M. Dilkes
City Attorney
City Hall
410 East Washington Street
N
O
Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ c'~
-.~ c~
319-356-5030 "~'"'
~~ ~
319-356-5008 Fax
~`' ~-
-
~ y
6 ~
E
F
~~ d
eleanor-dilkes@iowa-city.org ~=~=~
N
l S_ /
Original Message --------Subject: RE: Follow-up Questions From Last Night's City Council Meeting
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:55:54 -0500
From: Marian Karr <Marian-Karr@iowa-city.org>
To: ICJewells <ICJewells@mchsi.com>
CC: Jeff Davidson <Jeff-Davidson@iowa-city.org>, Bob Miklo <Bob-Miklo@iowa-city.org>, Sara
Greenwood Hektoen <sara-hektoen@iowa-city.org>, Eleanor M. Dilkes <Eleanor-Dilkes@iowa-city.org>
References: <49EDC87E.9030101@mchsi.com>
<9E66756AEF38EC4CBOD83937C7664D6204CF323F@citymaill> <49EDEAFE.5030000@mchsi.com>
Mr. Jewell,
I wanted to personally apologize for the confusion over the rezoning protests filed at the City Council
meeting on March 10. I can assure you that the procedure in my office for accepting correspondence at
Council meetings will be handled differently in the future.
Marian K. Karr
City Clerk
City of Iowa City
Population 62,380
(phone) 319-356-5041
(fax) 319-356-5497
N
Cf
Q C
'7
~~
r'te'-'4 '~ mew
~~ ~
~l
"~~-
` -~ 5
" Y
f
e ~
=~ N
rv
Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
rage L of 4
1. After receipt of a report and recommendation from city staff, the planning and zo ng .~
commission will schedule one or morepublic meetings to receive public comment
regarding the proposed request. The commission will then make a recommendation for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the city council.
2. If the planning and zoning commission makes no report within forty five (45) days from
the date a complete application was received, it shall be considered to have made a
report approving the proposed amendment.
3. Not less than four (4) votes shall be required to recommend approval of an amendment
to this title or to the boundaries of zoning districts or to the zoning of a particular parcel of
land.
F. City Council Public Hearing:
1. After the recommendation and report of the planning and zoning commission have been
filed, the city council shall, before enacting any proposed amendment, hold a public
hearing in relation thereto. Notice of such hearing, and the time and place of such
hearing must be published in a newspaper having a general circulation in the city at least
seven (7), but not more than twenty (20), days before the public hearing. In no case shall
the public hearing be held earlier than the next regularly scheduled city council meeting
following the published notice. The city council may set such public hearing either before
or after it submits the proposed amendment to the commission for its recommendation or
during the period while the commission is considering such matter.
2. Following the public hearing, the city council shall consider an ordinance implementing
the proposed zoning map amendment or zoning code text amendment. In those
instances when the city council has reached an informal consensus on a proposed
zoning map amendment or zoning code text amendment that is contrary to the
recommendation of the planning and zoning commission, the city council will defer formal
action on the matter until a discussion has taken place between the city council and the
planning and zoning commission. In such instances, if the planning and zoning
commission declines the city council's offer to meet, formal action on the matter may
commence fort
G. Protests: If a protest against such amendment is presented in writing to the city clerk, duly
signed and notarized by the owners of twenty percent (20%) or more of the area of the lots
included within the area for which the amendment is proposed or by the owners of twenty
percent (20%) or more of the properly which is located within two hundred feet (200') of the
exterior boundaries of the area for which the amendment is proposed, such arry~dment
shall require the favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the members of t~ city ~uncil for
~'` ~
passage, ~;; ~
~ -~< r
H. E ec Csn Development Ac ivi .~.~~ '~'
~~ W ' ~ fi
1. Regulated Development Activity: When a proposed text or map amertz#`ment~q this title
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=§ion id=57975&key... 2/9/2010
U3-71-1U
IP11
r
~.!h®~~ CITY O F I O 1!t! A C I T Y
~~~~~ RAND U
~~a
Date: March 10, 2010
To: City Council
From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development
Re: Update: Flood-related activities
• Iowa City was the first government agency in the state to submit CDBG buyout
applications for duplication of benefits review. On March 5th the City received verification
from the Iowa Department of Economic Development that the first two buyout
applications, 612 Eastmoor Drive and 720 Normandy Drive, have been approved and we
may submit a draw request. The City expects to close on the properties this month.
• As of today, the City has received 23 offers back from homeowners interested in
pursuing a CDBG buyout.
• Planning staff attended a meeting with Senator Dvorsky on March 5th to discuss flood
recovery projects.
• On March 10th, staff participated in a monthly disaster recovery teleconference with Iowa
Department of Economic Development (IDED), Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), the
Rebuild Iowa Office (RIO), and other government agencies administering disaster
assistance funds.
• The City continues to accept applications for the four new business disaster recovery
programs: Loan Interest Supplement Program, Expanded Business Rental Assistance
Program, Commercial Rental Revenue Gap Program, and Residential Landlord
Business Support Program.
• Staff completed a housing, business, government, and cultural data questionnaire for the
Rebuild Iowa Office.
• To date, 32 properties have been acquired -- 28 properties have been acquired with
HMGP (FEMA) funds and four with Community Disaster Grants funds.
~ IP12
Marian Karr
From: Doug Elliott [doug.elliott@ecicog.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:57 PM
To: ECICOG Communities (E-mail)
Subject: Deadline for Single Family New Construction Extended to April 12, 2010!
Attachments: RFP Update Memo.pdf; SFNC-Round 2 RFP 2nd Ed.pdf
The deadline for proposals for ECICOG's Single Family New Construction program has been extended. New
and/or revised proposals must be received in the ECICOG offices by 4:30 p.m., on Monday, April 12, 2010. We
encourage you to share the attached information with developers, homebuilders, and other potentially interested
parties.
Douglas D. Elliott
Executive Director
ECICOG
700 16th Street NE, Suite 301
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402
319.365.9941, ext. 122
319.365-9981 (fax)
vvww.ecicog.org
3/5/2010
ECIC: G
EAST CENTRAL IOWA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
e m o YOUR REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
To: Single Family New Construction Round 2 February RFP Applicants
From: J.J. Breen III, Disaster Recovery Coordinator, ECICOG
CC:
Date: 3/2/2010
Re: Update on February RFP Applications
Deadline Extended -New RFP Issued
The Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) recently updated the program description for
Single Family New Construction -Round 2 to include rules for infrastructure funding. Due to this
change, the deadline for applications has also been extended from March 1 to May 3, 2010. Because
the new State application deadline has been extended to May 3, all applicants are being notified that
the final IDED approval of applications (and subsequent kickoff of timelines for marketing and
construction) may not occur until at least June 1, 2010.
ECICOG's first RFP for this round elicited a significant number of good responses, greatly exceeding
the number of units that we can program with our allotted funds, and providing ECICOG with a large
variety of plans from which to choose.
Unfortunately, due to the IDED and CDBG restriction that 50% of all units have a development cap of
$150,000, we were limited in our ability to select a matching number of $180,000 units, and could not
fully program our allotted funds.
Because of the extended IDED deadline, ECICOG is issuing a second RFP to capture additional
proposals, with the hopes of being able to gain additional affordable (sub-$150,000) units, which will aid
us in programming to our full allocation.
All complete proposals from the February RFP will be automatically carried over to the new RFP in their
submitted form. Applicants will be allowed to retain, revise, or rescind their February proposal based
on the new RFP deadline. Incomplete applications from the first RFP also have the option to complete
their original proposal, revise their original proposal, or rescind their proposal in its entirety. Applicants
are encouraged to review their proposal in light of the funding restrictions for affordability, but changes
to proposals are not necessarily required.
The second RFP period will open on March 2, 2010, and close on Monday, April 12 at 4:30 PM.
Almost all of the original descriptions from the first RFP will carry over to the second RFP, except that
ALL proposals (not just those over 10 units) will need to indicate their willingness and ability to reduce
the overall scope of their proposal and number of units proposed, if they have not already done so in
writing. The new RFP is included with this memo as a separate document, and is also available on the
ECICOG website.
All February applicants are encouraged to contact ECICOG as soon as possible to declare whether
they intend to continue with their original proposal, amend their original proposal, submit an additional
proposal for a different subdivision, or rescind their proposal altogether.
All applicants, existing or new, are also welcomed and encouraged to review their proposals with
ECICOG for completeness and clarity before April 5, 2010, to try to avoid any delays, post-submittal
changes, or disqualifications of final proposals at the April 12 deadline.
We apologize for this delay, and look forward to continuing to work with applicants to create a robust,
effective plan for affordable new construction housing in the ECICOG region.
