HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-27 Bd Comm minutesApproved Minutes
February 2010
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 18, 2010
ROOM 208, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Chuck Felling, Jay Honohan, Men,.e Bem-Klug, Michael
Lensing, Charlotte Walker, Jean Martin
Members Absent: Sarah Maiers
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Emily Light
Others Present: Dave Dowell, Mary Wiemann, Bob Welsh, Laura Amy, Josh
Bolander, Amanda Roberts, Riley McCloud
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Jay Honohan chaired the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 21.2010 MEETING:
Walker said the minutes left out inappropriate statements about a Center
participant that were made by Susan Rogusky at the January meeting. She said
the Commission needs to be careful when discussing disaplinary problems in
open meetings.
Motion: To accept the minutes from the January 21, 2010 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 5/1. MartiNFelling. Walker voted no.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will visit and report to the Board of Supervisors. Lensing will attend and
report at a City Council meeting; Martin will attend with him.
DISCUSSION OF BOARD APPOINTMENTS FOR FRIENDS OF THE CENTER:
5b 1
Approved Minutes
February 2010
Honohan said the executive committee of the Senior Center Commission met to
identify candidates who they would recommend appointing to the Friends of the
Center board. They wanted to find people who will actively help with fundraising.
Honohan said they deaded not to contact any candidates prior to Commission
approval. The group made the following recommendations:
Sue Shallau, retired from the University of Iowa Foundation.
Nancy Wombacher, former Senior Center Commission member and active
member of the Center.
Karen Franklin, retired director of Iowa City Planning and Zoning department,
former chair of the Iowa City Community Credit Union.
Patriaa Hayek, local therapist/counselor, community activist.
John Chadima, Iowa State Bank and Trust.
Altemates:
Melanie Haupert, former school board member, community activist.
Bob Ross, Iowa State Bank and Trust.
Judy Atkins, community volunteer.
Julie Johnston, administrator of the foundation for Mercy Hospital.
Roger Riley, Hills Bank.
Motion: To approve the five candidates and five alternates recommended
for the Friends of the Center board and instruct Honohan and Kopping to
contact the nominees in order to fill five board positions. MartiMFelling.
Bem-Klug said she is fine with the five candidates, but would prefer not to have
two people from the same bank if an altemate is called upon. Honohan agreed
and suggested Roger Riley from Hills Bank as another altemate.
Martin suggested leaving the original altemate on the list in the event that neither
person is available. Felling agreed.
Walker added that these names were chosen by a small committee with no input
from the whole Commission. Honohan pointed out that the names were
discussed at length by the entire Commission at the January meeting. Walker
said most of the names discussed were suggested by Honohan, Lensing, or
Kopping.
Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Walker abstained.
Dowell asked who would select replacement members of the Friends of the
Center board when the initial members discontinue their participation. Honohan
said the Friends of the Center board will be responsible for selecting future
members.
2
Approved Minutes
February 2010
Kopping said all policies and practices still need to be established and formalized
for Friends of the Center.
UPDATE ON OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT:
Kopping said all groups have completed their work, and staff members and team
leaders are preparing the final reports that will be presented on March 4 at 5 PM.
Kopping invited the Commission to attend the meeting to hear the
recommendations. Kopping also noted that she will be preparing a report on the
entire process, so this will not be the last opportunity to team about the
recommendations.
Kopping said the ceramics room is Dosed until further notice. Two people were
working in the room. Each person said they were afraid of the other and accused
one another of stealing things. They both want to use the space, but not with the
other one present. Despite multiple meetings with the staff and people involved
and disciplinary actions intended to resolve the situation, the issues persist.
Kopping said the Center does not have the staff to sit in the room and serve as a
referee.
Kopping talked to representatives of the Recreation Center and Public Library to
get information on their policies for violations of the code of conduct. She also did
an intemet search for discplinary policies used by other senior centers.
Kopping distributed the library's discpline policy. It identifies major and minor
infractions, and separates out polices on hygiene. It discusses the number of
occurrences, the escalation of penalties, and who is authorized to ban patrons. It
is pretty comprehensive.
The library policy details the option of calling the police to have a trespass
warning issued. If the person comes bads prior to the end of their suspension,
the police are called again and a trespass citation is issued. Kopping doesn't
think this option is used often.
Internet information from other senior centers typically outline an escalation
policy for discipline with permanent exclusion from the program as a final
consequence. She described examples of polities that indude verbal and written
warnings, suspension, expulsion for a certain period, permanent expulsion,
police involvement, counseling, terms of re-admittance, and appeal processes.
Honohan said it would be wise to adopt a formal policy, particularly since the
Legal Department said the Senior Center cannot take any action without a policy
3
Approved Minutes
February 2010
unless it is a criminal violation. Honohan asked for volunteers to work with
Kopping to come up with a recommendation for a Center policy.
Walker pointed out that the disaplinary policy was recently updated and she
thinks some of the current problems relate to not having information explaining
the rules of the game posted in the room or available to partiapants. She said the
rules should be clearly posted for viewing before reopening the ceramics room.
Kopping said the rules of the ceramics studio are not where the conflicts have
occurred; problems have related to code of conduct violations.
Walker said she thinks the conflict erupted because of unclear expectations for
the use of the ceramics studio and escalated into a personal dispute from there.
Walker said she likes the recreation center's policy because it emphasizes
documentation. It looks like a move in the right direction.
Bem-Klug and Lensing volunteered to work with Kopping on developing a policy.
Kopping said a new policy would certainly inGude an appeal process. Honohan
said a new policy might need to be presented to the Legal Department for
approval after it is created.
Honohan said the problem is equipment breaks down, and we have not come to
a specific agreement or deasion as to who is responsible (and to what extent) for
repairs or replacement of faulty equipment. In the past, the Senior Center has
been responsible for expenses involving kitchen fixtures such as walls, flooring,
plumbing, and walk-in coolers.
Honohan thinks that Elder Services should be responsible for repairs to
equipment that is used exclusively by the nutrition program.
Walker said she thinks the question should be addressed to the City Council.
They should have the opportunity to support the meal program if they think it is
valuable for meals to be served at the Senior Center.
Honohan pointed out that in the past the City Counal has questioned why Elder
Services is not responsible for its own utility costs.
Honohan said he would like to take the lease to the City Legal Department for
their interpretation of who is responsible for the cost of equipment repairs.
Honohan said we may want to consider an amendment to the lease to spell out
the responsibilities.
4
Approved Minutes
February 2010
Lensing asked if the equipment is ever used by other groups. Honohan and
Kopping said the predominant use of the equipment is for the nutrition program.
Use by other groups has been extremely rare.
Mary Wiemann said Elder Services submits a proposal to Heritage Area Agency
on Aging every year for the contract to operate Senior Dining. The meal program
is paid for by Older Americans Act funds. She said the kitchen is a delicate
partnership between the Center, Elder Services, Inc., and Heritage Area Agency
on Aging that is intended to serve the seniors of Iowa City and Johnson County.
Wiemann described the kitchen's tilt skillet, a piece of equipment that is old and
needs to be replaced. The cost of replacement would be $8,000-$12,000.
Without the tilt skillet for volume cooking, everything has to be cooked in small
quantities on the stovetop. Certain things cannot reasonably be cooked this way,
which may force Elder Services to stray from the menu required by Heritage.
Elder Services could lose compliance with its contract because of the lads of
working equipment.
Wiemann said everyone has to put a value on the partnership. If the nutrition
program had to relocate its operation in order to access an essential piece of
equipment, the Senior Center may lose the partiapation of the people served by
the nutrition program. 120-300 meals are prepared daily in the Senior Center
kitchen, and those numbers enrich the Center's participation counts and services
offered.
Kopping said she does not intend to deny the value of the nutrition program. The
tilt skillet problem has generated questions of whether the Senior Center should
fund the purchase or repair of equipment that it does not use for its programming.
She noted that the kitchen indudes a number of aging fixtures (e.g. walk-in
cooler and freezer) that are the responsibility of the Center. If they break, should
the Senior Center fix or replace them? Kopping wants the Commission to
discuss these issues so that there are answers in place when the need arises.
Lensing asked how much has been spent on repairs in the past? Martin pointed
out that the Senior Center also pays for all utilities for the nutrition program.
Kopping said the only other time cost-sharing has been discussed with Heritage
was several years ago. At that point Heritage said if the Senior Center were to
charge for use of space, equipment, or expenses incurred because of the
nutrition program, they would relocate it. That is because the Senior Center's
contribution to the nutrition program is supposed to be regarded as community
support.
Bob Welsh confirmed this statement. He said Heritage has a seven county area
with approximately 40 sites, and no rent payments have been made. If a
community wants the service, that is their contribution.
5
Approved Minufoes
February 2010
Wiemann said Elder Services can request equipment purchases from Heritage in
its annual RFP. They have received funds for things such as repairs to the rural
delivery truck and kitchen repair at Emerson Point.
Walker said she knows that Heritage paid for the whole kitchen at Emerson
Point. She thinks Heritage does have money for equipment, and that is
something to explore.
Lensing suggested seeking funding opportunities from local charitable
foundations, such as Mercy Hospital or the Braverman Foundation.
Honohan said he thinks it would be worthwhile to pursue funding for a new tilt
skillet from Heritage since it is their program.
Bem-Klug suggested working out a monthly financial exchange to the Center
providing compensation for assuming responsibility for the maintenance of
kitchen equipment. If we do that, then it is a joint program of the Senior Center,
Elder Services, and Heritage. Bem-Klug thinks it is odd for someone other than
the Senior Center to own equipment in the Senior Center building.
Welsh said, as part of the Heritage finance committee, he can assure the board
that their budget could not sustain new expenses. He said 100% of the funding is
used for all of the contracts.
Kopping said she is reasonably certain that if she approached the City with a
budget request for a significant amount of money to purchase or repair kitchen
equipment, the request would be denied.
Honohan said he thinks we need to get Heritage to the table. The Commission
agreed that it would be good to invite a Heritage representative to the next
Commission meeting to discuss these issues directly. Honohan said he would
like a listing of kitchen expenses paid by the Senior Center for review.
Wiemann said she did request the tilt skillet in their most recent RFP. She has no
belief that Heritage will fund the request, but the need has been communicated.
Welsh asked Honohan to investigate what action was taken by the county
regarding the kitchen equipment when the nutrition program was turned over to
Elder Services. Honohan said he would check into it.
Bern-Klug asked if anyone has a sense of how other area agencies on aging
negotiate the expenses with their sites. Kopping said she will check into it.
Wiemann said there is an Iowa assoaation and a national association of area
agenaes on aging.
6
Approved Minutes
February 2010
Lensing excused himself from the meeting at 5:15 PM.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
Kopping referred to the memo from the City Manager induded in the Commission
packet on the issue of restricting naming rights. Kopping said she spoke to the
directors of the public library and the recreation center, and all feel the policy
would tie their hands and takes some incentive away from large donations.
Honohan said he agrees. He referred to the previous discussions about naming
the Assembly Room after Eleanor Hughes, who donated $250,000 to the Senior
Center. If the proposed policy were enacted, such an option may not be possible.
Felling said this issue came up when he was on the Public Art Commission.
Honohan said he feels that naming should not be done in direct exchange for a
contribution.
Bem-Klug said she would like to be able to name rooms after people, but she
would hate to see the name of a building change to a company's name or an
individual's name. She wants to make a recommendation to that effect.
Walker would not like to see the name of rooms changed to a person's name too
soon after their death. Walker said she agrees with the content of the memo.
The Commission agreed that the issue will be discussed at the next meeting.
Bem-Klug excused herself at 5:30 PM.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Citv Counal Report on the January Meetin4: Honohan and Kopping attended to
discuss the FY2011 budget proposal.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 4/0. Martin/Felling.
7
m
;zOOX
n~j~au
n u
Zo a~~
3 ~ ~~ rn
rt ~
~D
~~ C
~ N
m
a
(7 ~ to ~ ~ C7 ~ z
_
~ ~ ~ m 2 ~ c a
~ m
c ~ ~ o ~ Q
`°
a o 3
c 1
~
m
_
N _
N _
N _
N _
~ _
N _
N
w w w w w w w m
~ N ~O O O N
N
X m X X X X n~
m
x x m x x x x
w
N
O
O
V
v
O
CO
CU
O
O
N
j
Mj
W
~i
N
A D~
~ ~ ~
N a,
~ ~ n
O n 3
~ .~
3
a~
0
~ O
~ C
~~
~' 3
N~
o~
~~
oa
04-27-10
5b 2
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 18, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Jake Rosenberg, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Meisner, Wally Pelds
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 (Busard absent) to recommend approval of ANN10-00001 and
REZ10-00002, an application for annexation and rezoning of 1.66 acres of land from
County Agricultural (A) to Institutional Public (P-2) zone located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill
Road SE, subject to severance of the right-of-way of the railroad by the city of Hills, and
the consent of the Crandic Railroad.
The Commission voted 6-0 (Busard absent) to recommend approval of the Moss Green
Urban Village Urban Renewal Plan for approximately 243 acres of property located north
of Interstate 80, west of Highway 1.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM:
ANN10-00001 8~ REZ10-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson
County Agricultural Extension District for annexation and rezoning from County
Agricultural (A) zone to Institutional Public (P-2) zone for approximately 1.66 acres of
property located west of Old Highway 218 (Oak Crest Hill Road SE) north of the Johnson
County Fairgrounds.
Miklo pointed out the current city limits on a map, noting that they end east of the subject
property. He stated that there was a recent subdivision that split this tract off from the
fairgrounds. Miklo said the Iowa State Extension Service purchased the property and wants to
build an office building on the site. Miklo said the Extension is seeking annexation because they
would rather have City water than have to rely on a well for the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2010 -Formal
Page 2 of 9
Miklo said there are three factors to consider when reviewing applications for annexations. The
first consideration is whether the property falls into the range of the City's long-range growth
boundary. Miklo said that in this the property lies well within the growth area. The second issue
is whether the development of the area will fill an identified need without imposing an undue
burden on the City. Miklo said that this area can be served by City water and sewer service.
He said there is territory directly to the east for which the City already provides police and fire
protection. He said that providing those services can be accomplished without imposing an
undue burden on the City. Miklo said that municipal sanitary sewer is not currently provided to
that area so the property would rely on a private, on-site, septic system until such time as the
sewer system is extended to that area. Miklo said City services will not be burdened by the
annexation. The third test for annexation is whether or not the development is in the City's best
interest. Miklo noted that the entire area is within the City's growth area, so it is the City's
intention to annex that area eventually and control it through zoning.
