Loading...
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