Thank you,
J.J. Breen III
Disaster Recovery Coordinator
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
700 16th Street NE, Suite 301
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
desk: 319.365.9941, ext. 139
fax: 319.365.9981
www.ecicog.org
• Page 2
Request for Proposals (RFP)
2nd edition -March 2 -April 12, 2010
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Single-Family Unit Production
New Construction -Round #2
ECIC: G
EAST CENTRAL IOWA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
YOUR REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
A Note from ECICOG about this RFP
ECICOG's first RFP for the Round 2 Funding Period elicited a significant number of good
responses, greatly exceeding the number of units that we can program with our allotted funds,
and providing ECICOG with a large variety of plans from which to choose.
Unfortunately, due to the IDED and CDBG restriction that 50% of all units have a development
cap of $150,000, we were limited in our ability to select a matching number of $180,000 units,
and could not fully program our allotted funds.
Because of the extended IDED deadline, ECICOG is issuing this second RFP to capture
additional proposals, with the hopes of being able to gain additional affordable (sub-$150,000)
units, which will aid us in programming to our full allocation.
All complete proposals from the February RFP will be automatically carried over to the new
RFP in their submitted form. Applicants will be allowed to retain, revise, or rescind their
February proposal based on the new RFP deadline. Incomplete applications from the first RFP
also have the option to complete their original proposal, revise their original proposal, or rescind
their proposal in its entirety. Applicants are encouraged to review their proposal in light of the
funding restrictions for affordability, but changes to proposals are not necessarily required.
Almost all of the original descriptions from the first RFP have been carried over to the second
RFP, except that ALL proposals (not just those over 10 units) will need to indicate their
willingness and ability to reduce the overall scope of their proposal and number of units
proposed, if they have not already done so in writing.
All applicants, existing or new, are also welcomed and encouraged to review their proposals with
ECICOG for completeness and clarity before April 5, 2010, to try to avoid any delays, post-
submittal changes, or disqualifications of final proposals at the April 12 deadline.
We apologize for this delay, and look forward to continuing to work with applicants to create a
robust, effective plan for affordable new construction housing in the ECICOG region.
Thank you,
JJ Breen III
Disaster Recovery Coordinator
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
SFNC RFP #2 -March-April, 2010 Page 2 of 7
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Purpose of this RFP
The East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) is seeking proposals from qualified
developers and builders to provide new single-family housing in the incorporated areas of
Benton, Iowa, Johnson, Jones, Linn, and Washington counties (excluding the cities of Cedar
Rapids and Iowa City) as a part of disaster recovery efforts from the disasters of 2008.
ECICOG is asking applicants to submit construction proposals by April 12th, in order for
ECICOG to review proposals, ensure that all required elements are included, and create an area-
wide plan. ECICOG will then submit the overall plan to IDED for consideration. IDED's
application deadline has been pushed back to May 3, 2010.
Proiect Abstract
The Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) has made available Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to construct new single-family dwelling units as part
of Disaster Recovery efforts from the Flood of 2008. The funds allocated to this project will act
as an acquisition subsidy to potential homebuyers to buy down the cost to construct a home to an
affordable sales price and loan amount.
This project differs from the first round project of April, 2009, in a number of important ways:
1. The maximum subsidy per unit has been reduced from 30% to 25%.
2. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of all units have a development cost cap of $150,000 per unit.
Remaining units retain the previous development cost cap of $180,000 per unit.
3. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of all units must be made available to households earning less
than eighty percent (80%) of the median income for their county and household size. All
remaining units are only available to households earning up to one hundred percent (100%) of the
median income for their county and household size.
4. ECICOG will be processing all proposals and creating aregion-wide action plan to submit to
IDED based on a fixed amount of funding available for the entire ECICOG region.
5. Because funds are limited and needs vary from area to area, ECICOG is imposing a further
restriction that all projects must have explicit support (not necessarily full development approval)
of a local governing entity, in the form of a Resolution, Letter of Endorsement, or similar official
instrument, in order to be considered for this program.
Working with development teams, ECICOG will market the program, provide
oversight coordination of the development team members, accept and process homebuyer
application intake, verify income eligibility and will work with the lenders and builders that are
chosen in this process, through construction and closing.
Based on calculations of the allocated funds and the subsidy limits provided by the IDED,
ECICOG anticipates that 40-50 homes will be constructed in our region as a part of this project.
Because of the requirement for explicit local government support, ECICOG strongly suggests
gathering a coalition or development team of builders, developers, financial institutions, and
local government leaders, to create robust, high-quality proposals that will have a greater chance
of succeeding through the development lifecycle.
SFNC RFP #2 -March-April, 2010 Page 3 of 7
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Selected Back~round/Reguirements from IDED and ECICOG
• This activity is limited to newly constructed single-family /single unit dwelling units.
Manufactured single-family dwelling units are permissible provided they are affixed to a
permanent foundation and will be taxed as real property upon completion. Condominium
style single-family projects for individual homeownership are also permissible. Units that
are already built or under construction are not eligible for funding under this program.
• Construction will only be allowed in incorporated areas.
• Construction of all dwelling units must be completed no later than Dec 31, 2011.
• To ensure that development is in the best interests of the community as a whole, explicit
support of a local governing body or official (City Council, Mayor, etc.) is required for all
proposal submissions.
• A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of all housing units shall have a total cost of less than one
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). The price of any dwelling unit under this program
shall not exceed one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180,000).
• Variety in housing types, styles, sizes (SF) and number of bedrooms and bathrooms is key to
meeting the needs of potential buyers, while staying within development cost limitations.
• Builders will be allowed a builder's fee up to fifteen percent (15°Io) of the cost of construction
of each dwelling unit. Builder's fees shall be included within the total cost to construct and
contained within the per unit development cost limitations. Builder's fees include design
costs, energy rating costs, seller's side real estate commission fees, overhead, and profit.
• A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of units shall be made available to households earning less
than eighty percent (80%) of the median income determined by HUD for the household size
and county in which they are built. Remaining units shall be made available only to
households earning up to one hundred percent (100%) of the HUD median income for the
county of construction.
• Development plans shall identify, for participation in this activity, at least three regulated
lenders and obtain from them a commitment of their willingness to participate.
• Participating lenders shall offer principal loan products that minimally meet the following
criteria:
• Loan interest rates cannot be higher than four percentage points above the federal prime
interest rate at the time of loan commitment;
• Loan-to-value ratios (LVRs) at 75% (as the CDBG-DR funds will be used to subsidize
25% of the per unit development cost);
• No less than a 15-year, fully amortized, fixed-rate mortgage may be used (early pay-off
provisions must be allowed); and
• No adjustable rate mortgages or balloon payment types of mortgages will be allowed.
SFNC RFP #2 -March-April, 2010 Page 4 of 7
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
• Homebuyer purchased properties under this activity must result in ownership in the form of fee
simple title or 99-year leasehold. Condominium single-family structures shall have deed
restrictions or covenants in place prior to sale regarding this type of ownership.
• The participating builder(s) under this activity shall obtain their own construction financing for
all dwelling units they construct.
• Lots (land) on which to construct the single-family housing proposed need to be identified and
conveyed within development plan submissions (addresses and/or legal descriptions, all
individual lots). Where possible site control needs to be obtained by the builders or
developers of this single-family housing prior to development plan submission.
• Where a new sub-division or newly created lots are proposed within development plan
submissions, all details will also need to be submitted, including but not limited to: land
acquisition costs; ownership of the development site(s); site preparation needs; infrastructure
needs; zoning; timing; etc.
• Redevelopment areas (bought out 500-year floodplain areas) will also need to address the
above-stated details within development plans. In this scenario, the community where the
buyout has occurred or will occur will be the owner of such lots for single-family
construction. Details need to be provided depicting the transferring of acquired lots to
builders /developers of single-family housing under this activity.
• Any new subdivision or approved redevelopment area must meet Iowa Green Streets criteria,
attached, for both site and structure. For in-fill or redevelopment of existing lots, the
structural considerations of the Green Streets criteria should be considered to the maximum
extent possible.
• An energy audit is required for all units built under this program. Developers have the option
of identifying a qualified energy audit company to provide the audit services (funded by the
builder's/developer's fee), or deferring to the energy audit services bid out by ECICOG
(separate from builder's fee). Energy audit costs, if provided by the builder/developer,
should be indicated as a separate line item as part of the development cost.
• Developers/builders have the option of providing their own marketing for new units or utilizing
ECICOG marketing. If developers builders choose to provide marketing, it will be included
as a part of the developer/builder fees enumerated above. Marketing costs, if provided by the
builder/developer, should be indicated as a separate line item as part of the builder's fee.
• The IDED recognizes that lots on which to construct single-family housing under this activity
may not be readily available. Some communities may need to develop building lots or
develop, even create subdivisions with multiple lots. Some communities, those with buyouts
of 500-year flood plains, are desirous of redeveloping areas or neighborhoods. Up to
$900,000 may be available to cover the infrastructure needs of all combined projects within
the ECICOG service area.