Miklo said that the proposal is to zone the property P-2, Institutional Public, a zone intended for
any property owned by the state or federal governments, or any branches thereof. Miklo said
there really is not a choice in how to zone it in that the zoning code requires anything owned by
the state to be zoned P-2.
Miklo said that this property currently has access by easement to an entrance to Highway 1 via
the fairgrounds. Miklo said that would not change with this annexation; no new access would be
permitted to Old Highway 218. The property would be accessed from the driveway on the
fairgrounds property. Miklo shared several Power Point images of the property from different
viewpoints.
Staff is recommending approval of this application, Miklo said. He noted that the City of Hills,
which has the railroad right-of-way within its boundary, is in the process of de-annexing that
right-of-way. He said the measure had been approved by the Hills City Council in December,
but has not yet been filed. Miklo said staff is working with Hills to have that process completed.
Miklo said that the process must be completed before this property can be officially annexed.
Miklo said the City must also receive written consent from the railroad; verbal consent has
already been given. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the annexation,
Miklo said, the matter would not go before City Council until those two conditions are fulfilled.
Miklo offered to answer questions from the Commission.
Eastham asked if the City has the ability to regularly monitor and regulate septic systems such
as the one the subject property would be using. Miklo said that septic systems are regulated by
the County Health Department. Miklo said that the City's requirements are that once a
municipal sewer is within 300 feet of the property, the owner can be required to hook into the
system. Miklo said this is typically done when there has been some sort of issue with the
system not functioning properly; for example, if a property owner seeks a permit to have work
done on the system, the City might instead require the owner to hook up to the City sewer
system at the property owner's expense.
Freerks said she knows the staff report addressed the issues of snow removal and maintenance
expenses resulting from the annexation, but she asked if Miklo would speak a bit to how that
would work. Miklo said that the entire stretch of Old Highway 218 is within the County's
jurisdiction and is maintained by them; however, Iowa City provides snow removal. Miklo said
the City is in discussions with the County to have the County continue to maintain the small
portion of Old Highway 218 that would fall into the City's domain through this annexation. Miklo
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2010 -Formal
Page 3 of 9
said that if and when the city annexed the rest of that area, it would take over those
maintenance responsibilities. He said there would be discussions with the County Engineer and
the Board of Supervisors on this issue.
Koppes said she understood the area would be zoned P-2, but she wondered if there was any
specific zone the Commission might be familiar with that would be similar to that zoning. Miklo
said that the use being proposed would be closest to an office use, and will have a parking
requirement and some landscape requirements. He said those requirements will not be as in-
depth as they would be if the property was privately owned. He said the site plan approval
process would still be in place. Koppes asked if they would be required to follow any other City
policies, or if the requirements would be limited to the site plan process. Miklo said he believed
the property would be exempt from most City regulations. He said that in most cases there are
good relationships among government agencies and they agree to follow the City codes; they
just are not necessarily required to.
Payne asked if it was correct that the property would not actually add anything to the tax base;
Miklo said that was correct.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Glenn Meisner, MMS Consultants (no address given), said that he is the engineer and surveyor
for this project. He said that Miklo had done a nice job of summarizing what the purpose of the
annexation and rezoning would be. Meisner said that the property has been platted and that
they are trying to annex to the City so they can have public water rather than a well. He offered
to answer any questions the Commission might have.
There were no questions for Meisner.
There was no else who wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks noted that the Commission did not necessarily have to vote on this matter tonight.
Payne made a motion for approval of ANN10-00001 and REZ10-00002, an application for
annexation and rezoning to the city of Iowa City approximately 1.66 acres of land from
County Agricultural (A) to Institutional Public (P-2) zone located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill
Road SE, subject to severance of the right-of-way of the railroad by the city of Hills, and
consent of the CRANDIC Railroad.
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Freerks said she definitely feels the property meets the criteria of the annexation considerations
and she will be voting in favor of the application.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a 6-0 vote (Busard absent).
ANN10-00002 & REZ10-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer
Properties IC, LLC for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2010 -Formal
Page 4 of 9
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5 acres of property located on the
north side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road.
Miklo said that staff had received a request for deferral of this application. Freerks asked if a
public hearing needed to be opened for this item. Greenwood Hektoen advised that since the
item had been advertised the Commission could give the public the opportunity to speak if there
was anyone present who wished to do so.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
There was no one who wished to comment on the matter and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham motioned to defer this item.
Payne seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said he would like to note that the Commission did receive two written comments on
this item for consideration when the matter comes back before them.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer was passed 6-0 (Busard absent).
URBAN RENEWAL ITEM:
Discussion of proposed Moss Green Urban Village Urban Renewal Plan for
approximately 243 acres of property located north of Interstate 80, west of Highway 1.
Miklo noted that Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator for the City of Iowa City,
would be presenting the staff report on this matter.
Wendy Ford said that on Tuesday, March 16th, the City Council Economic Development
Committee reviewed this matter and voted 3-0 in support of the item; they recommended that
the Planning and Zoning Commission also approve the item.
Ford said that the Economic Development Division is charged with helping to build the tax base
in Iowa City, and to help lure employment opportunities to the community. Ford said that over
the years there have been a number of projects that have required some public assistance.
She said that the project before the Commission was one of those kinds of projects. She said
that Steve Moss was present for the meeting, and that he and his development group have
been working on ways to access their property just west of the Pearson Educational Center,
north of Interstate 80. She said the development of this property would add to the tax base and
provide job opportunities to citizens of Iowa City. Ford said access has been a continual
challenge in attempts to develop the property. Before land can be sold. Ford said, the property
must be subdivided, and before a property can be subdivided, there must be access to the
property. Ford said that Moss had approached the City to see about ways to partner in order to
gain access to the property. Ford said Moss has been working on this problem for many years.
Ford said that before the City could use tax dollars in a public/private partnership, an Urban
Renewal Plan must be created. In reviewing the Urban Renewal Plan, Ford said, the
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2010 -Formal
Page 5 of 9
Comprehensive Plan and its overarching goals must be taken into account. Ford said that staff
feels this Urban Renewal Plan is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. Ford said that the
property tax base would be increased and diversified, and new areas to encourage the retention
and recruitment of business would become available if this partnership was developed. Ford
said the plan would increase employment opportunities and would provide areas suitable for
future light industrial and commercial development. Ford said it would provide more
opportunities for the Economic Development Division to work and partner with the Iowa City
Area Development Group, our link to state dollars that are matched by local dollars to incent
development. In doing all of this, Ford said, the economic health of the community would be
improved and, ideally, some property tax relief would be provided to its citizens.
Ford said that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as suitable for office and research
park development. Ford said this property is especially good for such uses because of its
proximity to the interstate and the exposure it provides. Opening this area to development
would be very beneficial to the city as a whole, Ford said.
Ford explained that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a complicated economic development tool.
In simple terms, it takes the difference between the base value of a property and the value
created by the improvement of the area and applies the increase in property taxes gained to
finance projects in the development. Ford said that setting up an Urban Renewal Plan is the
first step in creating apublic/private partnership designed to meet these goals. City Council
acts as a steward to the partnership and developers are held to performance measures that
benefit the community as a whole. Each TIF agreement, whether for building a new road or
bringing a new business in, would be negotiated in a separate development agreement under
the umbrella of the Urban Renewal Plan, which would serve as the overarching guide.
Ford said what was before the Commission this evening is the Urban Renewal Plan, not any
specifically negotiated development agreement. She said the Urban Renewal Plan would set
the stage to make that kind of an agreement possible.
Ford cautioned that any numbers she would be presenting should be considered "back of the
envelope" calculations as she did not have all of the necessary numbers available to her at this
time and is not an expert in property taxes and the extrapolation of their future values. She said
that the property in this area currently brings in approximately $4,000 per year to the taxing
entities: Iowa City, Johnson County, and the Iowa City Community School District. She said the
goal is to attempt to determine the jump in value from inaccessible agricultural land to an
accessible, developed property with $10 million worth of infrastructure invested in it. Ford said
that the developers have a plan for developing out 150 acres of the property with buildings
similar to those on the other side of Highway 1, but with a higher density. Ford said the
developer estimates that the taxable value of the land alone would go to approximately $26
million. Ford said this jump in value represents the difference between having inaccessible land
and having land that has a road to it and has been subdivided. Ford said that the developers'
ultimate plans are to build out over other next decade to a total assessed valuation of $200
million or more. Ford said that it could not be determined how long that would actually take or if
the valuations would ever come up to the developers' expectations. She said that a prorated
formula would be used to estimate the available TIF increment.
Koppes said she has a question about the term "inaccessible." She said that there is currently
an easement in place and so she wondered if "inaccessible" was an appropriate term to
describe the property. Miklo explained that the property is inaccessible to the general public for
travel; it is accessible only to the owner for agricultural purposes. Koppes said she had found
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2010 -Formal
Page 6 of 9
the wording confusing.
Freerks asked if the Moen Building, another TIF project, would be paid off well in advance. She
said that could make this a less difficult pill to swallow because it would help to alleviate
concerns that the City is taking on too much TIF. She noted that she did look at the figures
available on-line and that it appears that Iowa City is not really over-selling TIF districts as some
communities are. Ford said that the on-line figures were a couple of years old, but that they
were similar to current ones. Ford said that the Moen project was different than any other TIF
that has been or will be done in that the City took a huge risk on that project. For that project,
the City took on the upfront risk, whereas in all other TIF projects, it is the developer who takes
on the upfront risk and the City pays back rebates if the risk pays off. She said there has to be
an improvement in valuation and assessed taxes in order for there to be funds to rebate to the
developer. Freerks asked how the point in time for the baseline valuation was determined.
Ford said that there is a set deadline each year, and that there are questions about the original
valuation rate and time that she needs to clear up for herself before she answers that question.
Eastham asked if the plan was to use TIF financing to construct all of the Oakdale Boulevard
extension from Highway 1 to the western boundary. Ford said that the developer would build
the public roads and then be rebated out of the TIF for having taken on that risk. Greenwood
Hektoen clarified that there is no upfront payment by the City. Only if the property is developed
and generates enough taxes will the developer receive a rebate to pay themselves back for their
investments. Ford said that who will pay for which roads has not been spelled out yet. She said
that the developer would do it in phases such that they could get access and be able to show
the ability to develop.
Eastham asked if it was correct that the state provides some funding to school districts that are
deprived of tax revenue due to TIFs. Ford said that was correct, though she said she did not
know if the state replaces 100% of the taxes that would normally flow to the school district.
Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the Urban Renewal Plan was simply a concept plan and that
when it came to specifics there would be a separate development agreement for each item.
Ford said those agreements would go before the Economic Development Committee and then
on to City Council.
Eastham said that it is his understanding that the Commission is being asked to make a
recommendation to City Council about whether the specific Urban Renewal Plan before them is
in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham said that there is an appendix to the
Comprehensive Plan entitled "Economic Development Policies, Strategies and Actions of the
City of Iowa City." Eastham said that this appendix contains a set of guidelines for the Council
to follow in the case of providing assistance to specific businesses. Eastham asked if that
appendix should be considered as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Greenwood Hektoen said
that it should be.
Freerks asked when City staff would meet with the school district and the County in order to
discuss some of these items. Ford said there is a meeting scheduled for March 26'h at 10:00
a.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Eastham said that if the appendix is part of the Comprehensive Plan then his job is to see if the
Urban Renewal Plan is in compliance with that appendix. He said that the Urban Renewal Plan
does not reference the appendix at all. Eastham said that the appendix provides specific
guidelines for instances in which public money is being used to assist private businesses.
Eastham said that he thought perhaps the Urban Renewal Plan should contain more specific
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2010 -Formal
Page 7 of 9
language to indicate that it will follow the guidelines specified in that document. Ford said she
did not see any reason why it could not. Greenwood Hektoen said she thought those things
would be considered at the time an agreement was entered into. Freerks said that might be
something the City Council would want to put in. Greenwood Hektoen asked Eastham if there
was something specific that he would like to see in the Urban Renewal Plan. Eastham said that
he personally would like to see a reference to the "Economic Development Policies, Strategies
and Actions of the City of Iowa City" in the Urban Renewal Plan. Greenwood Hektoen said that
if it has been determined that the appendix is part of the Comprehensive Plan, then a reference
to the Comprehensive Plan should be sufficient. Greenwood Hektoen asked Eastham if he
found the plan to be out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He replied that the way it
presently reads leaves questions about that for him. Greenwood Hektoen advised Eastham to
be very clear and specific about any changes he might like to see.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Wally Pelds, ECO for Partners (no address given), represented the applicant. He said that they
are very excited about their project. He said this is just one of many steps that will come before
the Commission in the long process of developing this property. Pelds said that this is a first
step in helping the developers to get over the biggest hurdle to developing their property, which
is access. Pelds said that the developer's projected numbers are generally conservative,
because they like to under promise and over deliver. Pelds said that they estimate $85 million
in tax revenue for the City over the next 20 years. He said this was very exciting, and that if
their numbers are correct, the fully developed park could mean about a 10% increase to the
City's general fund. He said the project is a win-win proposition.
There were no questions for Pelds.
No one else wished to speak about the issue and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Payne motioned to recommend approval of the Moss Green Urban Village Urban Renewal
Plan for approximately 243 acres of property located north of Interstate 80, west of
Highway 1.
Koppes seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said that in general the plan is well thought out and appropriate, and is in conformity to
the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the area that is more problematic for him is that when
contemplating using public funds for private enterprise, policies that are in place to govern that
situation should be very clearly referenced in the Urban Renewal Plan. Eastham said that his
mind would be eased by the addition of just a few words addressing the existence of the
appendix and the intentions to follow it.
Koppes asked Eastham to clarify what the guidelines in the appendix are. Eastham said that
the guidelines were available on the Internet, and he briefly summarized the points of primary
interest to him for Koppes. Freerks said she was not sure it was the Commission's place to
tinker with this document. Greenwood Hektoen said that they could if they wished. Miklo
advised that the Commission could add a qualifier concerning "the guidelines contained in the
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2010 -Formal
Page 8 of 9
Comprehensive Plan or any amendments thereto." Freerks said that she just is not sure if
additional language is necessary and that because she is not familiar enough with the document
Eastham is describing she feels uncomfortable adding language from it at this time. She said
that she might be more comfortable deferring and having some time to think about it if there was
something Eastham adamantly wished to have included. Koppes said that there is already a
requirement that the appendix be taken into consideration, so adding language concerning it
does not really do anything more than to re-emphasize it. Freerks asked if there were four
people who wished to add language. Weitzel said that he appreciates the notion of putting
accountability into the whole process, but he feels that if the requirement is already there then it
does not need restating. Plahutnik said that the term "qualifying businesses" means that all of
the necessary requirements are already included. Eastham said he did not necessarily
disagree with that interpretation. Freerks said she had done quite a bit of reading about Iowa
City's TIF and that she felt like Iowa City is pretty careful and requires a great deal of
accountability with its TIFs. Freerks noted that there were not four members interested in
adding the language suggested by Eastham, and invited more discussion.