SFNC RFP #2 -March-April, 2010 Page 5 of 7
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Content of Proposals
1. Name and brief history of developers and builders involved in development project
2. Development plan, including, but not limited to:
a. Lot location(s) (address and/or legal description)
b. Context map of location
c. Site map (if available)
d. Lot ownership details
Unit specifics
i. Size (SF)
ii. Type of development (Detached, zero-lot, condo, etc.)
iii. Style of unit (Ranch, two-story, story-and-a-half, etc.)
iv. Construction method (stick-built or manufactured)
v. Full basement, Crawl Space, or Slab-on-grade
vi. Number of bedrooms
vii. Number of bathrooms
viii. Other amenities
ix. Builders fee and breakdown (design costs, energy rating costs, real estate fees,
profit, overhead)
x. Total development cost, with breakdown (land cost, construction cost, builder's fee)
3. Green Streets Development Plan and Checklist - A completed Green Development Plan and
Checklist is required for any subdivision proposal to meet the Iowa Green Streets
requirement of this RFP. In-fill and existing lot construction applicants must also fill out
the Green Development Plan and Checklist to the maximum extent possible.
4. Letters of commitment from at least three (3) regulated lenders
5. Identification of loan closers
6. Identification of any Realtors involved
7. Identification of Energy Audit rating firm, cost, and qualifications (optional)
8. Documentation of explicit support from local governing body (City Council Resolution,
Letter of Endorsement, or similar official instrument)
Special Instructions to ALL proposed projects:
Due to the number and diversity of responses to this RFP, please also indicate willingness and
ability to reduce total units of the project (total funding would be reduced in accordance with
IDED per-unit limits). Acceptable alternatives should be indicated where possible; separate
proposals for smaller numbers of units in the same project are not required.
Special Instructions for infrastructure funding:
For proposals including infrastructure, please indicate if infrastructure needs will be funded as a
part of the proposal with the funding available, or from other sources (local government
funding, local match, etc.). For projects in need of infrastructure funding, please also indicate
whether project is fully, partially, or not contingent on infrastructure being funded through this
program.
SFNC RFP #2 -March-April, 2010 Page 6 of 7
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Evaluation Criteria
• Local Government support memorandum resolution
• Adherence to affordability requirements (minimum 50% units <$150,000, minimum 50% units
available only to <80°Io median income, maximum unit price of $180,000)
• Adherence to and score of Green Streets criteria (required for new subdivisions including
approved redevelopment areas, strongly recommended for in-fill sites)
• Variety of housing types, sizes, and styles
• Proximity to disaster-affected housing /link to disaster-related housing replacement
• Demonstration of the ability to complete construction in acost-effective and efficient manner
within the necessary time frame (Dec 31, 2011) and budget constraints.
Response Timeframe
Responses to this request are due to ECICOG no later than 4:30 PM Central Daylight
Time on Monday, April 12, 2010. Postmarks will not be accepted. Only one (1) copy of each
response is required. Submit written responses to:
J.J. Breen, Disaster Recovery Coordinator
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
700 16`h Street NE, Suite 301
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
Questions about this RFP
Questions about this RFP should be addressed to:
J.J. Breen, Disaster Recovery Coordinator
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
700 16`h Street NE, Suite 301
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
319.365.9941, ext. 139
319.365.9981 (fax)
jj.breen@ecicog.org
All responding firms/individuals will be notified in writing regarding the results of the selection
process from ECICOG. Projects submitted as a part of the overall plan to IDED will be notified
of in writing of the results of the IDED decision once it has been made.
ECICOG reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or to waive any irregularities in any
proposal.
Supporting Documents
-Attachment J-IDED Requirements (PDF)
-Attachment J-Infrastructure Addendum (PDF)
-Green Streets Criteria (PDF)
-Green Development Plan and Checklist (DOC)
Documents are also available for download from the ECICOG website:
http://www.ecico~.or~/SFNC-Round2
SFNC RFP #2 -March-April, 2010 Page 7 of 7
IP13
tows C"~Y COmmun'ity String Orchestra
e
a
i
Dear Friends of the Iowa City Community String Orchestra,
1354 Curtis Bridge Rd. NE
Swisher, lA 52338
March 2, 2010
We'd like to invite you to attend to our upcoming spring concert for our 30`h season. The
concert will be presented on Sunday, March 28, at 3:00 p.m. in the Englert Theatre (221 East
Washington Street) in downtown Iowa City.
Conductor Carey Bostian has chosen music to celebrate our 30th anniversary. The program will
include the premiere of a piece for tenor and strings (Nocturne) based on a poem by Jimenez
composed by 1CCS0 principal bassist Laird Addis. Laird is a founding member of the orchestra
and is the only individual to have played every concert in our 30-year history. We are also
highlighting local soloists with Serenade for Tenor, Horn and String Orchestra by Benjamin
Britten. The soloists, Jeff Agrell (horn) and Eric Ashcraft (tenor), teach at the University of Iowa
and Luther College, respectively. Other works on the program include Doris Preucil's
arrangement for string orchestra of Tomaso Albinoni's famous Adagio in g minor and Gustav
Mahler's Adagietto (from Symphony No. 5) featuring 16-year-old harpist Katherine Siochi.
After the concert, we invite all concertgoers to attend a casual reception with refreshments in
the Douglas & Linda Paul Gallery on the second floor of the Englert Theatre.
As always, we thank you for your previous and ongoing contributions to the 1CCS0.
We look forward to seeing you at the concert!
Sincerely,
Emma Mohr, Vice President
On behalf of the Board of
the Iowa City Community String Orchestra:
Kate Paxton, President
t
S
~ c
~ _
~i
ary
ecre
Lisa Goodfellow-Mertens, _~
Janice Horak, Treasurer _
~ -°~
'"'° ~
-
1 """'
~_ .~
.
~ 4 3
f
~~~ ~•
- pi
r
T~
IP14
Airport Commission
February 18, 2010
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 18, 2010 - 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
PRELIMINARY
Members Present: Greg Farris, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, John
Staley (left at 7:30)
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Jeff Davidson
Others Present: Phillip Wolford, Randy Hartwig, Regenia Bailey, Tim Busch, John
Yeomans, Adam Henderson, Joleen Busch
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council
action
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Rettig called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
FY11-15 STRATEGIC PLAN:
a) Review summary of vision and mission statements and strengths and weaknesses -
Davidson noted that the last meeting went well and they were able to gather some
good information for developing this plan. He quickly reviewed the vision and
mission statements, noting the one minor revision they had discussed. Davidson
then reviewed the strengths and weaknesses that had been identified, noting how
they can work these into their goals and strategies.
b) Develop goals and strategies for FY2011-2015 -Davidson stated that they are
basically ready to begin developing the goals and strategies for FYs 2011 through
2015. He suggested they use the above strengths and weaknesses to then craft
their strategic plan. Working off the tables in front of them, Davidson began going
through the list of priorities. Members discussed whether or not they would like to
have some action taken by the City Council as to the adoption of this plan. After
some discussion, it was decided that the Airport Commission will adopt the strategic
plan, and then will present it to the City Council. Davidson suggested they highlight
the Airport's accomplishments during this presentation. The review continued, with
Airport management and structure being discussed next. The current management
situation and the airport specialist position were discussed, with Rettig noting that the
duties of this position are only going to grow. Members agreed that they would like
to re-evaluate the operations specialist position. The next goal discussed was
attendance at City Council meetings.. Instead of monthly, Members agreed that a
presence of "at least quarterly" at Council meetings would be appropriate. The next
goal addressed was weekly meetings between the airport specialist and City staff.
Tharp noted that he does attend the weekly staff meetings at City Hall and
occasionally he talks to the City Manager's office if needed on issues. Members
suggested adding that the operations specialist "will attend weekly staff meetings" to
the strategic plan. The discussion continued, with specific wording being crafted as
Members added their feedback. Rettig noted that she would like to see them
continue communicating the capital improvement projects -both federal and state -
2
Airport Commission
February 18, 2010
that take place at the Airport. The review continued, with the development of
property in order to support Airport operations being discussed next. The issue of
increasing revenues for the Airport, both aviation related and non-aviation related,
was noted as a major goal. Communicate with state and federal officials about the
value of general aviation funding was suggested next by Rettig. The topic turned to
increasing the use of the Airport for aviation and other community uses, with
Davidson noting that 24-hour fueling is a major strength. Members agreed that they
need to increase marketing of the Airport and a brief discussion ensued on how they
might best address this. Rettig noted that they need to get a sidewalk installed on
Riverside Drive before they encourage too much community participation at the
Airport. The need for more hangar space and how this might best be achieved was
discussed briefly. Members next discussed how they can best capture the number
of flights - by type - in and out of the Airport, and also increase hospitality efforts.
Davidson continued working through the list of goals and objectives, with Members
giving input. Additional items covered included an annual report on Airport
infrastructure and the budgeting process at the Airport. Davidson further explained
how the operating and capital improvements budgets are approached. The
discussion turned to the enhancement of the Airport grounds and completion of the
viewing area. This includes the need for enhanced signage at the Airport. The need
for a sidewalk on Riverside Drive in this area was touched on again, with Members
agreeing that this needs to be addressed. Davidson noted that there is an unfunded
project in the City's CIP for such a sidewalk. The need for an updated emergency
operations plan was the last topic covered. Members agreed that this was best
covered under the infrastructure area. Davidson noted that he will have a draft of the
strategic plan for Members to review, after which they can work on prioritizing.
Staley addressed the commission noting that this would be his last meeting, as his term was
expiring. He stated that it has been an honor to serve with everyone on the Commission and
noted that he had another time commitment that was conflicting with the commission meeting
and that he needed to leave. Rettig thanked Staley and noted that it has been a pleasure
working with him as well. Staley then left the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
The minutes of the January 21, 2010 meeting were reviewed.
Farris moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2010 meeting as presented.
Horan seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-0; Staley absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
John Yeomans noted that he talked with the farm operator and their rent check should arrive
soon.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
Airport Commission
February 18, 2010
a. Aviation Commerce Park -Tharp noted that Peggy Slaughter is not present this
evening.
i. VA Parking Lot Request for Proposals -Tharp next addressed the
issue that was raised last month about whether or not the Airport wanted
to look into this request for a VA parking lot. He has been looking into
this request and he shared some of the details involved. Tharp noted that
they could probably come up with around 200 parking spaces, and the
remainder could be found within Iowa City. He also talked with John
Yeomans about the possibility of using farm ground and having around
600 spaces available there. Yeomans stated that he would have to run
this by the farm operator. Tharp noted that he has upcoming meetings
with City staff to further investigate this request. Income potential could
be around $8,000 per month, according to Tharp. Members continued to
discuss the pros and cons of such a proposal, noting the types of upkeep
they could be faced with. As the deadline for this proposal is fast
approaching, Members decided that they would like for Tharp to go ahead
with a proposal for the 200 spaces.
b. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM -Rettig noted that Hughes is not present this
evening, and that due to the winter conditions nothing is happening at this time.
c. Building H -University of Iowa Hangar Expansion -Tharp noted that he has what
should be the last change order for this project. Final pricing should be in by
Monday. Dulek noted that at some point they will need to finalize some issues with
AECOM.
d. Hertz -Tharp noted that Members have a letter in their packets regarding Hertz's
desire for an early exit from their lease. They are planning to relocate this particular
branch somewhere else in the area.
Horan moved to deny the formal request by Hertz to be released from the remaining term
of the concession agreement and parking agreement.
Gardinier seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-0; Staley absent.
e. 2011 Air Race Classic -Gardinier noted that if the Commission is interested, the Air
Race Classic can be theirs. She briefly explained what the 'start site' would
encompass if they decided to do this. There is a $10,000 fee involved, and Gardinier
touched on how fundraising could be used to cover this. The race begins on
Tuesday, June 21, 2011, which means racers would begin arriving the weekend
prior. Rettig noted that they need to find a way to cover the $10,000 fee before they
commit to this endeavor. Members discussed what they would need to do before
they could sign an agreement to host this event, with Tharp noting what he has found
out so far from Risk Management on holding such an event. Gardinier will check
with the person setting up the Air Race Classic to see when the deadline is for
4
Airport Commission
February 18, 2010
committing to next year's race. Members agreed that if a special meeting is needed
to address this that they will set something up.
f. Corporate Hangar "L" -Tharp noted that they are beginning the RFP for
engineering services. He needs to know the timing of this RFP, adding that he would
like to get final approval of the firm at the April meeting. Secondly, Tharp stated that
he needs to know the best way to get firms to the Commission for approval, whether
via a subcommittee or finalist pick by the entire commission. Members continued to
discuss this, debating the best way to approach this process. Horan and Farris will
work with Tharp on this proposal as a subcommittee.
g. Airport Operations: Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; Management -
Tharp responded to some of the funding questions from last month. He also
reviewed some of the repairs done recently.
i. Evaluation of Operations Specialist -Rettig asked if Tharp wanted this
to be done in a closed session. Tharp stated that it does not need to be.
Rettig noted that she met with Tharp yesterday to review this, and she
shared her scores with Members. Horan asked that they add something
to the effect of keeping a more professional office appearance, and he
shared some wording on this. The discussion continued with Members
reviewing the main goals of Tharp's position. Rettig asked that Members
use the upcoming weekend to review this and add their comments, and
then get it back to her for submittal.
ii. City naming policy -Tharp noted that the City Manager has asked for
input from the various boards and commissions regarding naming
processes and procedures. He has asked that they review the current
policy and provide any feedback they may have. The City Manager will
then compile a revised policy for the Council's review. Tharp asked that
Members bring any comments they may have regarding this to next
month's meeting. He will then forward them to the City Manager.
h. FBO Report -Phillip Wolford of Jet Air addressed the Members, noting that the
swap meet was fairly successful recently. Members briefly discussed some snow
removal issues on the sidewalk south of the airport. Rettig suggested they write a
letter to the City Manager asking for clarification of snow removal. Wolford noted
that May 21 and 22 are when they would like to hold an 'open house.' He briefly
shared what they hope to be able to do during this event.
i. Iowa Flight Training -Tim Busch shared that things are picking up for them as the
weather improves. He spoke to Members briefly about some of the new aircraft they
are seeing.
j. Whirlybirds -Adam Henderson addressed the commission stating things were
picking up as well for him. He added that Whirlybird is one of the sponsors for the
KCRG and Gazette March Madness and hope to get their name out there.
k. Subcommittees' Reports -Farris stated that when spring arrives they plan to do
whatever is necessary to get the viewing area completed. Rettig spoke to the
Friends of Iowa City Airport contribution and a possible letter to those individuals who
did contribute through this.
Airport Commission
February 18, 2010
I. Commission Members' Reports - Gardinier is donating a flight that will be bid on
for the Riverside Theatre fundraiser. Farris spoke to some of the members of the
Friday Night Movie event, suggesting the Airport as a possible location. Rettig
thanked John Staley again for his service to the Commission. There have been two
applications received for his open seat. Rettig noted that she will need to resign from
the Airport Commission due to a change in her circumstances. She needs to write a
letter to the Council, and is considering waiting until April 1 to do so. She also noted
that this is her last meeting as Chair, and that next month a new Chair will need to be
elected.
m. Staff Report -None.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING:
The next regular meeting is set for Thursday, March 18, 2010, at 6:00 P. M. at the Airport
Terminal building.
ADJOURN:
Farris moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
Horan seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-0, Staley absent.
CHAIRPERSON DATE
Airport Commission
February 18, 2010
AIRPORT COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
NAME TERM
EXP. 1/21 2/18 3/18
Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X
Minnetta
Gardinier 3/1/15 X X
Howard
Horan 3/1/14 X X
Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X
John Staley 3/1/10 X X
NAME TERM
EXP.
Greg Farris 3/1 /13
Minnetta
Gardinier 3/1/15
Howard
Horan 3/1 /14
Janelle Rettig 3/1/12
John Staley 3/1/10
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
OIE = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
IP15
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FEBRUARY 10, 2010 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings, Le Ann
Tyson
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Caroline Sheerin
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Streb
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Barbara Eckstein at 5:00 p.m.
An opening statement was read by Eckstein outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the
procedures governing the proceedings.
ROLL CALL: Anderson, Eckstein, Jennings and Tyson were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR JANUARY 13T" 2010:
Anderson offered two typographical changes to the minutes. Eckstein offered three
typographical changes.
Tyson motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Anderson seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin absent).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
February 10, 2010
Page 2 of 7
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend
the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the
Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid
fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property.
Eckstein said that she would like to entertain a motion to defer the special exception application
for Ace Auto Recyclers.
Anderson asked if it would be appropriate to ask if any of the Board members in attendance at
last month's meeting had changed their minds upon further consideration of the case.
Greenwood Hektoen said she believed that substantive discussion should be avoided as the
applicant has requested a deferral. Walz said that would be an appropriate discussion to have
in the future.
Eckstein asked if it was correct that the applicant had requested a deferral because all five of
the members of the Board would not be present at this meeting, as was the case at the last
meeting, and a vote of only two members would mean denial of the application. Walz said that
was correct.
Jennings moved to defer EXC09-00009 until the March 10th meeting.
Tyson seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin absent).
EXC09-00010: Discussion of an application by Regina High School for a special
exception to allow the expansion of a general education facility in the Low Density Singte
Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2150 Rochester Avenue.