Eastham asked if it was correct that the Urban Renewal plan only lasts for 20 years, or if it was
the TIF district that lasts for 20 years. Ford said that an Urban Renewal Plan that is formulated
for economic development has a 20 year life; one that is formulated for slum and blight and/or
economic development has an unlimited sunset; one that is done for housing has a 10 year limit
on it. Greenwood Hektoen said according to her understanding, those limits are for the TIF
agreement, not for the plan itself. Ford said agreements typically have a life of 5-7 years for
specific projects within that district. Payne asked if that meant that the developer could
potentially be totally rebated in 5-7 years. Ford said that was correct. Payne asked if it was
correct that all of the other taxing entities start getting their money once the developer is fully
rebated. Ford said that was correct. Payne noted that it is possible then, that it could be less
than 20 years before the TIF money began flowing to the rest of the community.
Freerks said that she believes this project will not divert growth in another area. She said she
thinks this is a unique property and a unique space that will offer Iowa City something that it
does not have along the interstate. She said there is potential here to gain quite a bit of tax
dollars over time and to bring jobs in as well. She said she believes the plan conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Eastham said he too would be voting in favor of the plan. He said that the Comprehensive
Plan's guidelines for using public funds for private business are fairly restrictive and well thought
out.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 1 and February 4, 2010:
Payne offered a typographical correction to the minutes.
Koppes motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Payne seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Busard absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitrel motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) at 8:02 p.m.
Z
O
~_
~o
~~
00
UU
~ W
ZUo
N a N
DD
ZZ
Q W
U ~
Z_ Q
Z
Z
Q
J
a
M ~ X X X X X X
N x x x x x x x
r
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
r
~W
~ ~
~ ~-
~ M
~ N
~ O
~ O
~ M
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
HX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
W ~ ~
~ m J
J J
Q
Q ~
N =
V Z
Q N 2 ~
O W U Y H.
~ Q Y ~ H
~
2
~ N
W
W
~ W
N
w Q F- w a z = ~
~ cn v~ w a >- Q -
w
Q
z ~
m Q
w ~
w O
Y Q
a ~
a ~
t9
z
H
W
w
Q
O
LL
N X X X X X X D
'~W ~ ~- M N O O M
wa ~
~n ~
~n ~
~ ~
~n ~
~ ~
~n ~
~n
~ x o 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W ~ ~
~ ~ m -J
J J
Q
= Q ~
N
V Z
Q N = L
~ W C) Y ~
~ ~
~ Q
_ Y
~ N
W
W ~'
~ w
N
w
~ Q
~n H
cn W
w a
a Z
~ =
Q i-
-
W
Q
Z ~
m Q
W ~
W O
Y Q
a J
a ~
O
z
H
W
W
Q
OC
O
LL
Z
E
O
~ ~
~ O
~ Z ~
X ~~
a~a~i
c a~ g
~~~~c~
~ Q Z o
a Q n n z
n n W ~ n
XOOz '
w
Y
5b 3
Airport Commission
February 18, 2010
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 18, 2010 - 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
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
TERM 1/21 2/18 3/18
NAME EXP.
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
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
5b 4
MINUTES APPROVED
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
March 8, 2010 - 7:00 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Zach Wahls, Luan Heywood, Alexandra Timarius, Gary Black
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Ross Wilburn
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m. Luan Heywood chaired the meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
The Commission discussed the idea of postponing the election of officers until the next meeting,
when there will be more appointments made by the City Council. Timarius asked about the
specific functions of officer positions. Karr and Wahls explained the purpose and
responsibilities of officers and subcommittees. Wilburn said that deferring until April was no
problem.
Timarius motioned to postpone the election of officers until April.
Heywood seconded the motion.
The Commission voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.
MINUTES:
Wahls moved to approve the February 22 minutes.
Timarius seconded the motion.
The Commission voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.
VACANCY UPDATE:
Timarius said that she had spoken with a few individuals who were interested in applying for
positions on the YAC. Karr noted that former YAC member Jerry Gao had reapplied for an At-
Large position, and vacancies were available for the Tate and Regina seats. Black said he
would be willing to travel to Tate or Regina to recruit members for the YAC. Heywood brought
fliers to the meeting, and Black said he would be more than willing to distribute them. Karr
mentioned that we wouldn't need City Attorney review for the flier since the text was taken from
the YAC mission statement and bylaws.
Heywood thought it was important to differentiate between advertising a vacancy on the
Commission and advertising the purpose of the Commission. The Commission decided to order
forty fliers (15 for Tate and 25 for Regina). Heywood will send electronic version of the flier to
Karr for printing and Black will pick up the fliers from the City Clerk's office and distribute to
Regina and Tate. Website and Advertising budget line will absorb the cost of the fliers and
printing.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
March 8, 2010
Page 2 of 3
BUDGET:
The Commission briefly discussed the budget. $1,000 still remains in the budget for Youth
Empowerment Grants.
SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS:
The YAC discussed the various subcommittees at length and explained the appointment system
to the new members, Black and Timarius.
Final appointments were as follows:
Recognition Scholarship - Wahls
Website and Advertising -Heywood, Timarius
Youth Empowerment Grant -Black, Timarius, Wahls
Wahls motioned to approve the subcommittee appointments.
Timarius seconded the motion.
The Commission voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Karr said that this item has been added so the YAC has an idea of what's going on with the City
Council and if there are any issues with which the Commission should be concerned. Wilburn
reported that the grace period for the curfew was over. The Commission briefly discussed the
21-only ordinance and the affordable housing ordinance.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The next meeting will be Monday, April 12'h at 7:00.
ADJOURNMENT:
Black motioned to adjourn.
Wahls seconded the motion.
The Commission voted 4-0 to adjourn, 8:35 p.m.
Z
O
~~
N~
~O
~ V ~.
Owo +;
V~~ ~
~- W N ~
a'U~ c
~ Q W a
~ Z ~ ~
Q ~
I=- Q
O
}
00
M X X X X
N
N
X
X
X
X ~ ~ ~
o ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z
'
~ d
W X
H W ~
M
N
~- O
M
N ~
M
N O
M
N ~
M
N ~
M
N O
M
N
W
a
z ~
•~
~
~
>
~ ~
~
> Ta
~
>
IZ
L
Q
d
O
~Z d
v ~ .~
W r y
~ ~
~+ ~+ ~ d
N ~ d ~ cC
y N
aQaz°z°
L II II II
II II W
XOpZ
w
Y
5b 5
MINUTES-FINAL
CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
April 14, 2010 - 8:15AM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL
Members Present: Lyra Dickerson, William Cook
Members Absent: Elizabeth Cummings
Staff Present: Sarah Holecek, Karen Jennings, Captain Matt Johnson and Jane
Molony
Others Present: None
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Meeting called to order at 8:16 a.m. Lyra Dickerson chaired the meeting.
POLICE DEPARTMENT PROMOTIONAL TESTING:
The first item of business was the approval to proceed with Police Department
Promotional Testing. Cook moved to approve the promotional testing process as
proposed, Dickerson seconded the motion and all were in favor.
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Cook moved to adjourn, Dickerson seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 a.m.
Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
(Meetina Date)
NAME TERM
EXPIRES
3/3/10
4/14/10
L ra Dickerson 4/7/14 X X
Bill Cook 411/13 X X
Elizabeth Cummins 4/4/12 X O
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
--- = Not a Member
5b 6
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVED
MARCH 25, 2010 - 6:30 PM
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Jarrod Gatlin
Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Brian
Richman, Rachel Zimmermann Smith,
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long
OTHERS PRESENT: The Housing Fellowship: Maryann Dennis, Charlie Eastham,
Mayor's Youth Employment Program: Roger Lusala, Kim
Downes, Katie Lammers
Dolphin International: Rafael Crespo
BBSJC/ISU Extension: Gene Muhling, Scott Hansen
The Free Medical Clinic: Sandy Pickup
Isis: Yolanda Spears
Iowa City Housing Authority: Steven Rackis
Extend the Dream: Jeff Edberg, Tom Walz
MECCA: Heidi Cada
General Public: Libris Fidelis
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council
action):
The Commission voted 9-0 to recapture the FY10 CDBG/HOME allocation to The Housing
Fellowship and to recommend that City Council reallocate the funds back to the same
project.
The Commission voted 9-0 to approve the allocation recommendations as presented, and
to encourage the City Council to fund Extend the Dream's rehabilitation project on a
leased space with the $40,000 left unallocated for that purpose; to increase the developer
fee on the Isis Housing project by an additional $4,000 in lieu of funding the agency
under Public Services; to adopt the staff recommended financial terms for The Housing
Fellowship and Shelter House/NAMI Housing projects, and to increase the period of
affordability for the Isis Housing project to 20 years.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FY11 CDBG/HOME ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Requested Amount Allocated Amount
HOUSING:
Shelter House/NAMI- Rental $200,000 $200,000
Isis Investments -Rental $250,000 $208,000
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 2 of 14
ICHA/DVIP - TBRA $ 40,000 $ 40,000
The Housing Fellowship - CHDO $ 40,000 $ 34,000
The Housing fellowship -Rental $682,443 $408,451
IV Habitat for Humanity -Home $190,000 $114,000
Ownership
Housing Total: $1,986,443 $1,004,451
PUBLIC FACILITIES:
MYEP -Facility Rehab $ 97,237 $ 90,000
Johnson County Extension/Big $200,000 $127,000
Brothers & Big Sisters
DVIP -Facility Rehab $ 76,000 $ 70,000
MECCA -Facility Rehab $ 15,850 $ 11,000
IC Free Medical Clinic $ 97,975 $ 43,000
Public Facilities Total: $687,062 $341,000
PUBLIC SERVICES:
Crisis Center -Operations $ 10,625 $ 3,177
Shelter House -Operations $ 10,000 $ 2,888
Mayor's Youth Empowerment $ 8,332 $ 2,625
Program/ FAS TRAC
Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - $ 10,000 $ 2,610
Operations
Public Services Total: $ 62,061 $ 11,300
TOTAL: $2,735,566 $1,356,751
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Richman at 6:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 11, 2010 MEETING MINUTES:
Chappell motioned to approve the minutes.
Hart seconded.
The minutes were approved 8-0 (Zimmermann Smith not present at time of vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 3 of 14
None.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
None.
DISCUSSION OF THE FY10 HOME/CDBG ALLOCATION TO THE HOUSING FELLOWSHIP
• Recommendation to Council per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy
(Additional correspondence received 3-22-10):
Hightshoe explained that in FY10, The Housing Fellowship received $220,000 in HOME/CDBG
funds for aloes-income housing tax-credit application. The Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects
Policy states that applicants seeking funding from other sources must apply for that funding in
the next available funding round. The Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) administers the low-income
housing tax-credit program, and their most recent funding round had a deadline of March 15,
2010. The Housing Fellowship was not able to apply at that time. Hightshoe said that The
Housing Fellowship has requested that HCDC allow them to retain the funds for a LIHTC
application next year. She noted that the policy in place requires the Commission to recapture
the funds. Hightshoe explained that the funds can be recaptured and then reallocated to the
same project, or they can be reallocated to any of the projects under consideration for the
current fiscal year. She said that approximately $191,000 of the funds must be reallocated to a
HOME eligible activity, and the rest must be CDBG eligible. Hightshoe said that Maryann
Dennis of The Housing Fellowship is present to address the Commission on this matter. The
Housing Fellowship has also submitted a letter from their syndicator for consideration.
Dennis asked the Commission to recommend to the City Council that the FY10 allocation of
$220,000 be reallocated to The Housing Fellowship for the same purpose. Dennis noted the
letter from herself and the syndicator, Dan Garret of Midwest Housing Equity Group (MHEG).
Tax-credit applications are submitted to IFA, Dennis said, and IFA reserves the credits for the
project. The developer must then take that reservation of tax credits and find an investor to buy
the credits. Dennis said that this is typically done by working with a tax credit syndicator. The
Housing Fellowship has partnered with MHEG as a syndicator in the past. Dennis said that very
few tax-credit developers secure investors without the assistance of a syndicator. Dennis
provided a handout that outlined the pre-development costs incurred by The Housing Fellowship
for its most recent tax-credit project, Aniston Village. The costs listed were only those costs that
related to the tax-credit application to IFA. The pre-development, out-of-pocket cost to The
Housing Fellowship for the application for Aniston Village was $156,195. Dennis said those
expenses were paid throughout 2008 and 2009. She said that the application fee alone is
$6,500. Once the tax credits are reserved, The Housing Fellowship then has seven days to pay
the IFA-required tax credit fee, which is 10% of the reservation. In the case of Aniston Village,
$597,000 was reserved, and The Housing Fellowship had to pay $59,700. Dennis said these
costs are paid with funds from developers fees from previous projects and from rental income.
Dennis said that in forgoing the most recent IFA funding round, The Housing Fellowship had
been heeding advice from their syndicator. The syndicator had advised against applying in
March due to the market forces at play. Dennis said The Housing Fellowship will continue to
work closely with its partners to plan and implement tax-credit projects that are feasible and
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 4 of 14
present minimal risk to them as anon-profit. Dennis said The Housing Fellowship is confident
they can find a suitable site and submit an application for the FY11 funding cycle. She said they
would appreciate the Commission taking that under consideration.
Richman outlined the options available to the Commission on this matter. The Commission
could: 1) recapture and immediately reallocate funds to the same project, 2) recapture the funds
and allocate the money to other housing projects, or 3) recapture the funds and do nothing at
this time, choosing to reallocate them at a later date. Richman noted that the time limit for the
funds to be committed has already begun so recapturing and not allocating may not be the best
option.
Richman noted that there had been challenges with the tax-credit market over the last couple of
years, and asked Hightshoe if she had any insight on what the market would look like going
forward, and whether these kinds of projects would be viable in the near future. Hightshoe said
she had spoken with atax-credit analyst from IFA, and that she was told that because the value
of the tax credits had been reduced in the current year, the federal government had provided
$72 million in gap financing. The gap financing is provided as a loan to the developer. The IFA
analyst said that expectations were that gap financing of a similar amount would be available
next year as well.