Walz said that Regina explained that a special exception to expand general education uses;
Regina is a private high school located in a residential zone. Walz said that in this particular
case, Regina wishes to replace an existing press box with a new one. She said that typically an
expansion that small would not require a special exception; however, the original press box was
built a long time ago without the necessary special exception and without a building permit. As
a result, the expansion of the press box is considered a "new" building and, because it is more
than 500 square feet, it is subject to the special exception process. Walz said that in the scope
of a campus as large as Regina's, this is a relatively small facility. She said the structure is
associated with high school athletics, which are anticipated uses associated with high school
sites. Walz said that compatibility with adjacent uses is the really critical matter involved in this
special exception. She said that this is not a facility that will generate additional traffic
necessarily, as it is a use that already exists on the site that is simply being expanded.
Walz said that the applicant had not provided a site plan that showed a setback distance;
however, measuring from aerial views staff could tell that the established setback was
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
February 10, 2010
Page 3 of 7
approximately 80-90 feet. She said that staff recommends that the setback be required to be no
less than 70 feet in order to maximize the distance between the press box use and the adjacent
residential uses. Walz noted that the active side of the press box faces toward the baseball field
and away from the residential zone, as do the loudspeakers. As a result, most of the activity
associated with the press box will be projected away from the adjacent residential uses. Walz
said that the full set of specific criteria that would be in effect if Regina were attempting to build
a school or a large facility on the site did not apply to the rebuilding of this small press box.
Walz went over the general standards. She said the expansion is modest in size and is not
generating additional traffic to the site; it faces away from the residential area and will not alter
the sound or lighting of the baseball facility; therefore, it is not detrimental to, nor does it
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The use would not be injurious
to the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity and would not substantially
diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood for those same reasons. Walz said that
the proposed press box is replacing an existing press box, which has operated on the site for
some time without apparent issue. Walz said that the normal and orderly development or
improvement of surrounding properties would not be impeded for those same reasons. Walz
said that all required utilities and access roads are already in place at Regina. Staff does not
feel that ingress or egress are a problem that will result from this particular use; although Walz
noted that future expansion of the high school facility could result in ingress/egress issues-this
was noted in the staff report. The specific proposed exception does conform to all other
applicable regulations and standards of the zone, and will be verified by the building official at
the time of permitting. The Comprehensive Plan shows Regina as an institutional use on this
site, so the press box does comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends that EXC09-00010, a special exception for the expansion of a general
educational facility to construct atwo-story 16 x 22'/2 accessory building in the Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2105 Rochester Avenue, be approved subject to the
following:
1) Substantial compliance with the plans and elevations submitted with this application;
and
2) A minimum 70-foot setback from adjacent residential properties.
Eckstein invited questions for staff.
Jennings asked if he was correct in understanding that the proposed structure would replace the
existing structure, not be an addition to the current structure. Walz said that was correct.
Jennings asked if there were any concerns about the fact that the structure is doubling in size.
Walz said that the size of the structure was still not large enough to raise concerns for staff. He
noted that the structure is referred to throughout the staff report as a press box; however, the
increased size may make it more appropriately called a storage structure. Greenwood Hektoen
said that it might be a distinction without a difference in that it did not really matter whether it
was a storage unit or a press box. Walz said that she believed the principal use that would be
of concern to neighbors would be the press box aspect of the structure as it would generate
noise and be the most active aspect of the use. Jennings said that once the building is there it
could become a concession stand or any number of things that could be of concern to
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
February 10, 2010
Page 4 of 7
neighbors. He said that neighbors may not want to be subjected to the smell of popcorn or hot
dogs, or the trash that could be generated from a concession stand.
Walz said that was true, but that the open part of the building faces the baseball field. She said
that if the plans had the opening on the residential side of the building, staff would have a
concern about that. Jennings said that his question was that the Board may wish to approve a
press box/storage unit but may not wish to approve any conceivable future use, such as a
concession stand cut out on the residential side of the building.
Walz said the Board could place additional conditions on the structure if they though this was
appropriate. She said that if the Board articulated in its findings of fact that the uses all faced
away from the residential neighborhood, then that could also serve as a prohibition from uses
facing the neighborhood in the future. She noted that it has been the case in the past that a
building with a special exception has been altered years down the road, a neighbor complains,
staff finds support in the findings of fact for disallowing such a change, and the owner is asked
to remedy the situation. Jennings said his main concern is in defining the use through the
building's name; if it is a press box/storage facility then call it that. Walz said that it might be
most appropriate to refer to it as an accessory building, as the use might change over the years.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that the staff recommendation does not call the building a press box;
rather, it refers to the structure as a "two-story 16 x 22'/2 foot accessory building." Jennings
noted that it is referred to as a press box in different places in the report.
Eckstein said that the staff report speaks of the close vicinity of Hickory Hill Park to the
proposed structure. She asked if the zoning code speaks to the rights of park users in a way
that might be relevant to the Board's decision. Walz said that the code does not explicitly
address that issue, but the Board could certainly consider the impact of the proposed use on the
adjacent park. Greenwood Hektoen said that zoning rights generally involve parties with
ownership interests. She said visitors to properties are not usually considered by the code as
having vested interests. Eckstein asked if the City then would be the protector of the park and
its uses, as it is the owner of the property. Walz said that was correct, but that she could think
of circumstances in the special exception process where the impact on a park or other
surrounding neighborhood could be a factor.
Eckstein asked if it would be appropriate for the Board to reiterate staff's suggestion that
another access point to the Regina campus would be wise at some point in the future.
Greenwood Hektoen and Walz said that leaving the suggestion as a part of the staff report
would be more appropriate. Greenwood Hektoen said it could be worked in as part of a finding
of fact. Walz said it was included in the staff report as a way of reminding the applicant as well
as the staff itself about the issue if and when an application is made in the future that involves
the expansion of Regina.
Eckstein opened the public hearing.
Mike Streb, member of the Building and Grounds Committee of the Regina Board of Education,
said he has been working with the Regina booster club. He said it is the booster club's desire to
have a more suitable press box for the baseball field. He said that the staff report was very
thorough and that he had very little to add to it. He said that to have a press box, a second level
is required, and it is only logical to use that space underneath for storage of mowing and
baseball equipment. He said the concession stand is up at the main building; a situation that is
working fine. He said there need not be concerns about the facility being converted to a
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
February 10, 2010
Page 5 of 7
concession stand as it would not be workable for that use. He said he appreciated staff's help
in the matter.
Tyson asked where the concession stand is. Streb explained that it is up at the main building,
and that a lot of people put their lawn chairs on the hill near the concession stand east of the
baseball field.
Jennings noted that he was not specifically concerned about a concession stand per se, but that
the doubling of square footage could leave the use open-ended. Streb said that his
understanding from talking to the baseball coaches is that the current quarters are pretty
cramped. He said that because the current building is totally non-compliant there is no good
way to fix what is there. Streb said he thinks the thought was that if a whole new building must
be built, additional space should be factored in.
Eckstein invited comments or questions from the Board.
Anderson noted a discrepancy in the application number as listed in the staff report.
Eckstein closed the public hearing.
Tyson motioned to approve EXC09-00010, a special exception for the expansion of a
general educational facility to construct atwo-story 16 x 22 '/Z accessory building in the
Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2105 Rochester Avenue, subject to
the following:
1) Substantial compliance with the plans and elevations submitted with this
application; and
2) A minimum 70-foot setback from adjacent residential properties.
Anderson seconded.
Eckstein invited findings of fact.
Jennings found that the structure is compatible with adjacent uses as there is a similar use
already present on the property. The new facility expansion will not generate any additional
traffic, noise or other disruption for the neighborhood. Its use is governed under city statute in
terms of noise and other criteria. The structure is modest in size, and will be set back no less
than 70 feet from the adjacent residential property. Its primary uses face away from the
residential property, and will not increase the use of the site, nor alter the sound or lighting of
the baseball field.
Jennings said that adequate utilities, access roads and drainage facilities are already in place
for the high school. Jennings said that adequate measures have been taken regarding ingress
and egress. He noted that there are unrelated ongoing traffic issues with the Regina campus
that should remain at the forefront of any future proposed changes or expansions.
Anderson said he had no additional findings.
Eckstein noted that the new building will replace the current structure and the current structure
will be removed.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
February 10, 2010
Page 6 of 7
A vote was taken and the motion carried 40 (Sheerin absent).
OTHER:
Jennings proposed that the Board's regular meeting time be moved to 5:15 p.m. as his work
schedule makes the 5:00 time difficult. Anderson said that 5:30 would be preferable for him.
Tyson asked what the history is behind the 5:00 meeting time. Walz said that the meeting times
can be moved to accommodate the schedules of current board/commission members. Eckstein
said that 5:15 would be better for her.
The Commission agreed to schedule the next meeting for 5:15 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings motioned to adjourn.
Anderson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin absent).
The meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m.