Richman asked Dennis for clarification on this. Dennis explained that all of the financing that
goes into atax-credit project must be in the form of a loan in order for the investor to be eligible
to get the tax-credit. She noted that these loans are, however, structured in many different
ways. Richman asked if it was correct that the gap financing consisted of IFA making a loan to
the developer. Dennis said that was correct. Richman asked how the loan was ultimately
repaid. Dennis noted that Aniston Village had received gap financing from IFA in the form of a
cash-flow loan; if The Housing Fellowship continues to meet all of the underwriting criteria, and
if there is money left over, then The Housing Fellowship will renegotiate with IFA concerning
how much, if any, they will be required to repay. Dennis said the gap financing comes from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fill the gap in the decrease in the investment pool.
Dennis said that syndicators pool the investments and then court other investors. She said that
recently Wells Fargo had agreed to come into MHEG's investment pool to fund projects in Iowa.
Hightshoe noted that because the funds in question are FY10 funds, the clock to have the funds
committed began running on July 31, 2009. The funds must be committed by July 31, 2011.
She explained that "committed" means the applicant has entered an agreement with the City,
located a site, and completed the environmental review. Funds need to be fully spent within five
years of being allocated.
McMurray asked Dennis if The Housing Fellowship had other sites in mind for this project.
Dennis said that they do have another site in mind. McMurray asked if she felt certain a site
would be in place prior to the committal date. Dennis said she did.
Chappell said that he would be happy to make a motion to recapture the funds and then
immediately reallocate them to The Housing Fellowship. However, he noted that the City
Council would continue to have the same options that currently lay before the Commission.
Hightshoe said that was correct; the Commission is merely making a recommendation.
Chappell asked if there was a benefit to the Commission indicating how they would like to see
the money spent if Council disregards a recommendation to reallocate to The Housing
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 5 of 14
Fellowship. Long said it is likely that the Council would send the matter back before the
Commission, though they would be under no obligation to do so.
Chappell motioned to recapture the FY10 HOME/CDBG allocation to The Housing
Fellowship and reallocate those funds back to the same project.
Drum seconded.
Richman clarified that from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)
perspective, The Housing Fellowship did not have to have applied for atax-credit by next year.
Hightshoe said that was correct; The Housing Fellowship need only locate a site, complete the
environmental review, (get Council site approval) and enter an agreement with the City.
Richman noted that failure to apply for atax-credit prior to next year would not be out of
compliance with HUD but would still be out of compliance with Commission policy.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 9-0.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FY11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTENERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUSTS:
Richman explained that funding allocation recommendations to City Council for FY11
CDBG/HOME funds had to be finalized in this evening's meeting. He proposed starting with
Public Services, since that is an independent category, whereas Housing and Public Facilities
have some flexibility in relation to one another. He proposed making one motion at the end of
the discussions to adopt the recommendations all at once, rather than adopting them one by
one.
Hightshoe noted that the allocation amounts reached by the Commission are only
recommendations to the City Council. Once the recommendations are finalized, they will be
included in the FY11 Annual Action Plan (a HUD required document). Two or three HCDC
members will form a Justification Committee which will provide written explanations of the
funding recommendations; that document will also be included in the plan. The plan will be
posted fora 30-day public comment period from approximately April 9`h to May 10`h. On May
10'h, the City Council will have a final public hearing on the plan in which they will either approve
the document or modify it. From there, the plan is sent to HUD.
Long noted that the applications listed on the Allocation Worksheets appear in rank order, with
H1 representing the highest rank. Hightshoe added that HUD still has not finalized Iowa City's
entitlement amount, so the available funding is subject to change. She advised the Commission
to formulate a plan at the end of the meeting to deal with potential increases or decreases to the
entitlement amount.
Richman said that in the interest of fairness to all, applicants that wished to address the
Commission should request to be heard, unless a direct question had been asked of them.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 6 of 14
PUBLIC SERVICES:
Richman said it looked as though there were three projects that had a broad consensus for
some level of funding: The Crisis Center, Shelter House and the Free Medical Clinic. Richman
proposed filling in the average allocation for those three agencies as a way of getting the
discussion started. He noted that the Commission has a policy of allocating a minimum of
$2,500 to Public Services applicants. Hightshoe added that CITY STEPS has a stated policy of
considering the highest ranked priorities first, the medium priorities second and the low priorities
last. Richman clarified that the applications just needed to be discussed in ranked order, not
necessarily funded that way.
Richman asked about a notation on the Allocation Worksheet under Public Services that said
"Isis $4,000 moved to Housing." Chappell explained that the notation was actually his. As the
Isis Public Service request is also a HOME eligible activity, he had moved their Public Services
funding to Housing. Richman asked if this essentially meant adding $4,000 to the developer fee
requested by Isis. Hightshoe said that while Isis cannot at this point request more money, the
Commission could recommend a higher developer fee if it chose to. If that was done, Isis would
have the flexibility to spend the money as they chose, rather than being confined to only HOME-
eligible tenant-based counseling.
Richman asked for comments on where to put the remaining $3,000 in Public Services. Gatlin
said that Mayor's Youth Empowerment Project (MYEP) had received a notably higher average
allocation than some of the other applicants and may be a place to put some funding. Gatlin
proposed beginning with a $2,500 allocation to MYEP and working from there.
Richman asked if any Commissioner felt strongly in favor of a Public Services project that is not
funded under the current scenario. Hart said she was looking at Extend the Dream, as well as
The Arc as funding possibilities.
Chappell said he suggested funding Isis at $4,000, but doing so through Housing. He noted
that, at best, the Commission could fund four agencies under this category. He said that given
that, Extend the Dream was not in his top four, though he did support sizable funding for Extend
the Dream in another category. Chappell .said that he had recommended funding for The Arc,
but that he seemed to be in a pretty small minority in that.
McMurray asked if there was anyone present from MYEP, and several representatives were
present. McMurray asked if their Public Services funding request was for vending equipment for
the youth to operate and work at during local festivals. Roger Lusala of MYEP said that was
correct. McMurray asked if the youth had been involved with the planning of the project and
were excited about taking the project on. Lusala said that the program was part of MYEP's
employment program, and that the youth who participate will be paid for their work. McMurray
asked if it was something the kids actually wanted to do. Lusala said that the youth were very
excited about it and about the opportunity to have summer jobs. Hart said she believed it was
this group that had run the popcorn stand downtown, and several Commissioners commented
that it had in the past but did no longer.
Richman said that if the current allocations were acceptable, then there was still $525 to
allocate in Public Services. He proposed adding $200 to Crisis Center, $200 to Shelter House,
and $125 to MYEP.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE7of14
Hart asked what this meant as far as funding for Isis, and Richman responded that Isis would be
discussed further during the Housing allocations.
The Commission indicated preliminary general consensus for the Public Services allocation
recommendations.
Richman reminded Commissioners that the allocations would be approved as one motion at the
end of discussions, so there would be more opportunity to discuss things if need be.
HOUSING ACTIVITIES:
Richman proposed discussing Housing issues next. He noted that there is an issue that
potentially affects both Public Facilities and Housing, so he asked Hightshoe to provide an
update on that.
Hightshoe said that she and Long had met with Tom Walz, Director of Extend the Dream, the
day before, and had been informed that Extend the Dream is no longer pursuing the purchase
of the Linn Street building. Instead, Extend the Dream has the opportunity to lease the Public
Access Television (PAN) building at 730 South Dubuque Street. Extend the Dream could rent
the top floor of the facility for $2,000/month less than what they pay now; however, there is
some rehabilitation work that needs to be done to make the space suitable for their needs.
Hightshoe said that the rent savings would greatly increase Extend the Dream's financial
viability. Walz had submitted some bids for rehab work that indicate a budget of $38,014 is
needed to complete the necessary work. Hightshoe said that the City's Legal Department had
reviewed the matter and had found that HCDC could not technically make a recommendation
for a rehabilitation project, since the submitted application was for an acquisition project.
However, Extend the Dream will submit a letter directly to the City Council explaining the
reasons behind their change in request, and will request the rehabilitation budget directly from
the City Council.
Hightshoe noted that the Commission did have the option of not actually allocating funding that
they may wish to see go to Extend the Dream; i.e., if the Commission wished to allocate
$38,000 to Extend the Dream, but could not technically do so, they could leave $38,000
available for City Council to allocate directly to Extend the Dream if Council decided to fund
them. Otherwise, City Council could choose to draw the funding from one or more of the other
projects, or could choose not to fund Extend the Dream at all. Zimmermann Smith asked if this
meant that the Commission could set aside whatever amount Extend the Dream was asking for
and simply not allocate it; Hightshoe said that was correct. Douglas asked if Extend the Dream
was revising their requested amount. Hightshoe said that HCDC could not pay for money to
lease a building out of Housing or Public Facilities; Extend the Dream can only apply for the
rehabilitation costs. Richman noted that essentially the request was changing from $200,000 to
$38,000.
Richman noted that the improvements would be tenant improvements to a leased space, so no
mortgage would be held on the property. Hightshoe said that rehab funds for leased buildings
have been provided in the past; however, the landlord has to agree to have a lien put on the
property. Richman asked if that was what had been done with the Planned Parenthood project,
and Hightshoe said it was. Hightshoe said that in the past the City has tried to assure that the
lease is a long-term lease when providing rehab funding. Extend the Dream has worked out a
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 8 of 14
three year lease with its landlord, Hightshoe said, with the option to renew the lease for an
additional three years with only a cost of living increase.
Walz requested permission to address the Commission. He said that initially Extend the
Dream's concern was that they desired to move toward sustainability. He said that the rents on
Gilbert Street have increased dramatically in their time there. Walz said that Extend the Dream
simply cannot self-generate enough income to be able to meet those ever-rising rents. The
organization has found in each of its locations that the micro-enterprises housed within it can
generate enough income to pay the rent and be self-sustaining. The only location where this is
not the case is the Small Mall on Gilbert Street. Walz said that their application had been to buy
a building at a price that, with HCDC funding, would allow sustainability through micro-
enterprises. Late in the game, Walz said, several roadblocks appeared that required Extend the
Dream to go looking for other buildings. Walz said that the former location of the Everett
Conner Center had come to his attention, and this building is already fully handicap accessible
and located downtown. He said that the fact that the space is owned by PATV, another non-
profit, makes the tenant/landlord relationship ideal, in part because there is a synergy between
the kinds of programs they run and the kind of people they attract. Walz said PATV gave them
a very good deal, with a monthly rental fee of $1,750 for three years, with a renewable lease,
and no annual increments. Walz said the agreement makes Extend the Dream immediately
sustainable. However, to make the building really work, a little money must be put into it and
Extend the Dream simply does not have the budget to be able to do that. Walz said that he is
asking the Commission to recommend to the City Council that some portion of the funds that
they would have allocated toward the purchase of a building be put toward the rehabilitation of
this building. Walz said he guaranteed that the Commission would be proud of what happens
there. He said it was going to be a fabulous concept for both programs.
Richman said that he presumed the PATV building did not have the same kind of foot traffic that
the Gilbert Street location has. Walz said that Extend the Dream is going to provide what they
call an "alcohol-free coffee house." He said this was not going to be another coffee shop
modeled after Starbucks, but would be a coffee house based on music without alcohol. He said
this concept would attract students and youth. He said that the low-income group that frequents
their micro-enterprises is very into them, very loyal, and will move locations with them. He
pointed out that the location was on the route between Shelter House and MECCA and across
the street from human services agencies. Walz said he believes they can develop a really
interesting mix of low-income, handicapped and student populations. Long asked how big the
space is compared to their current location. Walz said the new space is exactly the same size
as their current location, 2,800 square feet.
Walz reiterated that the space is perfect for the Extend the Dream Foundation; their
rehabilitations to the building and presence would enrich another non-profit; the community
prospers from this change; and it provides an anchor and stable program in southern downtown,
which is ideal in an alcohol-sated environment.
Libris Fidelis, a member of the general public addressed the Commission in support of Extend
the Dream's funding request. He said that he had occasionally used the facilities at Uptown
Bill's Small Mall and had completed their course in electronic commerce. He said that Uptown
Bill's is in actuality a cultural center. He said there are a lot of music groups and community
meetings that are held there. He said this is about more than anon-profit trying to find a new
location; it is about retaining Uptown Bill's as a center in the community. Fidelis said that the
landlord at the Gilbert Street location had been very unfair toward Uptown Bill's. Fidelis said
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 9 of 14
that when the air conditioning had gone out, the landlord had wanted Uptown Bill's to pay the
entire cost of the repairs and upgrades. Losing Uptown Bill's has always been a threat, Fidelis
said, and there are a lot of vulnerable people in this community that would really miss that
support.
Richman asked if it was correct that PATV was anon-profit and Hightshoe said that was correct.
Hightshoe said that HCDC had provided funding for automatic, handicap-accessible doors to
the Everett Conner Center when it was housed at that location.
Richman proposed beginning with Housing and addressing Extend the Dream's funding request
when they got to that point. Hart asked for further clarification on what exactly the Commission
could do as far as allocating money to Extend the Dream. Hightshoe said that if the
Commission chose to fund Extend the Dream they would simply not allocate whatever funding
they wanted to see go toward Extend the Dream, and make a recommendation to City Council
to use that money for that purpose. Otherwise, Hightshoe said, if Council decides to fund
Extend the Dream, they would need to pull money from other allocation sources.
Richman noted that there seemed to be unanimous agreement on an allocation of $40,000 for
the ICHA/DVIP project. He said that there also seemed to be some level of funding for The
Housing Fellowship's CHDO Operating Expenses, and he proposed beginning with $31,111 for
that project, as that was the average allocation. Hightshoe noted that $34,000 was the cap for
CHDO.
The Shelter House/NAMI project was supported at some level by all of the Commissioners but
McMurray, Richman pointed out. McMurray said she had changed her mind about that after
reading the minutes from the last meeting. She said she was fine with some level of funding.
She proposed funding it at $80,000-$100,000. Chappell suggested filling in the average
allocation amount of $145,000 for now, since that was what was done with the CHDO
application. There was consensus for this idea.
Richman said that he likes the Isis projects because units are in service relatively quickly since
the projects involve rehab rather than new construction. He noted that the proposed
affordability period for the project is currently set at 15 years. He compared this to The Housing
Fellowship project, which has proposed an affordability period of 20 years. He asked if Isis
would consider a longer affordability period. Yolanda Spears, Isis representative, said that she
could not make that decision, but that she was sure Salome Raheim would consider it.