~+
~_
Q
L
0
m
0
N
O
^V
W
~A,
W
V
Q
a~
s
O
N
O
M
O
OD
O
O~
O~
~O
N
~'
s
Q
O
M
x x x o x
N
x o x x x
V1 N ~' V) M
L ~ ~ ~ ~
y"c. o 0 0 0 0
~ W
O O O O O
= C =
'i
~ ~ ~C bA ~ O
~ V C t H
.
eC Q ~ C ~ ~
Z ~
~ L °'
a
i
~
o C
~ m ~ V ~
N
x~
W
a.+
~ C C
N ~ ~
Vf N
~ Q Q
.-.
N
C
O
a
a
G
N
~-+
N
a.+
O
C
c~
.a
u
0
L
fd
N
bq
C
~L
C
b.0
.~
L
L
L
.~
L
L
N
bc.0
•~, a~
N
~ ~
Z Z
X O O z
w
03-11-10
IP16
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 3, 2010 - 5:00 p.m.
MEETING ROOM A, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
Members Present: Clay Claussen, Lorin Ditzler, Maggie Elliott, Craig
Gustaveson, John Westefeld
Members Absent: David Bourgeois, Aaron Krohmer, Margaret Loomer, Jerry
Raaz
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson
Others Present: Andy Dudler
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate
Council action):
None
AFFILIATE GROUP DISCUSSION:
This meeting was scheduled for the Commission Members to discuss the ongoing
issue of how the Parks and Recreation Department should move forward with an
affiliate group fee structure policy.
Moran reminded Commission that this topic came up when the Commission was
reviewing the contract with Dog PAC. It is also the desire of staff to start collecting from
these groups to help in recouping costs incurred by the department. It was also initially
thought to be necessary to assist with the budget deficit as well. That has since been
determined to not be the case by City Council. However, staff still feels it is time to
discuss this issue and draft a policy for Council to consider. Another part of tonight's
discussion will include the issue of waiving fees for those who donate a greater
amount to the department than what their usage fee would total. In other words, if
Commission agrees to charge 10% of the total actual fee for facility use, then that 10%
of the donation would go into the general fund.
The proposal for consideration tonight reads as follows:
Affiliate youth sporting groups would be charged an initial fee of 10% of the
actual cost with a goal of reaching 40% over a number of years.
2. Affiliate groups that rent rooms would be asked to pay 50% of the rental costs.
However, with the usual recovery of 40% of non property tax support, it may be
better to have them pay 40%.
3. Options for Social Service agencies could be one of the following:
a. Determine social service agency discount by tax code.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2010
Page 2 of 5
b. Determine that social service agencies are exempt from any fees.
c. Allow social service agencies to pay 10% of actual cost.
d. Allow social service agencies to pay the same as other affiliate
organizations.
Moran's final proposal to the Commission was to abandon the idea of any fees for any
of the affiliate groups.
Gustaveson noted that he feels with all of the time and work that has gone into this
policy that abandoning this idea is not an option. The idea is for these groups to begin
paying fees in FY11. Gustaveson suggested that the Commission then review this
policy on an annual basis and determine then if it is necessary to increase the fees to
the next level. If at that time it is decided that budgets are good etc., then their fees
would not increase at that time.
Moran stated that there will be legal documents drawn up and signed by each group
involved.
Claussen stated that he likes the idea of reevaluating the fees annually. He stated that
often when people see the 40% over time, they only see the end result. He agrees that
there is a need for a fee structure.
Westefeld asked Moran what staff would like to see. Moran stated that staff is in
agreement that a fee structure is necessary. They know that maintenance costs are
only going to increase and it is time to start recouping some of that expense. They feel
that 10% is an acceptable starting point.
Moran discussed a proposal brought forth by Gustaveson. That is to waive the fee in
those cases where organizations donate money that equals or exceeds the amount of
their rental cost. It was the feeling that billing them for their usage may actually prove
as a loss for the department as some may choose to pay that fee but no longer donate
money for the facilities and their maintenance etc.
Gustaveson used Riverside Theatre as an example. If charged the full rental fee for
the facility it would have totaled $29,000. If they are charged the 10% that is proposed
this then would total $2,900. In an agreement with the City they currently pay $1 per
ticket sold to the department. In 2009 that amounted totaled for $4800.
Westefeld asked if all of the affiliate groups contribute money to the City. Moran
reported that they do not. Kickers contribute annually and Girls Softball contributes
when there is a need. Boys Baseball contributed money for diamonds 30 years ago
and Babe Ruth contributed some towards the concession project. Ocean Waves gives
$350 per year to the Recreation Center.
Ditzler said that her understanding then is that the idea is that nonprofit groups will pay
a minimal fee, for profit and private groups will pay 100% and social service groups will
pay no fee. Moran confirmed that to be the case as per the draft proposal.
Elliott noted that she is still opposed to the idea of collecting fees from these groups. In
reviewing the Master Plan her understanding is that the overall vision is to find creative
ways to gain revenue. She feels this plan is somewhat disjointed. She does, however,
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2010
Page 3 of 5
like the consistency of the plan but she is not comfortable with the process. She feels
that there are more ideas that should be looked at. She mentioned that one suggestion
is to look at the different type of activities and to determine their percentage paid
based on that.
Moran reported that a lot of the Master Plan is focused on fund raising efforts to
produce revenue. He said that when Steve Atkins was the City Manager, he was not in
support of fund raising or selling advertising etc. However, a new City Manager may
feel differently. He further noted that the percentage of fees collected is related to
adult, youth and special population programs. Elliott asked if this breakdown fits in with
the overall philosophy. Moran said that the department has not identified these
percentages; therefore, this philosophy has never been used. As the Master Plan
suggests this philosophy, the department settled on 40% because that is what we
already have in place-we try to make ourselves 40% self-supporting and only using
property taxes for the rest of the budget. However, he feels that starting at 10% and
reviewing annually will be better accepted by the groups.
Claussen said that he would push for these groups to do their own fundraising as
when he was working with Girls Softball they actively sought sponsorships.
Elliott asked how this new policy would affect the agreement the City currently has with
DogPAC. Moran said they are not included in this policy as we have a separate
agreement with them which will be reviewed in June of 2010.
Westefeld asked if the vote on this policy would take place at the Commission Meeting
scheduled for February 10. Moran confirmed that to be the case. Gustaveson further
stated that the idea of tonight's meeting is to finalize the proposal. He felt that there
was a need for more discussion regarding the social service groups.
Ditzler said she liked the idea that came up at a previous discussion where a social
service agency serving more than a 50% low income population would not be charged
a fee. Claussen asked who these groups would consist of and what do they do at the
Recreation Center. Moran reported that one of these groups is the Neighborhood
Centers of Johnson County who uses the Grant Wood gym for their before and after
school program. They also use meeting space and fields in the summer for activities;
therefore, they are providing recreation programs to their clientele.
Gustaveson said that he is in agreement with the proposal regarding Social Service
agencies.
Claussen asked how the income level is determined. Moran reported at this time it is
based on 130% of the federal poverty guidelines to qualify for the department's low
income discount. This happens to be the same as what the school district uses for
their discounted and free lunch program.
Gustaveson reported that when presenting to the entire Commission the policy will
state that starting in the fiscal year 2011 the City will charge affiliate sport groups 10%
of the actual fee with an increase up to 40% over a several year period and based on
an annual review; affiliate groups that rent rooms would have the same fee structure
and social service agencies that serve more than 50% of low income would be
exempt.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2010
Page 4 of 5
Ditzler suggested that the 40% statement be removed from the policy and just state
that fee changes will be based on an annual review. Gustaveson feels it is necessary
to mention the 40% so that the groups know that there is a cap to what can be
charged.
Westefeld reminded Gustaveson to also list that those who contribute at or more than
their 10% fee would not be billed.
Ditzler mentioned that she would like to see a definition of what an affiliate group is.
Gustaveson asked if donations stay within the organization or if they go to the general
fund. Moran reported that 10% would go into the general fund and the remainder
would be used at that particular facility for maintenance and new construction costs
etc.
Westefeld said that he feels that each of the concerns brought up by the groups have
been addressed and resolved within the policy and feels it is very reasonable.
Elliott suggested that when these fees are evaluated annually that there also be a
report provided that shows the amount of costs recovered by the department due to
this policy.
Moran will draft a policy for Commission review and a vote at their February 10
meeting. If approved, then this policy will go to the Council for their review. If approved
by Council then a memo with a copy of the policy will be sent to the affiliate groups. He
will be sure to notify the affiliate groups of the date that this will go before Council so
that they may attend the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Elliott, seconded by Clausen to adiourn the meeting at 5:45. Motion
passed 4-0 with Bourgeois Krohmer, Loomer, Raaz, and Ditzler being absent.
Ditzler departed the meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2010
Page 5 of 5
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
NAME
M ~„~ O O ~ N 07 ~
r r
r O r ~
~ O`0
TERM
r ~
N r
N r
M r
~ r
~ ~
CO
^
~
07
°
ar- N
r
EXPIRES
David 1/1/11 O/E O/E
Bourgeois
Clay 1/1/14 X X
Claussen
Lorin 1/1/13 O/E X
Ditzler
Maggie 1/1/13 X X
Elliott
Craig 1/1/11 X X
Gustaves
on
Aaron 1/1/13 X O/E
Krohmer
Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E
Loomer
Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X O/E
John 1/1/14 O/E X
Westefeld
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
IP17
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 2010 - 5:00 p.m.
MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
Members Present: Clay Claussen, Lorin Ditzler, Craig Gustaveson, Aaron
Krohmer, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld
Members Absent: David Bourgeois, Maggie Elliott, Margaret Loomer
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson
Others Present: Beth Beasley, Maeve Clark, Andy Dudler, Ann Dudler, Jen
Jordan, Fred Meyer, Lois Pavelka, Don Swenson, Sandra
Swenson, Lois Pavelka, Dave Rublack, Anissa Stewart
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate
Council action):
Moved by Ditzler seconded by Westefeld to approve the Affiliate Group Usage
Policy as written Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois, Elliott, and Loomer being
absent.
Moved by Krohmer, seconded by Westefeld to change the hours of the
Wednesday evening Iowa City Farmers Market to 5-7 p.m. (previously 5:30-7:30
p m ), to offer free parking in the Chauncey Swan parking ramp and the
Recreation parking lot during the Saturday morning markets, to recommend to
council the revision of an ordinance to allow expansion of the Saturday morning
farmers market onto East Washington Street and to recommend to council the
revision of an ordinance to allow the sampling and sales of alcohol during the
Iowa City Farmers Markets. Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois, Elliott, and
Loomer being absent.
CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. by Chairman Gustaveson.
OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
Ditzler noted a change to the January 13, 2010 minutes. In the adjournment section
revise "Loomer, O'Leary and Raaz being absent" to Bourgeois, Ditzler and &
Westefeld being absent.
Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Raaz to approve the January 13, 2010 Parks
and Recreation Commission minutes as amended. Motion passed 6-0 with
Bourgeois, Elliott, and Loomer being absent.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 10, 2010
Page 2 of 8
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
ECO IOWA CITY GRANT PRESENTATION:
Maeve Clark from the Iowa City Library Information Services, Jennifer Jordan,
Recycling Coordinator from the City of Iowa City Landfill and Fred Meyer, Director from
Backyard Abundance gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the Eco Iowa
City Grant. Jordan reported that this grant has been received by the Public Library and
the Department of Public Works Landfill Division in the amount of $57,000. The
premise of this grant is to get libraries to work with their municipalities to improve
relationships in the entire community with the focus being on sustainability within four
areas. These areas include urban storm water management, local foods, urban
compost and energy efficiency and smart waste disposal. Eco Iowa City has had a
presence at many community events over the past year including the Iowa City
Farmers Market. Clark reported that they have been working in cooperation with the
Parks and Recreation Department to build a demonstration garden. The Eco Iowa City
group met with Mike Moran and Joyce Carroll from Parks and Recreation and
developed this idea further with the plan to place a garden on the north side of the
Recreation Center building. Eco Iowa City contributed half of the cost for the fence for
this garden area. This evening the group presented a banner to the Commission and
the Parks and Recreation Department featuring the name of this garden "The
Children's Discovery Garden." The Recreation Department is already offering some
classes that incorporate this garden idea and will be offering many more classes this
summer and in the future. The group thanked everyone for their contribution and
partnership in this program. The Children's Library is very excited as well as this will
give many opportunities for joint programming. The grant will end in the fall, however,
this project will continue on.
Fred Meyer, Director of Backyard Abundance which is a local nonprofit working with
Eco Iowa City presented. He stated that the mission of Backyard Abundance is to help
people learn their part of nature by teaching them how to create lush, vibrant, natural
spaces that are modeled after healthy ecosystems. It excites him that this project will
allow them to do just that. The goals of the garden project and construction plan were
outlined in a handout distributed to the Commission. He reported that in general they
wanted to create a space that brings children and adults together to learn about
nature, teach them how to work with nature and how to plant and grow. They also
wanted to create something that would provide growth all year round. The garden will
include a path that will actually encourage people to cut the corner and walk through
the garden. There will be several vegetable beds where children can get ahands-on
experience with gardening. The children will have the opportunity to learn about
different root systems and light requirements with the multiple ground covers and
shrubs. Also with the large amount of ground cover, there will not be as much of a
need for mulching. The group will be working with local growers when ordering their
plants. Westefeld noted and asked about the music area and secret areas listed on the
plan. Meyer noted that each area will have a specific purpose. The music area will
incorporate sound by hanging some things that children will be able to play with and
make sound. The secret area is a place where kids can get away from everything else
but still be seen. Meyer reported that it will take 2 to 3 years to get the area completely
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 10, 2010
Page 3 of 8
up and running but once that is done, it will require very little maintenance. Clark noted
that they are very pleased with the location and its proximity to the farmers market.
Commission thanked the group for their time, effort and partnership in this program.
AFFILIATE GROUP DISCUSSION:
Moran sent out the Affiliate Group Usage Policy for review by the Commission. Some
of the Commission met on February 3 to discuss this policy in-more detail.
Gustaveson reviewed the proposed policy. Private, for profit groups will pay 100% of
the fee associated with the cost of rentals. Affiliated public nonprofit groups will pay
10% of the associated rental costs which will be reevaluated annually to determine if
fees need to increase. Their total cost will never exceed 40% of the associated fee.
Social service groups that serve 50% or greater of low income population will not be
charged a fee for facility usage.
A concern that was discussed further was regarding those groups. that donate money
on an annual basis. Their donations may be greater than what their fee would be. Staff
and Commission do not want to discourage them from donating that money.
Therefore, it was determined that if their donations cover the cost, their fee will be
waived. They do not want these groups to feel as though they are being charged twice.
Moran stated that if the Commission approves this policy, he will write a memo to
Council and discuss at a future Council meeting. The affiliate groups will be informed
of when that will take place giving them the opportunity to attend.
Claussen noted that one of the things Commission wanted to establish was that the
40% final cost is not definite, that it will be reviewed annually and will only increase if
necessary. His fear is that groups may only be seeing the 40% and not realizing it is in
10% increments over several years and only if it is determined necessary after a
review.
Gustaveson said that all who attended the February 3 meeting were in agreement that
with all of the time and effort put in to this proposed policy, that now is the time to
move forward and implement such a policy.
Moved by Ditzler, seconded by Westefeld to approve the Affiliate Group Usage
Policy as written. Motion passed 6-0 with Bouraeois, Elliott, and Loomer being
absent.
FARMERS MARKET DISCUSSION:
Neumann welcomed the Farmers Market vendors who attended. She reminded
Commission that she handed out the survey results and her suggestions for the
market to them at the February meeting for their review. Her suggestions are as
follows:
1. Change the hours of the Wednesday markets to 5-7 p.m. (previously 5:30-
7:30).
2. Leave the market in the ramp while expanding it out onto East Washington
Street allowing for a few open air vendors to set up. She further noted that
there have been concerns of pedestrian safety as well.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 10, 2010
Page 4 of 8
3. Free Parking offered in Chauncey Swan Ramp and Recreation Center
Parking Lot on Saturday mornings. Parking is currently free on Wednesday.
(Moran noted that that the department did budget $10,000 to reimburse the
Parking Division for this privilege.)
4. Increase the number of vendors on Saturdays.
Westefeld asked Neumann how staff will determine which vendors will go onto East
Washington St. She reported that there are currently 50 names on the waiting list. Her
desire is to choose vendors who offer items that are not currently inside the market.
However, depending on the number of stalls available, their may have to be some
repeat items offered on the street as inside the market. She would like to move the
grilling vendors from the park to this area as well. She will also offer this space to
vendors who currently hold stalls inside the market with the understanding that if they
move to this area, this will then become their permanent stall. She also noted that
there were a lot of requests on the surveys asking for wine sales at the market. Moran
will be asking Council for an ordinance change to allow such. Westefeld asked what
would be the policy for bad weather for these vendors that are set up outside.
Neumann said that as in other open air markets, it will be left up to the vendor whether
or not to attend. Claussen asked how the department would go about blocking the
streets. Neumann reported that she will be working with several departments such as
Public Works, Fire, Police, and Planning. Claussen likes the idea of vendors on the
street as this will allow more visibility of the market.
Ditzler asked what kind of comments were made on the survey regarding parking.
Neumann reported that a number of surveys noted negative comments regarding
parking, most of which complained about the fact that there is a charge to park during
the market. She also reported that farmers markets that she has attended have all
offered free parking during their market. Ditzler was concerned about the $10,000
budgeted for this privilege. Neumann reported that most of that will be recovered
through vendor fees.