Hightshoe reminded everyone that the affordability period and the financing period do not
necessarily need to be the same under HOME rules. Richman drew Commissioners' attention
to a handout from Hightshoe that outlined the proposed financial terms and the financial terms
recommended by staff. Richman asked Zimmermann Smith if she wanted to comment on her
allocation of zero to the Isis project. Zimmermann Smith said that the figure was based on
concerns she had raised at the last meeting. However, she said, she does like the project and
she does appreciate that Isis voluntarily limits their projects to the City Council map. She said
she would be comfortable funding the project at the level of the average allocation. Richman
said that Isis had requested funds for five units, which is basically $50,000 per unit. He
proposed funding Isis at $200,000. Hightshoe said that when staff does the Annual Action Plan
they must estimate the number of units. Typically, she said, they pro-rate based on the
percentage of the request the Commission funded in order to determine an estimate for the
number of units funded. The Commission agreed to begin with a figure of $200,000 for Isis.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 10 of 14
Richman moved to The Housing Fellowship's Rental application. He noted that the funding
request was for ten units for the UniverCity Partnership. Richman asked Dennis if The Housing
Fellowship could make a partial repayment of the funds in the amount of 30%, per staff
recommendations. Dennis said that the staff recommended terms were acceptable. Richman
noted that the original proposal was for a totally forgivable loan, so the repayment would, in
theory, recapture some of those dollars to reinvest in future projects. Hightshoe said that she
wished to issue a disclaimer concerning the staff recommended financing terms. She said that
in making recommendations, staff had relied on the numbers provided by the applicant on the
application. Richman asked if someone could propose a number for The Housing Fellowship.
Drum proposed $350,000.
Richman asked if Shelter House/NAMI was present, and there was no representative. He said
he recommended that any allocations the Commission makes be subject to the financial terms
recommended by staff.
Concerning the Dolphin Lake Point project, Richman noted that five commissioners had
allocated partial funding and four had allocated zero. Gatlin said that he had moved from a zero
allocation initially to a partial allocation this time because he does not have a good sense for
what direction the area would go in if there was no funding at all. He asked if the developers
would drop the project altogether and the City would wind up looking for another housing
provider there. Richman said that there was someone present from Dolphin who might be able
to answer that question. Gatlin asked the representative if the project would proceed if the
Commission did not fund it. The representative from Dolphin said that they had taken over the
property in 2007, and that they have changed the whole environment in that time. He said that
their track record and law enforcement records demonstrate the work they have done in order to
create this improved environment. He said that he should receive some support from the City
for this project and for the work they have done in the area. Richman said that the reason he
funded the project at zero is because it is difficult for him to see the purpose of funding a project
that, in his estimation, is going to be there regardless. He said that he thinks the market rate for
those units is affordable already, so there is no point in subsidizing them. He acknowledged
that the units might be nicer if the Commission funded them, but said he did not think they would
not be there or not be affordable without HCDC funding. Zimmermann Smith said she agreed
with Richman. She said she also thought the original purpose of the allocation had been
diluted. The allocation had been for homeownership units, and the current request was to rehab
rental units. She said she too feels the public purpose is not served by funding this project.
Chappell said that his understanding is that Richman likes Isis in part because units come on-
line quickly. He said that the tour of Dolphin demonstrated that getting those units on-line could
also be a speedy process, as the units are down to the bare walls. Chappell said he likes the
size of the units, and finds them uniquely small, and not a size prone to large gatherings or
unauthorized tenants. He said he continues to be comfortable funding the project at some level;
however, he is less comfortable with pushing forward a recommendation with a bare majority of
the Commission supporting it. He said he knows some people would see a majority as a
majority, but that he thinks more can be done to try to reach consensus. Douglas asked if
Richman's primary concern was funding afor-profit entity. Richman said that was a not a
concern for him at all. He said that for the past two years he had recommended funding for this
project and it had been afor-profit organization then as well. He said that his concern is that the
building in question will be affordable rental units regardless of whether HCDC allocates money
to it. McKay said that he agreed with Richman. He said that developers are sometimes
unsuccessful in their efforts, and that he was sorry to see that this particular model was
unsuccessful because he had supported it in the past. McMurray asked if Commissioners were
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 11 of 14
changing their minds about supporting the project because it changed from a homeownership
project to a rental project, or because the units would be there regardless. Richman said that
the last two years HCDC had allocated money for down-payment assistance for an owner-
occupied project. Richman said that because that project is not moving forward, HCDC has
recaptured that money.
The developer is now asking HCDC to reallocate that money as direct support of the project,
rather than down-payment assistance. Drum said that his support was changing because the
homeownership project was a unique program, whereas the proposed rental program is not.
Drum said he agreed with Richman's points about the project, adding that HCDC could likely
only give them a fraction of what they want anyway and who knows how far that money would
stretch. McMurray asked what the per-unit cost for the project is, and was told that it is $20,104
per unit. Douglas said that it could be argued that any of the projects applying for funds could
go out and seek other funding sources, and that this was not something that should count
against Dolphin. Richman replied that those projects that have not yet been started would likely
not go through without HCDC funding. Hart said that her rationale for funding the project was
that it would make affordable, rehabilitated units available quickly. Richman said that the
developer already owns the property and is committed to it. He said his personal opinion is that
the building will be rehabilitated so the developer can get income from it regardless of HCDC
action. He said that putting $100,000 of City money into that project will not create any
additional units because those units will be rehabilitated eventually anyway. Hightshoe asked
the developer what the rental rate for the rehabilitated units would be in comparison with their
current units. The developer's response indicated that the rents would be at a comparable rate.
Richman said that this showed the units would already be affordable without HCDC assistance.
Douglas said that in actuality these 29 units are not yet on the market. Richman said he would
much rather allocate $100,000 to another project so that additional units come on-line. He said
that no additional affordable units will be created in the city by allocating to this project. Gatlin
said that he would recommend not allocating money to this project after all. Chappell said that
pretty much ended the conversation. Douglas pointed out that the majority had swung the other
way by only one member. The Commission reached consensus on allocating no money to this
project.
McMurray asked if the Habitat application was for one house, and she was told that it was for
five houses. Richman said the per-unit cost was $38,000. McMurray asked how much money
was left to allocate, and was told that approximately $235,000 was left for consideration.
Richman noted that there is also the option of not allocating all of the money. Hightshoe
advised that if there was a large amount of money left over the Commission might want to
consider another mid-year allocation. Gatlin noted that Commissioners should keep in mind
that the Extend the Dream allocation request had been decreased by $160,000. Richman
proposed funding three units at $114,000 for the moment, and the Commission indicated
agreement.
Richman said that this left the Commission with about $123,000 to potentially roll over to the
next funding cycle. Zimmermann Smith said she would recommend fully funding the Shelter
House/NAMI project. She said it would only be $55,000 more than what the Commission has
already allocated and that the project is a really good one. She said she did not know if the
project would come to fruition without full funding, and it was the Housing project with the
highest ranking. Drum indicated agreement. Gatlin said he would agree to that if the
Commission could also agree to give additional money to The Housing Fellowship. Richman
said that he, Hart, Douglas, and McMurray had notably lower allocations than the other
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 12 of 14
Commissioners for the Shelter House/NAMI project, and asked if anyone cared to comment.
McMurray said that one of her biggest concerns with this project is the timeline; as they do not
have the site yet, she wonders if it is really feasible to get the project done in the given
timeframe. Hightshoe said that the project would have five years to spend the money, two
years to commit. Zimmermann Smith said that they were working with someone who had done
similar projects before and is consulting on the process. Chappell said he likes the idea of fully
funding the highest ranked project. Richman asked if there were any zoning issues to be
concerned about. Hightshoe said the building could be built in any residential zone as it is
classified as a group-care facility. Hightshoe said she did not anticipate there being a problem
with finding a building, though it may take them a while to rehab it. McMurray said she did
agree with Gatlin that if more went to Shelter House/NAMI then more should go to The Housing
Fellowship too, as Shelter House/NAMI was only providing six bedrooms of affordable housing.
Zimmermann Smith noted that the Shelter House/NAMI project was very specialized, and is not
entirely comparable. Drum suggested adding to The Housing Fellowship's CHDO Operating
expenses to bring it to the maximum $34,000, and several Commissioners agreed. McMurray
asked if Chappell was still proposing giving ISIS $4,000 under Housing. Hart said she supports
that, as did a number of other Commissioners. Hightshoe said to do that Commissioners would
recommend an allocation of $204,000 with a developer fee increased by $4,000. Gatlin
proposed funding The Housing Fellowship's UniverCity project at a higher rate. Zimmermann
Smith said she felt that the Commission had allocated judiciously in that matter, and that she felt
allocating half the requested amount for a new, unproven concept/project in the downtown area
was a good start. She said they could always apply for more funding at a later date. Richman
clarified that this project would be a different focus than that currently underway under the name
of the UniverCity project, and that the I-Jobs funded program concerned rehabilitating rental
stock into owner-occupied homes, whereas this would be a rental program. Long said that the
UniverCity was a broad concept intended to stabilize and invest in downtown and near-
downtown neighborhoods. Gatlin recommended moving on to Public Facilities and coming back
to Housing after that. Richman said that there was still $443,000 to allocate, and agreed that
moving on to Public Facilities was a good idea.
Chappell said he would like to recommend under-funding this category by $40,000 and sending
a strong message of support to City Council for funding Extend the Dream's rental rehabilitation
project. He said he would like it to be clear that if the Commission had had it within their
purview to recommend an allocation of $40,000 they would have, and that they support Extend
the Dream in their efforts to acquire funding directly from the Council. There was general
agreement to this.
Richman suggested filling in the average allocations for each of these projects as a way of
beginning the discussions. McMurray said she thought that it was important to think about what
the money would cover as far as each applicant's priorities when allocating to Public Facilities.
Lusala said that MYEP's first priority was the air conditioning and the second was the roof.
Richman said he would be willing to allocate higher than the average to this project. McMurray
said that since MYEP was the only project ranked as high priority it should be considered as
such. Chappell said that everyone had recommended some level of funding for this project.
Zimmermann Smith said that one of the reasons she came in low for MYEP was because she
had fully funded Extend the Dream. She said she would be comfortable seeing the difference
divided between MYEP and Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Richman proposed $90,000 for MYEP
and there was general agreement. Gatlin said that he too liked the idea of allocating higher to
Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Hart said she would suggest a higher allocation to DVIP, as the
average allocation will not accomplish their aims. Richman said he agreed with Hart on that as
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 13 of 14
that was sort of an all-or-nothing project. He said that while it might be possible for them to
raise the money another way, most likely they would be forced to delay until HCDC chose to
fund it. He proposed taking DVIP up to the full amount. Chappell said he would rather not go to
the full amount because the Commission is not even fully funding the project which received the
highest priority ranking. McKay said the problem is that that project cannot be partially
completed, or done in phases. Chappell said that there had only been one estimate for the
project, which also concerned him. Hightshoe said that she had spoken with DVIP, and that
while they would prefer full funding, they would certainly continue to look at their options. She
said that she felt like if the majority of the project was funded, it could proceed at some level.
Gatlin asked to see what the numbers looked like if MYEP and DVIP were both fully funded.
Gatlin said he would not be against fully funding MYEP if it meant DVIP was fully funded as
well. Chappell said that he had actually been saying the converse, though he would be happy
to see DVIP up to just short of fully funded. Chappell said he was comfortable taking DVIP up
to $70,000, and several Commissioners indicated agreement. Zimmermann Smith
recommended adding money to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters project. Richman said that his
concern with that was the idea that that project is going forward regardless of HCDC funding.
Gene Muhling, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, said that the Big Brothers/Big Sisters portion of the new
facility represented 25% of the budget. Their application asked for 12% of the total budget. If
HCDC funds the project at half the requested amount, they leave Big Brothers/Big Sisters to find
75% of their building costs. He said funding at that level would likely mean scaling back the
project. Chappell said he did not have a problem with additional money for that project.
Zimmermann Smith proposed an additional $25,000, taking the funding up to $127,000. Gatlin
reiterated that he would like to see additional funding go to The Housing Fellowship's rental
program. Richman said that if the Commission wanted to spend the remaining $62,000, it
should probably go to The Housing Fellowship, Isis, or Habitat. Hart asked about simply
splitting it between the three. Richman said that the remaining amount represented
approximately one unit. Yolanda Spears, Isis, asked for a funding level of $208,000 rather than
the proposed $204,000, and Richman said he was comfortable with that. Gatlin proposed that
the remainder go to The Housing Fellowship, and several Commissioners indicated agreement.
Chappell noted that the City Council may not go along with the Commission's recommendation
to reallocate The Housing Fellowship's FY10 funding back to them. If that is the case, Chappell
said, he would like the Commission to set allocation recommendations for alternative projects.
Hart said she thought the Commission should wait and see. Hightshoe said it was possible that
Council would redirect the Commission to open up another funding round for Housing. Richman
said that if that was the scenario, he would propose that the FY10 money be substituted into the
current funding cycle and the FY11 money would be set aside for future allocations. Hightshoe
said that would be done automatically by staff. Richman said he would be hard-pressed to put
$220,000 more into the current projects, and would be more comfortable with another funding
round. Richman asked if Hightshoe had any sense of how City Council might react to some of
the allocation recommendations given some of their recent discussions about affordable
housing. Hightshoe said she did not. She did note that the UniverCity Partnership map does
match up fairly well with areas identified in the current City Council map. She noted that Isis too
has a history of following the map. She said that so long as providers find locations within the
designated areas she did not think there would be a problem, but that she did not know for sure.
Long said there are a number of property owners in the UniverCity area who are willing to sell to
the City.
Gatlin offered to make a motion. Chappell asked that the $40,000 allocated to Extend the
Dream be removed and that a statement be included indicating the Commission's desire to see
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
PAGE 14 of 14
that project funded. Hightshoe noted that if the staff recommended financial terms were to be
adopted then that would have to be included in the motion. Richman said that his
understanding is that the staff recommended financial terms should be adopted for The Housing
Fellowship, and Shelter House, and that the affordability period for Isis be extended to 20 years.
Richman noted that if Isis says that it cannot do that affordability the Council certainly has the
discretion to override the Commission's recommendations.
Gatlin motioned to approve the allocation recommendations as presented, and to
encourage the City Council to fund Extend the Dream's rehabilitation project on a leased
space with the $40,000 left unallocated for that purpose; to increase the developer fee on
the Isis Housing project by an additional $4,000 in lieu of funding the agency under
Public Services; to adopt the staff recommended financial terms for The Housing
Fellowship and Shelter House/NAMI Housing projects, and to increase the period of
affordability for the Isis Housing project to 20 years.
McKay seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 9-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Zimmermann Smith motioned to adjourn.
McKay seconded.
The motion carried 9-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Z
O
~_
O
V
H
Z
W
J
a
O
W
W
D
~_
Z
O
V
Z
Q
Z
O
D
O
v
W
W o
U~
z°
Q N
0
Z
W
I~-
Q
N X X X X X X X X X
M
X X X X X X ~ X X
M
X X X X X X X X X
N
N X X X X X X X X X
r
N •-
- O
- N O ~-
r ~
r O
r N
r
~a
w X •-
O
N ~
O ~
~
O r
O
N r
O ~
O
O ~
O O
N
~-w
O rn
O rn
O
O rn
O rn
O rn
O rn
O
O
Q
W V
W
2
Z o w ~ ' Q w Q
Q m
J
w Q
V Q
-' J
O U
~ }
~
z Q
~
a Q
C
~
~
2
Q J
OC
w 7 ~ ~ ~ _ ~v
U_ ~ Q
Z U O O V' 2 ~ ~ ~ N ~G
~ `
N ~
~ ~
X ~
~, W ~ N
c~°~
N a~ ~ ca
a` Q z° °
Z
~~ n ~~ n
w~
Y X O Z
U4-L / -7 U
5b 7
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 1, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Pelds, Jared Vincent, Casey Kohrt
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM:
REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green
Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office
Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park
(OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP)
zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately
24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an approximately 235.00-acre office park and
mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and
north of Interstate 80.
Howard pointed out the location of the proposed development on an overhead map. She noted
that the northern portion of the property had just recently been annexed. She said the property
is the site of the Moss family farm, and that the family has created a development group. The
family has been joined in this application by the Neal Llewellyn Trust, administered by Hills
Bank, as the trust owns property between the two parcels owned by the Moss family.
Howard said the applicant is proposing platting the land for development and rezoning under the
Planned Development process, creating a master plan and whole vision for the area. Some of
the zoning would include Mixed Use, Research Development Park zoning, and Office Research
Development zoning.
The plan before the Commission is a concept plan for the development. Howard said that it is
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 2 of 10
her understanding that an even more updated version has been developed since the
Commission's packets were prepared. Howard said that the plan calls for Oakdale Boulevard to
be built from Highway 1 to this development. The developer will also build a local commercial
street and connector street and subdivide lots for development off of the street. The plan for the
Mixed Use area is to have commercial and office on the first floor with potential for apartments
above. The idea for that area would be to have apedestrian-friendly, urban feel, with the
buildings located closer to the street. There would be a transition to the Research Development
Park lots, but the buildings would still remain fairly close to the street. Howard said the design
tries to cluster the development away from the sensitive features on the property. Howard
noted that the applicant has asked for a Planned Development because the applicant would like
some flexibility in the underlying zoning standards. The modification of setbacks and the
relaxing of height restrictions for the Research Park zone and the Mixed Use zone would more
readily allow the applicant to do the necessary clustering and steer clear of the environmentally
sensitive features located on the site. The developer also intends to request setbacks that are
not as large as is typically required for ORP zoning. The applicant would like to see additional
uses allowed in the Mixed Use zone, adjustments to the setback requirements, and adjustments
to height requirements. Howard asked Miklo to address the sensitive areas contained on the
site.
Miklo said the property contains a number of sensitive features including woodlands, potential
wetlands, regulated slopes and the stream corridor. Miklo said the stream corridor involved in
this development is definitely the widest to be reviewed since the sensitive areas ordinance has
been in place. The ordinance defines the stream corridor as including the floodway of a stream,
and in this location the floodway is quite wide. Miklo said that the plat and the sensitive areas
plan have worked to avoid the sensitive areas except in locations where it is necessary to
provide for the construction of Oakdale Boulevard and Moss Place. In those cases, crossing
the floodway/stream corridor is not avoidable. The roadway necessitates the disturbance of
woodlands and the stream corridor in those areas. Miklo said there are also woodlands and
slopes on the private property that are proposed to be developed. He said that for the most part
those would be set aside in a conservation area and a no-construction line would be established
around them. Miklo said there are a few areas where there would be grading and tree removal
from those lots but it would be fairly minor in relation to the amount of woodlands and slopes on
the property. Miklo said the proposed zoning would allow up to 80% of the woodlands to be
removed; however, this proposal calls for the preservation of 80% of the trees, and is well within
the requirements of the ordinance. Miklo said that questions remain as to whether or not there
is a jurisdictional wetland on the property; if there is, then the Army Corp of Engineers, as well
as the City, would regulate it and there would be a required buffer. Staff is still awaiting the
determination of the Corp on that matter.
Miklo said there are a couple of outlots for future development that are not currently under the
applicant's control. Any development other than the construction of Oakdale Boulevard in that
area will require a sensitive areas rezoning or site plan, so further review would be necessary
before any additional disturbance of sensitive areas could occur. Miklo said there is another
large outlot being set aside for conservation, and another set aside for future development,
which will, again, require further review. The applicant is proposing modifications to some of the
zoning requirements in terms of setbacks and heights to allow the development to be
concentrated away from those sensitive areas.
Miklo said there had been a question about the floodplain and the floodway for the area beyond
the Moss property on the further extension of Oakdale Boulevard. Miklo showed an exhibit
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 3 of 10
demonstrating the floodplain. Miklo said the question had been if Oakdale Boulevard would
encounter the floodplain as it was extended to the west. Miklo said that there are several places
to the west where Oakdale will have to cross the floodplain. He said there really is not a good
place to locate the roadway in order to avoid the floodway unless the road was relocated
considerably further to the north. Miklo said that City Engineering has determined that the
roadway will be elevated above both the 100 and 500 year floodplains.
Howard addressed the street and traffic circulation as laid out in the site plan. Howard said that
the applicant has proposed some modifications to the street right-of-way standards, though they
are still working out the details. Howard said the developer would like to provide a wider
collector street that allows on-street parking. She said the details are being worked through with
the Public Works Department and are expected to be resolved prior to the next Commission
meeting.
Howard shared a few photographs of the property.
Howard offered to answer questions from the Commission.
Eastham asked if the City Engineer had confirmed that Moss Place would be elevated above
the 500-year floodplain; Miklo said that he had. Eastham asked if the floodplain was the one set
by FEMA in 2007, and Miklo said he would check into that.
Freerks asked if the outlots were included in the calculation that 80% of the woodlands would be
left undisturbed, and Miklo said he believed that was the case.
Payne asked about the building on Outlot F shown in the concept plan. Howard advised her to
address that to the applicant. Miklo said that that portion of the property is not actually up for
rezoning. He said that what the Commission would be voting on would be the concept plan,
and then a detailed plan would come back at a later date.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Wally Pelds, 2323 Dixon Street, Des Moines, represented the Moss Green Development
Corporation. Pelds said that everything that has been designed for the project is above the 500-
yearfloodplain, and that is based on the 2007 study referred to by Eastham. Pelds said that the
street location was adjusted to give the wetlands a 150-foot buffer, in order to avoid having to
mitigate it at all. Pelds said that the applicant is working with the Army Corp of Engineers to
delineate the wetland. He said that the Corp has asked that they submit all four creek crossings
at this time, which was somewhat unexpected. However, the Corp is looking at the project as
awhole and not in phases, so information concerning phase 2creek-crossings is being
submitted. Pelds said that they have been working closely with their consultant and with the
Corp on low-impact bridge design and the permitting process.
Pelds gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project to provide an overview of their vision.
Pelds said that he wanted it to be clear that a large portion of the trees are being preserved, and
that is why the sensitive areas overlay is being requested. The overlay would allow for the
necessary adjustments to build taller, narrower, and with a smaller footprint. Pelds said the
design is intended to really incorporate the ponds both for floodway mitigation and for visual
effect. He said that they intend to do a native shoreline treatment that is fairly shallow and has a
safety shelf built into it to avoid sinking if a child should accidentally wander into it. The ponds
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 4 of 10
will be planted with native grasses to attract bird and wildlife, and will be surrounded by walking
trails and pedestrian bridges. Pelds said they wished to use native prairie plantings in the green
spaces between buildings, and to use bio-swales between the parking stalls, planting with
native species that handle the salts and brines. Pelds said there would be an asphalt trail, and
that they hope to reuse the wood chips used on site to line the edge of the trails. He said the
goal is to be as "green" and to conserve as much as they can. Pelds said that the setting will be
beautiful and park-like. He said they are proposing a few overlooks made out of stone. He said
that the public open spaces between the buildings are intended to give the project a sense of
place.
Pelds said they have some unique ideas about off-street parking that they are working through
with staff for the Urban Village section of the development. Public Works has some concerns
about the underground detention under the parking stalls. Potentially, Pelds said, their plans
include varying the right-of-way, narrowing it down so that the City is only responsible for the
street, and then creating easements for the utilities, parking, and everything else. Pelds said
the intention was not to burden the City, and that the business associations could be charged
with maintaining and plowing the parking spaces and sidewalks.
Pelds described the pond overlooks planned in the development as approximately 20-foot half-
circles built out of stone. He said the concept had been successful in other projects. He said
that they also wished to incorporate public art into the overall design, as well as a natural
wetland feature in front of one of the lots. Pelds said details are still being worked on for that.
Pelds said the applicant is specifically asking for reduced setbacks in order to avoid disturbing
the trees, and to stay within the farmed areas. He said that for most of the project they are
trying to stay within 20 feet of their right-of-way in order to disturb as little land as possible.
Pelds said that generally when visiting a city, all that can be seen between buildings is a sea of
concrete; here they are trying to maintain the beautiful green spaces that are already present.
That is what sets this property and development apart, Pelds said.
Pelds said that he knew this situation was somewhat different for the Commission, as they are
requesting changes, and have not yet nailed down the details; Pelds said this is because they
do not know yet exactly who their tenants will be. He said they were trying to demonstrate the
overall character of the development, the architectural standards, and to gain input from the
Commission. Pelds said that they feel the vision has been clearly developed and that they have
had positive feedback from some of their prospective businesses.
Pelds said that the biggest lot for the development is expected to create 800-3,000 jobs for the
city. He said that prospective businesses do, however, want to see that the proper zoning and
regulatory requirements are in place.
Pelds said there has been a lot of discussion about what to put into the Mixed-Use area, and
many ideas have come forward. He said that he heard concerns at the informal meeting that a
simple apartment building would not be desirable. Pelds said that the ground floor of any
building will be commercial/office. He said the residential units would be intended to feed the
retail businesses on the ground floor.
Pelds said that they are looking for uniformity in design, so they hope to limit the project to one
or two developers.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 6 of 10
more wiggle room. Plahutnik asked if traffic circles or roundabouts had been considered. Pelds
said that they would consider it, but that he is not sure this would be the right location for one.
Eastham said he was pleased with the proposed parking facilities. He asked Miklo if the parking
lot standards would automatically be invoked. Miklo said there are standards for larger parking
lots, and that he suspects that some of the lots would be large enough for those standards to
apply. Eastham said he would like the Commission to consider requiring those standards for all
parking lots in the development. He said it seemed as though the development was headed in
that direction anyway so it did not seem like it would be too much of a burden. Pelds said that
was the direction they are headed, but that they were trying to give the Commission a realistic
picture of what the development would look like. Pelds said the idea was to lessen the footprint,
but that it might require some creative parking modifications.
Plahutnik said that he would like to see a transportation hub built into the design to
accommodate bus traffic. Pelds said that getting bus service is a main priority. He said
Pearson's currently gets bus service, and as they were planning on making a pedestrian
connection to Pearson's anyway, it might be possible to tag on to their route.
Eastham asked about the geothermal system. Pelds said that this was a backbone of their
project. He said as an amenity of the business association, members would own, maintain, and
use the geo-thermal heating system for their electricity needs. Pelds said the energy savings
alone are attracting a lot of prospective tenants.
There were no further questions.
Freerks asked anyone else wishing to speak to the issue to come forward.
Jarrod Vincent, no address given, said that what may be different about this project from others
seen in the past is that the developers are going to be investing somewhere between $30-40
million. The market for their investment will drive the activity levels that take place there. He
said that essentially what will happen is the investors will purchase the land, and they will set
out a business plan that says at the point when there are enough leases in place they will begin
construction within three weeks. Vincent said that the apartment use will be a reflection of the
working demographic of the area. Vincent said the jobs being discussed right now involve
hundreds at the $60,000/year and above level. The apartments would be reflective of that.
Casey Kohrt, no address given, spoke on behalf of the Johnson County Heritage Trust. He said
that they own a 30-acre nature preserve directly north of the proposed development. Kohrt said
the preserve is a woodland that they are actively managing and restoring to ecological balance.
It is contiguous with one of the largest areas of timber in the county. The Johnson County
Heritage Trust is actively working with the owners to manage the whole area. He said they
would like to make sure there is a long-term management plan for stewardship and
contingencies for the outlots of this development, particularly those contiguous to their property.
Koppes asked Pelds if he had considered anything that Kohrt had just mentioned. Pelds said
he did get a phone call from Glenn Meisner, whom he believed to be on the Board for the trust.
Pelds said he did not believe that the developer would be opposed to it; however, they would be
putting trails and amenities through some of their conservation areas. He said they would
certainly be willing to put covenants in place to protect the woodlands so long as the trails were
permitted. Plahutnik said that his understanding is that the Johnson County Heritage Trust is
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 7 of 10
only concerned about the management of the outlots, so that they are not left to go to seed.
Pelds said that will absolutely be taken care of, and that they will certainly be good neighbors.
Miklo said that the sensitive areas ordinance for the conservation areas does require that there
be a management plan or long-term maintenance plan. Freerks asked if that plan would cover
all of Kohrt's concerns, and Miklo said it should.
There were no further comments from the public, and the public hearing was closed.
Koppes offered a motion to defer REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005 until the April 15th meeting.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said that he would like to thank staff for the amount of work and time that they had put
into the project already. He said one of his concerns had been that the roads be designed
above the 500-year floodplain, and he was pleased to see that addressed. He asked Miklo if
that meant the surface of the road will be one-foot above the floodplain. Miklo said that the City
Engineer indicated the plans called for the road to be at least one foot above the 100-year
floodplain, but the 500-year floodplain still needed to be more closely reviewed. Eastham asked
how the Commission could ask the City Council to be sure that the roadway is built to a certain
level. Miklo said the current code requires the road to be built above the 100-year floodplain; for
the 500-year floodplain the plat will have the specifications written into it for the Commission to
review prior to approval, or a requirement could possibly be written into a conditional zoning
agreement (the engineers would need to give staff feedback about the advisability of doing so).
Plahutnik said that most of the time when matters are deferred by the Commission there is
some element of discomfort with the issue that the Commission is hoping will resolve itself.