Raaz asked what free parking really means. Neumann noted that it would include just
the Chauncey Swan Ramp and the Recreation Center Parking Lot, not other city lots
of meters. The City Hall Parking Lot will also remain free as it has been in the past
seasons. Raaz noted that it will be very important to communicate to the community
clearly just where the free parking will be offered.
Claussen asked if there are signs posted away from the site directing people to the
area. Neumann stated that there are signs that are put up on Washington, Gilbert and
Burlington Streets on market days.
Neumann added that the Downtown Association has expressed interest in having a
farmers market in the downtown district. Gustaveson stated that DTA has wanted that
for the past couple of years. He feels that the market in its current location is
something that has been in place for a number of years, and after the response last
year when the City considered moving it to Iowa Avenue, it really showed how
important this market is to the community and the vendors and how much the current
location is preferred. Neumann reported that 69% of those surveyed like the market in
the Chauncey Swan Ramp.
Gustaveson asked for comments from any of the vendors that were in the audience
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 10, 2010
Page 5 of 8
Anissa Stewart, Farmers Market Vendor, asked if there would be free parking offered
during the Holiday Markets (held in November and December) as well. Neumann said
that she has not asked for that but would address that with the Director of
Transportation.
Don Swenson, Farmers Market Vendor, stated that he believes the farmers market to
be a business, not an event, not a carnival, and that it is people's livelihood. He said
that he can understand the desire to have something more festive, perhaps in a
downtown area that perhaps merchants might want to have, however, that is quite
different than the function of a farmers market.
Lois Pavelka, Farmers Market Vendor, expressed her gratitude to the Commission and
to Neumann for the work she has done for the Farmers Market and that she really
appreciates it. She said she cannot say enough good things about the market as it is
such an important part of their livelihood on the farm. She asked how the Wednesday
time change will affect the parking in the ramp. Neumann reported that Chris O'Brien,
Director of Transportation Services (including Parking), is working with her on several
different options. It has not been determined at the time of this meeting exactly how
this will be handled. NOTE: Since this meeting, O'Brien has informed Neumann that
there will be no parking allowed in the market area on Wednesdays after 4 p.m.
Swenson further stated that there is a need for better signage along the creek side of
the Recreation parking lot as many people park their illegally.
Moved by Krohmer seconded by Westefeld to change the hours of the
Wednesday evening Iowa City Farmers Market to 5-7 p.m. (previously 5:30-7:30
p m ), to offer free parking in the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp and the
Recreation Parking Lot during the Saturday morning markets, to recommend to
council the revision of an ordinance to allow expansion of the Saturday morning
farmers market onto East Washinaton Street and to recommend to council the
revision of an ordinance to allow the sampling and sales of alcohol during the
Iowa City Farmers Markets. Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois, Elliott, and
Loomer being absent.
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Westefeld expressed his gratitude to Terry Robinson and his department for all of the
work they have done during this difficult winter.
Ditzler said that reading through the staff reports she is pleased to see that more staff
are noting how their actions are fitting into the master plan. She would encourage all
staff to do the same.
Krohmer asked how long the staff will be monitoring the pool reports etc. before
looking at the possibility of changing the Recreation Pool hours. Moran reported that
the plan is to monitor these for two seasons. Krohmer also stated that in reference to
the master plan, now that we have gone through the affiliate group and budgets, if at
some point in the next several months the group should again sit down and go through
the goal section of the master plan point by point. Moran said that he too would like to
PARKS ANC RECREATION COMMISSION
February 10, 2010
Page 6 of 8
reevaluate the prioritization list and he hopes to start this process within the next
month. Krohmer noted that after reviewing the CIP plan, he found that a fair amount of
money has already been funded for trail construction etc. He reminded Commission
that Council felt that some of the plans presented to them by Parks and Recreation
were overly ambitious. He would like the Commission to show a power point
presentation to the Council showing them that they have already funded many projects
and thus proving that perhaps Parks and Recreation is not being overly ambitious. He
feels that after looking at what they have already funded, perhaps they could look at
actually making it more ambitious in future years.
Raaz agreed with comments regarding the Master Plan. He would like to see it placed
on the agenda quarterly. Westefeld said that in response to that comment, he thinks
that things are indirectly happening mentioned in the master plan. For instance the Eco
Iowa City Grant Presentation, Affiliate Groups and the Farmers Market -all three of
these things can dovetail back to several points that were made in the Master Plan. He
agrees that placing it on the agenda on a regular basis is important.
Claussen would like to physically visit the sites that the Commission is responsible for.
Gustaveson informed him that the Commission does schedule an annual tour of
facilities. He stated that it would be nice to visit these places as they are added or
changed periodically.
CHAIRS REPORT:
Gustaveson stated that he too would like to see the Commission focus on the Master
Plan, further stating that we have been given a document that gives direction into the
future.
DIRECTORS REPORT:
Gift Naming Policy & Scheduling Special Events: Commission packets included a
memo from Dale Helling to all of the boards and Commissions regarding a proposed
naming policy. The three guidelines recommended are as follows: 1) No public
structure or any part of a structure is named strictly in recognition or in exchange for
money. (Moran feels that this idea could negatively affect our foundation for
fundraising efforts. Perhaps there should be at least some dollar amounts or guidelines
added to that.) 2) Naming of a building etc. cannot be done until after 10 years of an
individuals death. (Moran noted that this could affect Parks and Recreation in a
number of areas as if you review in the past they have named facilities after people
who are still living such as Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center, Scanlon
Gymnasium, and it was proposed before Terry Trueblood passed away to name the
Sand Lake Facility the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. He feels that ten years may
be too long of a period of time after a death to do this.) 3) This section was regarding
the processes for this policy. Moran had no comments for this section of the plan.
Moran would like the Commission to review the proposed policy and they will discuss
in more detail at the March 2010 meeting.
Ann Dudler from DogPAC asked if the public may have any say on this policy. Moran
reported that those groups associated with the City were allowed to comment so he
believes they could be included in this conversation.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 10, 2010
Page 7 of 8
Gustaveson said he is not happy with the details of this policy. He believes that these
requests should be reviewed on a case by case basis. He agrees that there is a need
for a policy but feels it needs to be somewhat loose. He and Moran agree that this
policy could negatively affect fund raising efforts by the Parks and Recreation
Foundation. Gustaveson suggested that an email go out to the Commission, the
Foundation and to affiliate groups letting them know that the Commission will be
discussing this in detail at the March meeting and that they are all welcome to attend
and comment.
JC DogPAC Tag Sale Income Report: Moran reported that he had included copies of
the DogPAC tag sale income report in the Commission packets. Moran referred any
questions or comments to Andy Dudler who was in the audience. Moran reminded
Commission that the DogPAC agreement renewal is coming up in June an that one of
the things that has been suggested is perhaps some of the funds go towards the hiring
of staff to monitor the dog parks to enforce the rules. He further noted that based on
experience and what he is being told that there are between 70%-80% of the people
that are visiting the dog park do not have a dog park tag. Dudler reported that DogPAC
would be willing to have volunteers available to do the education portion of this
program and then give the people the option to buy the day pass or tag on-site. For
those people who refuse to cooperate, the volunteer could call a safety officer to
actually enforce the rules. Dudler reported that they did a poll at Thornberry last spring
where someone sat there for several hours and approximately 60% of the people that
came into the park did not have tags. She offered to do this again if Commission and
Staff desired. She also noted that regarding financial reports, they are going to look
different in the coming years as beginning this year they now offer a 3 year dog tag.
Therefore, the report could show a sharp increase in income this year but in following
years will slow down significantly.
Terry Trueblood Recreation Area: Moran reported that Snyder & Associates will be
present at a future meeting to go over Phase II plans for the Terry Trueblood
Recreation Area.
Iowa City Eels Swim Club: Recreation staff will be attending an ICE board meeting in
the near future to ensure the board of the departments support in lieu of the University
of Iowa Recreation Services starting a new swim club.
School District: The Iowa City School District has received a grant to place computers
for public use at Grant Wood Elementary School. Moran is also working with the
school district regarding plans for a new elementary school. It is his desire to
incorporate a west side recreation facility as part of this school.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Raaz to adjourn the meeting at 5:15. Motion
passed 4-0 with Bourgeois, Elliott, and Loomer being absent.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
February 10, 2010
Page8of8
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
NAME
M
r. M
` O
r O
r tt N
r ~
. ~
r ~
•" OO
~ ~M... ~ O
nJ
TERM ~ N N M v ~n ~D ~ oo °' °
EXPIRES
David 1/1/11 O/E O/E O/E
Bourgeois
Clay 1/1/14 X X X
Claussen
Lorin 1/1/13 O/E X X
Ditzler
Maggie 1/1/13 X X O/E
Elliott
Craig 1/1/11 X X X
Gustaves
on
Aaron 1/1/13 X O/E X
Krohmer
Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E O/E
Loomer
Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X O/E X
John 1/1/14 O/E X X
Westefeld
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = AbsentlExcused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time