Plahutnik said that this is one of the few times that he is actually looking forward to more
discussion. He said the development is fairly exciting, and described himself as kind of an anti-
development guy. However, he said that this development seems to be one in which the city
actually gets quite a bit back in relation to what it puts into the development. Plahutnik said that
there are clearly a lot of unresolved issues but that he thinks this is a great plan that is designed
to utilize the brainpower so prevalent in Iowa City. He said he also likes the geo-thermal
heating plan.
Koppes said she actually likes this plan, though she has some concerns about the prospect of
the Mixed Use area being built first. She said she would like to see a requirement for first floor
commercial. Howard said something like that can be written right into the planned development
plan. Koppes said her other concern would be to watch the walkway to Pearson's to make sure
it is not a drivable walkway. She also noted that the Pearson's bus stop is on the opposite side
of the property. She said she likes the plan, but she does worry that the actual development
could look nothing like the package being presented.
Freerks said she had a similar concern, though she is also terribly excited about the possibilities
of the plan. She said that at the informal meeting she had felt strongly that a 10% build-up
requirement was necessary. She said that if the conditional zoning agreement was tight
enough, maybe it would not be necessary. She said that she hoped tenants and developers
jumped into the project right away and that the tax base for the community was increased as
projected. She said that this was a unique opportunity to use a really wonderful piece of land
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 5 of 10
Pelds said he was excited to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Eastham asked if the design standards were intended to apply to parking structures, and Pelds
said they were. Pelds said that all of the parking structures are behind the buildings, and they
are trying to restrict parking at the front of the buildings. Pelds said they would prefer to do all
parking garages, but that the feedback they are getting from prospects indicates that they are
very expensive and not for everyone.
Busard asked how Pelds would ensure that the development that occurs is actually green, and
whether the covenants would require any third-party review. Pelds said that LEED will be a
guideline for the development, but will not be mandated, though there will be specific energy-
efficiency requirements. Pelds said that was the recommendation of the Iowa Energy Efficiency
Office. He said there are certain facilities that are almost impossible to get LEED-certified, and
offered the example of a server-farm. Pelds said that they plan on having agreen-review
committee and an architectural review committee made up of third-parties, and including at least
one City staff member and one local architect. Pelds said long-range planning will be key.
Freerks said that she had had concerns about the Mixed-Use aspect of the project because the
annexation and development concept had been pitched as commercial/office. She said she had
considered requiring abuild-up of a certain percentage of the commercial/office before the
Mixed-Use can be realized. She said that it seemed the Mixed-Use was intended to support the
rest of the development, so it made sense to have the jobs in place prior to bringing the workers
there to live. Pelds said that was their concept. Freerks asked if he would be opposed to a
10% build-up requirement prior to the Mixed-Use being implemented. She advised that he need
not answer this evening, but should consider it. She said that once the area was zoned Mixed-
Use, it was out of the Commission's hands and could be sold and developed by someone else
with an entirely different vision. Pelds said that he believes this is where the planned overlay
provides an opportunity to dial things in very clearly. He said that the overlay would mandate
the first floor be commercial or office and would allow only 5-10% residential on the first level.
Pelds said that their vision does not include a field of apartment buildings, and that would
destroy their vision for the property.
Busard said that he would like to see a requirement that the businesses on the first floor actually
be in operation so that someone does not come in and leave the first floor vacant just to
capitalize on the apartments. Pelds said they have seen that before, and that is not their vision.
He said they desire service-type businesses, pharmacies, salons, book stores, coffee shops,
etc. Pelds said that having the guidelines and the planned development overlay will help that
vision to come into fruition.
Plahutnik asked if the on-street parking areas were only in the Mixed-Use areas. Pelds said
that was correct, as the intention was to have a green, urban feel in that area. He said that what
they would really like is some direction, as they would certainly like to have the best product
possible, and the vast experience of the Commission could help further articulate and tweak that
vision.
Freerks asked about signage requirements. Pelds said they have not gotten that far, and that
they were inclined to have every site plan come back to the Commission for review as an
additional check and balance.
Plahutnik joked that Pelds needed to speak more like a developer, leaving things vaguer, with
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 8 of 10
developed in the right way.
Koppes said she had taken a walk on the property recently and that had helped her to get her
bearings for the property.
Busard said he likes what the applicant is doing, especially the way they are addressing the
sensitive features on the property. Busard said some of his concerns were the floodplain
disturbance, the wetlands, and the ability to have a site plan review for every building that
included a review of construction techniques. Busard said he agreed that a conditional zoning
agreement addressing the occupancy of commercial/office space prior to the building of any
apartments was a good idea.
Plahutnik said that at the informal meeting Miklo had pointed out that tax-increment funding is
going to lead this development and will greatly favor building commercial/office before
residential. Plahutnik said that at some point he would like to get a breakdown of how much of
a financial incentive the developer has to follow this plan. Howard said there are still details
being worked out in the development agreement, but that they would look into Plahutnik's
request. Howard said the idea is to give tax-increment financing to only the commercial portion
of the development. Greenwood Hektoen said that was not yet finalized. Miklo said that he
believed it was going before the City Council on April 27th, so there should be a draft by the next
meeting.
Eastham said it would help him to know how the developer came up with the amount of Mixed
Use space that they did for this plan. Eastham said he really likes that the development is so
appropriately geared toward the site. He said he likes the idea of having parking behind the
buildings, and having buildings close to the street. He said the entire mix of uses is appealing.
He said that the plan is in the right direction at this point.
Payne said she too is excited about the plan and that it is indeed a very appealing plan. She
thanked the applicant for all of the thought that had been put into the project.
Freerks advised Pelds to discuss with Kohrt and the Johnson County Heritage Trust the
development's plans for woodland management on the front side to avoid any possible
problems down the road.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Weitzel absent).
ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM:
ANN10-00002 8~ REZ10-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer
Properties IC, LLC for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5 acres of property located on the
north side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road.
Freerks noted that the applicant had requested an indefinite deferral
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 1, 2010 -Formal
Page 9 of 10
No one wished to speak to the issue and the public hearing was closed.
Payne motioned to defer ANN10-00002 & REZ10-00003 indefinitely.
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 6-0 (Weitzel absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 18, 2010:
Eastham motioned to approve the minutes.
Payne seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Weitzel absent).
OTHER:
Payne announced that she would not be present at the next informal meeting. Koppes stated
that she would not be present at the next formal meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Koppes motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Weitzel absent) at 8:27 p.m.
Z
O
N
~C
~~
00
V U
p W
Z W o
OVo
N Q N
DD
a~
ZQ
Z
Z
J
a
x x x x x x o
M O X X X X X X
~
N x x x x x x x
T
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0
HX
W
W ~
W ~
a J W
J J
a
2 a
= Z Q
~
O
U
Z
a N
.
=
Y
~
~ W U_ ~
Q Y ~ H J
~
Q
~
w N
a
z
= W
w ~
~
a
cn
~
cn
a
w
o-
0
>-
a
Q
a _
w
z ao w ~
w Y a a ~
t7
z
W
W
J
a
N X X X X O X p
M
N X X X X X X ~
~w
oc ~
~ ~-
~ M
.- N
~ O
~ O
~ M
~
~
wa
~n "
~ ,
~n ,
~n ,
~n ,
~n ~
~n
~X o o o o o 0 0
W
W ~
W ~
a J W
J J
a
a
= Z Q
~
U
Z
a N
~
_
Y
~ W C~ H
~ _ ~ W W ~ W
w
~
a a
cn
~ F-
cn
a W
w
~ d
a
o Z
>-
a 2
~ H
W
Z m W Ii Y a a ~
C9
z
H
W
W
O
Z
E
7
`o
m0
0
~ Z ~
U p~ ~
X C
~~a~i
~~v~i~cv
~ N ~
~~aZ o
a Q n n Z
nuw~~~
XOOzf
w
Y
FINAL/APPROVED
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD _
MINUTES -March 9, 2010 5b 8
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Janie Braverman called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald King, Vershawn Young
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss, Officer David Schwindt
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept correspondence regarding Community Forum.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER
Braverman introduced and welcome new Board member Royceann Porter.
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Braverman and seconded by Treloar to adopt the consent calendar as
presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 01/19/10
• Minutes of the meeting on 02/17/10
• ICPD General Order 99-02 (Alarm -Open Door Response)
• ICPD General Order 00-01 (Search and Seizure)
• ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling) - *removed from consent calendar
• ICPD Use of Force Report (November 2009)
• ICPD Use of Force Report (December 2009)
• ICPD Department Memo 10-02 (Nov-Dec 2009 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report -January 2010
• ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report -February 2010
Motion carried, 3/0, King and Young absent.
Braverman suggested for General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling), under IV Procedures,
Complaints of Racial/Ethnic Profiling (F1) it states that the Watch Commander shall
provide them with a departmental "or" PCRB complaint form. Braverman would like to
see the "or" changed to "and" so that the citizen would get both forms. This goes along
with another suggestion under the review of the ordinance and could be discussed
together.
*Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter to remove ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial
Profiling) from the consent calendar and reconsider at the next meeting.
Motion carried, 3/0, King and Young absent.
Wyss explained that when a citizen comes into the department to discuss an incident
they speak with a supervisor. If it is resolved by talking with the supervisor it's
documented and considered done and taken care of. If it is not resolved to their
satisfaction and a complaint form is requested the citizen gets both the police
department form and the PCRB form along with an information sheet explaining the
difference of both processes.
PCRB
March 9, 2010
Page 2
Braverman asked how the information is complied for the ICPD Quarterly /Summary
Report - IAIR/PCRB. Whether the numbers included all citizen contacts or only the
actual number of complaints filed with the police department. Wyss thought that the
number was from the actual number of internal investigations that are open and that
many of the investigations may be initiated by law enforcement and not a citizen.
Braverman asked if Wyss could request statistically what portion of the complaints are
citizen vs law enforcement initiated since the Board was more interested in the citizen
complaints.
Treloar commented on General Order 00-01 (Search and Seizure) under D (Execution of
the Search Warrant), number 13 (Concluding the Search). Treloar suggested inserting
"when possible" at the end of the first sentence pertaining to leaving the premises or
vehicle in the same general condition as originally found. Treloar was concerned that
even if you follow the law but departmental policy is broken you're still civilly liable.
Adding the additional wording would better protect the officers since it is not always
possible to leave things they way they find them.
Wyss referred back to the general order regarding Racial Profiling. He explained that
they do an annual statistical summary of persons stopped for traffic violations. The
Police Department realized this past year that they had some software issues and would
have to go back through to account for all the stops to insure the accuracy of the figures
so it will take longer than normal to compile the report and make sure the data is usable.
NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Conflict of Interest -The Board agreed to table this item until the next
meeting when all members were present.
OLD BUSINESS Community Forum -The Board reviewed and discussed the second draft summary.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter to accept and forward the second draft summary
of the community forum to City Council.
Motion carried 3/0, King and Young absent.
Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's -Braverman handed out
an outline (archived in the March 9th meeting packet) with 7 suggestions for the Board.
The Board reviewed the ideas and Braverman will summarize the discussion and include
in the next meeting packet for further consideration.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
PCRB
March 9, 2010
Page 3
STAFF
INFORMATION Tuttle handed out a memorandum from Dale Helling, Interim City Manager regarding (1)
Gifts/Naming Policy and (2) Scheduling of Special Events. Tuttle noted to the Board that
the policy would probably not apply to them, but as far as scheduling special events
such as the forums, the City Council is requesting that, to the greatest extent possible,
they not be scheduled opposite City Council meetings.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• April 13, 2010, 5:30 PM,
• May 11, 2010, 5:30 PM,
• June 8, 2010, 5:30 PM,
• July 13, 2010, 5:30 PM,
Lobby Conference Rm
Lobby Conference Rm
Lobby Conference Rm
Lobby Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Porter.
Motion carried, 3/0, King and Young absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:38 P.M.
1
i 7 ~ ~ ~
o ~ ~ C ~
A ~ ~ ~
A
c °Q c
a.
~ A~
O C ~ O
"! O~
'1 1 y
fD D
~ L9 O
~ ~•
A ~
• ~ ~
"! ~ ~
~ ~ b
~ S
x
C7 p A7 ~
~ ~
QQ
.... .-. ~````
I
~
~~~
I
I
I
b
N
N
W
W
N y
rA
O
X
yC
~C r
z z z z N
3 ~ '~ 3
N
i i ~ ~ ~ ~ J
O X ~
i
i
y
h~
~.~! ~~y
V
z
° ~~
d o~
~~
0
~I
~1
I~~I
l ~
0
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
March 10, 2010
Iowa City City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: November 18, 2009 Police Citizen Review Board Community Forum
To Whom It May Concern:
The second annual Police Citizen Review Board Community Forum was held at 7:00 pm
on Wednesday, November 18, 2009, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street. The
purpose of this letter is to summarize the Community Forum and to set forth the PCRB's report
and recommendations to the City Council. A copy of the transcript of the Community Forum is
available from the City Clerk.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Don King, Chair. Other members present
were Janie Braverman, Joseph Treloar (7:14) and Vershawn Young. Abbie Yoder was absent.
Catherine Pugh, Legal Counsel; Kellie Tuttle, Staff; and Sam Hargadine, Chief of Iowa City
Police Department, were also present. We are pleased that Mayor Regenia Bailey also attended.
Mr. King announced that copies of the following were available at the door: (i)
applications for the 13`" Annual Citizens Police Academy, (ii) the PCRB complaint form and
information sheet, and (iii) the Iowa City Police Department's written Use of Force Policy,
General Order O5.
The board members introduced themselves, then Mr. King presented an overview of the
PCRB. In addition to describing the PCRB's charge and jurisdictional limits, he reported that
during fiscal year July 2008 to June 2009, nine (9) complaints were filed with thirty-three (33)
allegations. Of those allegations, thirty-two (32) were not sustained and one (1) was sustained.
At the request of the PCRB, Chief Hargadine then gave a presentation on the Iowa City
Police Department's Use of Force Policy.
Approximately nine (9) members of the public attended. Six (6) residents of Iowa City
spoke during the public discussion with the PCRB, including one (1) Iowa City Police
Department officer, who spoke as a private citizen. Their comments and questions can be
summarized as follows, with the PCRB's comments following in italics:
1. Location and Format of Community Forum. There appeared to be a consensus
among those speaking that the PCRB should hold future forums in differing venues, going to the
neighborhoods rather than asking the residents to come to City Hall. There was also a specific
request to focus the forum on public discussion rather than presentations by either the PCRB or
the ICPD or, at the least, to have the presentations at the end of the forum, rather than the
beginning. There was also a suggestion that better publicity was needed.
The PCRB concurs that better public attendance at the forums and better public access to
the PCRB is desirable. The PCRB intends to schedule future forums in other locations in the
future and will seek citizen questions prior to the forum, so that we may be better prepared to
answer those questions. One forum that the PCRB is considering would be held in one of the
southeast Iowa City neighborhoods and would focus on the new juvenile curfew ordinance.
The PCRB will attempt to make PCRB complaint forms available at locations other than
the City Clerk's officer and/or the ICPD, such as the community centers and the public libraries.
The PCRB will also post this letter on the City website.
2. Use of Force. There was lengthy discussion about the ICPD's Use of Force
Policy. Questions included whether the police offers were armed with too much weaponry;
whether less lethal force could be used other than shooting for center body mass -such as
shooting for other body parts or firing warning shots; whether police officers should be given the
benefit of the doubt in the event of the lethal use of force; whether police officers have any
discretion in the use of lethal or less lethal force; whether a person with a knife is a real threat to
a police officer armed with a gun.
Training and education were discussed. Several people talked about the value of training,
education and more interaction with the community on the part of the ICPD. Concerns were
raised about the racial and class overtones of some of the tension in parts of Iowa City. Mr. King
mentioned the new Community Crime Prevention Officer.
There was discussion as to the source of various portions of the Use of Force policy -
local ordinances, state law and federal law as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court -
and what it would take to make changes to the policy.
Dr. Young pointed out that part of the PCRB's charge is to look at policy so that even if
an officer does nothing that is contrary to policy, the PCRB will look at whether the policy is
appropriate or should be changed.
The PCRB encourages the ICPD to continue its efforts in public education through the
Community Crime Prevention Officer and other efforts.
2
3. Counseling Following Use of Force. In his presentation, Chief Hargardine stated
that he had the discretion to send officers involved in use of force resulting in death or serious
injury to post-traumatic stress counseling. One resident asked if the PCRB had any information
on how many, if any, officers had been sent to counseling.
The PCRB inquired of the Police Chief and was told that the information is a personnel
matter and could not be disclosed.
4. ICPD Priorities. One resident asked specifically how one would register any kind
of opinion about how enforcement priorities are set for the ICPD, whether it would be the PCRB,
the City Council, the Police Chief, and/or the City Manager. This is a question that has been
raised to the PCRB in the past.
The PCRB supports and concurs with the Mission Statement and Department Goals and
Objectives of the ICPD as set forth in General Order 95-02, which is available for review at
http ~//www is og y orb/site/CMSv2/File/police%eneralOrders/Qenorder5. pdf~ The PCRB believes
that any complaints regarding the Goals and Objectives or allocation of resources should be
directed to and answered by the City Council.
5. Ammunition Restrictions. One resident asked about ICPD policies with regard to
ammunition, expressing a specific concern about the use of hollow point bullets.
General Order Number 00-08, Weapons, describes ICPD policy with regard to weapons
and ammunition. The PCRB will send a copy of that General Order to the resident who
inquired. A copy is also available for review at
http ~//www icQov orb/site/CMSv2/File~olice/QeneralOrders/Qenorderl ~.z~df
6. PCRB Past Performance. One resident asked whether, in light of the fact that
thirty-two (32) out of thirty-three (33) complaints in the last fiscal year were held to be not
sustained, the PCRB is doing its investigative job.
The PCRB has discussed this question. Our board is composed of a diverse group of
citizens of Iowa City who bring a broad range of experience and perspective to bear on the
matters before us. We believe that the time we spend on each Complaint, as well as the level of
review regarding each Complaint, is appropriate, and that our work as a Board, rather than
statistics about our findings, is the measure of how we are doing our investigative job.
The PCRB is available to discuss any of the foregoing, should the City Council wish.
Sincerely,
onald Kin hair
Police Citizens Review Board
cc: Chief Sam Hargadine, ICPD
Sb 9
Airport Commission
March 18, 2010
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
MARCH 18, 2010 - 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Greg Farris, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig
Members Absent: Steve Crane
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Jeff Davidson
Others Present: Phillip Wolford, Rick Mascari, Kirk Hyland, Van Miller, Craig Albrecht,
John Cunningham
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council
action
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Rettig called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M.
FY11-15 STRATEGIC PLAN:
a) Review Draft FY2011-FY201 S Plan -Davidson handed out additional color copies of
the draft plan for members and audience to look at. Davidson then discussed the
steps that had been taken to prepare the draft and summarized the activity of the
Airport Commission over the last several meetings. Davidson reiterated the purpose
of the plan is to be a road map for where the Airport Commission wanted the airport
to be in 5 years. Rettig asked that John Staley's name be included in the report for his
work in putting the plan together.
b) Public Comment -Rettig opened the period for Public Comments. Wolford
commented that he thought the plan was straight to the point.
Members discussed how to present the plan to City Council and decided to present the
plan during a formal meeting. Members asked Staff to work with the City Clerk to place
the plan presentation on the Council's formal agenda.
Executive Session - Horan moved to enter into executive session to discuss strategy
with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is
imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the
position of the governmental body in that litigation., seconded by Farris; Motion
carried 4-0. Executive Session began 6:18pm
Members resumed open session at 6:22pm
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Rettig open the floor for nominations for Chair; Rettig
nominated Horan for chair, seconded by Farris; Motion carried 3-0 (Crane Absent, Horan
2
Airport Commission
March 18, 2010
Abstained). Rettig then opened the floor the nominations for Secretary. Rettig nominated
Gardinier for Secretary, seconded by Horan. Motion carried 4-0 (Crane absent)
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The minutes from the February 28th meeting were
reviewed. Farris moved to accept meetings as presented, seconded by Gardinier; Motion
carried 4-0; Crane Absent
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Rick Mascari addressed members to announce that he was the new
AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) Airport Support Network volunteer.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Aviation Commerce Park -Tharp noted that the parties had not arrived yet, but
were expected. Farris moved to defer this item until parties arrived, seconded by
Rettig; Motion carried 4-0 (Crane Absent)
b. Consider a resolution approving lease for Hangar #34 -Tharp described the
lease to Members, state this lease was for a corporate style hangar, and that the
lease term was for a shorter period than normal because of the attempts to align the
lease ending time with other leases that end in the month of September. Rettig
asked if the lease rate was increased. Tharp responded that the lease rate was
remaining the same as the previous lease, and that was due to inflation factors.
Tharp noted that unlike other T-hangars which the airport pays for the utilities, the
tenants of these hangars pay for the utilities, so when you remove that from the
equation, the inflation rate was still flat. Rettig moved resolution A10-01 to
approve lease for Hangar #34, seconded by Gardiner; Motion carried 4-0
(Crane Absent)
c. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM -Tharp noted that David Hughes would not be at the
meeting due to minimal activity for the winter season.
1. Runway 7/25 &12/30
a. Iowa Concrete Paving Association -Tharp noted that due to a
miscommunication not all of the parties had arrived and asked to
defer this item until they arrived. Farris moved to defer item
until parties arrive, seconded by Rettig; Motion carried 4-0
(Crane Absent)
2. Obstruction Mitigation -Tharp noted that the contractor that
demolished the United Hangar still had some outstanding paperwork to
submit in order for that project to be closed out.
3. 2010 Pavement Rehab
a. Consider a resolution approving engineering services
agreement with AECOM Tharp noted that he had placed this
item on the agenda in anticipation of receiving the contract from
AECOM, but that it had not arrived. Tharp stated that the contract
would be for the pavement rehabilitation and that the funds had
been awarded by the state last summer. Tharp discussed the
option of deferring the item until next month due to the short
Airport Commission
March 18, 2010
construction period this project would have, or to have a special
meeting when the contract was received. Farris asked about
authorizing the Chair to sign when the contract instead which the
Commission had done in the past. Farris moved resolution
A10-02 to authorize the chair to sign the agreement,
seconded by Rettig; motion carried 4-0 (Crane absent)
d. Building H -University of Iowa Expansion -Tharp noted that this project was
nearly complete, but the contractor would need to come back and finish grading and
seeding. Tharp stated that the lease agreement had been given to the University for
execution and that they were waiting for the lease to get signed and returned. Dulek
noted that the lease had been dated to start January 1, 2010 and that the University
had agreed to pay the rent differential for the previous months.
e. 2011 Air Race Classic - Gardinier told members that she had been able to secure
the Iowa Chapter of the 99s to sponsor the Air Race Classic, and that they would be
responsible for the $10,000 fee. Members asked Tharp if he had been able to
resolve the insurance questions. Tharp stated that he had been in contact with the
Risk Manager, and that the response from the city insurer was that the Air Race
Classic group had sufficient coverage that the Airport Commission would not be
required to obtain additional amounts. Members then discussed ways to help the
99s to fundraise and asked Gardinier if the group was going to seek a donation from
the Airport Commission.
Aviation Commerce Park -item deferred from earlier. Kirk Hyland introduced himself
to the Airport Commission and stated that there had been a change in staff and that
Peggy Slaughter and Randy Miller were no longer with the firm. Hyland introduced Van
Miller who would be working in the Iowa City office and be the lead realtor working on
the Aviation Commerce Park. Miller addressed the Commission stating that he would
like to continue with the group, and that Iowa Realty had a long relationship with the
Airport Commission. Miller discussed some of the potential reporting methods he could
use to keep the Commission up to date on the marketing efforts. Members introduced
themselves. Rettig asked if Miller was working solely in Iowa City. Miller responded that
he worked out of both the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City offices. Horan stated that he
didn't feel that they need to be at every meeting unless there was something exciting
that Miller wanted to bring to the Commission's attention. Gardinier asked about any of
the pending interests that had been previously working on, and Hyland responded.
Miller did say that there was call that day with an interested party in Lot 6 or Lot 10.
Members discussed how Iowa Realty was dealing with parties that would seek lots in the
middle. Hyland responded that they were in the process of updating their signage.
Iowa Concrete Paving Association -item deferred from earlier. John Cunningham
introduced himself to Members. Cunningham described the Iowa Concrete
Association's award selection process in determining whom to give their awards to.
Cunningham noted these awards are given annually and stated that there are about 60-
80 projects a year that are nominated for awards. Craig Albrecht from Metro Pavers
thanked the Commission for being a part of the airport projects for the last couple of
years. Cunningham presented the award for the Runway 7-25 Phase 2 Reconstruction
and Reconstruction of Runway 12-30 project as "Iowa's Best General Aviation Airports
PCC Pavement Project" for 2009. Horan accepted on behalf of the Commission.
4
Airport Commission
March 18, 2010
Corporate Hangar "L" -Tharp noted that the state senate subcommittee had
released their legislation, and that it did not contain funding for general aviation
infrastructure. Tharp noted that what they were encountering on the federal level
wasn't necessarily the lack of dollars, but a lack of a high ranking priority project.
Whereas the state projects were at this point due to a lack of dollars. Rettig asked
about using the funds available from the City's CIP program and the funds that were
available from the commerce park land sales and using those, what could the airport
build, rent and pay back. Members discussed looking at the funds available and
putting together a payback plan which they might want to discuss with the city.
Wolford asked about building something smaller instead of trying to build the biggest
hangar. Tharp told members that the RFP associated with this project had been
advertised, but that he had not received any responses. Rettig discussed the
possibility of the state budget having similar constraints next year, and the desire to
build something to help ease the space. Rettig then brought up the planning for any
construction that might impact the chances of building the larger desired structure in
the future. Tharp stated that there had been previous discussions about expanding
the south hangars to build King Air type hangars or extending a building with
additional T hangars. Woolford discussed the size requirements for jet aircraft
storage. Gardinier discussed her concerns with the overall General Aviation
community not putting their names on the hangar waiting list due to the length of time
it takes to get a hangar at Iowa City.
g. Airport Operations: Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; Management -
Rettig asked Tharp about when the income from the farm lease payments were
expected. Tharp noted that the payments had been made to Farmer's National and
that he had relayed instructions to send the payment to the airport. Rettig asked
about the fuel sales. Tharp noted that Jet Air's fuel supplier had been bought out
and there were some issues during the transition that the payments hadn't been
getting made to the airport. Tharp noted he was working with Jet Air and the new
supplier to get the issues resolved. Sue discussed how the new lease with the
University was written and that it would have some rent due from the beginning of
the year. Tharp noted that the City Council was planning to adopt the new budget
and the payment for the Economic Development coordinator was still in the budget
for the airport. Tharp noted that the he and the Commission should come up with
some items they would like to present to the Economic Development Coordinator for
assistance in completing. Rettig asked about the general levy amount. Tharp noted
that the General Levy about was $100,000 for FY11. Tharp noted that he had been
working with the Public Works Department to put an estimate together for the parking
lot rehabilitation project. He noted that the estimate was over the available dollar
amount so that the project would get scaled back to be tailored to the funds
available. Tharp noted that he had met on with city staff regarding the VA parking lot
proposal, and that based on the discussion with city staff and with the VA, it was
determined that there were several issues that could not be worked before the
proposal deadline.
i. City naming policy - Members discussed the naming policy and had no
recommendations. Tharp noted that there had been comments received
on the policy from other boards.
Airport Commission
March 18, 2010
h. FBO Report -Wolford gave Members a monthly report of maintenance activity.
Wolford mentioned they were excited that something was able to be worked out to
get the Air Race Classic. Woolford suggested some comments on the strategic plan.
Subcommittees' Reports -Members asked Tharp to prepare a subcommittee list
for future reference.
j. Commission Members' Reports - Gardinier suggested sending a letter to Jay
Honeck in recognition of his service to the airport and the community. Rettig
announced her intention to resign from the Commission pending the City Council's
ability to appoint a new member. Rettig expressed her appreciation to the
Commission.
k. Staff Report -Tharp noted that the Iowa Aviation Conference was going to take
place in Des Moines on April 21-22. Tharp noted that this year there was going to be
a short session for airport boards and commission members and that it might be
beneficial to members to attend if they can.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING:
The next regular meeting is set for Thursday, April 15, 2010, at 6:00 P. M. at the Airport Terminal
building.
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 8:03pm
CHAIRPERSON DATE
6
Airport Commission
March 18, 2010
AIRPORT COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
TERM 1/21 2/18 3/18 4115
NAME EXP.
Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X
Minnetta
Gardinier 3/1/15 X X X
Howard
Horan 3/1/14 X X X
Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X
Steve Crane 3/1 /14 --- --- O/E
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
Steve Crane 3/1/14
John Staley 3/1/10
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member