Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-02-05 Info Packet
twV� `�'����� CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org February 5, 2015 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule FEBRUARY 9 CONFERENCE BOARD IP2 Agenda and meeting packet FEBRUARY 9 WORK SESSION IP3 Work Session Agenda IP4 Pending City Council Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP5 Memo to City Manager from City Manager Intern: Mobile Vending Regulations IP6 Memo to City Manager from Sustainability Coordinator: Update on partnership projects with U of I's Iowa Initiatives for Sustainable Communities Program IP7 Memo to City Manager from Neighborhood Services Coordinator: Affordable Housing Location Model IP8 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP9 Civil Services Entrance Examination — Mass Transit Operator IP10 Building Statistics 2015 IP11 Police Bar Check Report — January 2015 IP12 Notification Letter from Prelude Behavioral Service: MECCA Services name change IP13 Copy of City of Iowa City Staff Report distributed May 29, 2014: City/ County Assessor Organizational Structure DRAFT MINUTES IP14 Planning and Zoning Commission: January 15 —%AU CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Monday, Feburary 9, 2015 -15 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule SP1 Subject to change February 5, 2015 Time Meeting 5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting Joint Meeting / Planning & Zoning Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Location Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, February 23, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Monday, March 9, 2015 5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Monday, March 23, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 7, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, April 20, 2015 4:00 PM Reception prior to meeting TBA (Coralville) 4:30 PM Joint Meeting / Work Session Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 2, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 7, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday. July 21, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Formal Meeting 02-05-15 OFFICE OF THE 1P2 IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING DENNIS BALDRIDGE ASSESSOR BRAD COMER DEPUTY MARTIN BURKLE DEPUTY February 5, 2015 Dear Conference Board Member: The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the consideration of the Iowa City Assessor's FY 2016 budget is scheduled for Monday, February 9, 2015 at 5:OOP.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed for your review before the meeting are: 1. The Agenda. 2. A copy of the March 4, 2014 minutes. 3. The Proposed Budget. 4. A Salary Survey. 5. A Board of Review Application. 6. A retirement announcement from Iowa City Assessor Dennis Baldridge. 7. The 2014 Annual Report including the program division statement. There is an increase in the amount to be raised by the Assessment Expense Fund from last year's amount. The increase consists of: a. $ 13,410 for a 2.50 to 3.00 percent COLA increase in salaries. b. $ 10,950 for merit increases. c. $ 1,538 for an increase in FICA. d. $ 1,782 for an increase in IPERS. e. $ 5,000 for an increase in health insurance. f. $ 600 for an increase in Board of Review salaries. g. $ 400 for an increase in insurance. h. $ 200 for an increase in workers compensation. i. $ 3,000 for an increase to the auto replacement fund. j. 10,000 for an increase to aerial photography, $ 46,880 Total Increase This increase is offset by the following decreases: a. $ 5,000 to decrease leave contingency. b. $ 5,500 to decrease postage, an alternate year expense. c. $ 4,000 to decrease printing, an alternate year expense. d. $ 3,000 to decrease Software Maintenance. $ 17,500 Total Decrease $ 29,380 Net Increase The Assessment Expense Fund levy rate will change from 0.23866 to 0.24961. 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET • IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 TELEPHONE 319-356-6066 The largest increase is for salaries, with a 2.50 to 3.00 percent cost of living increase. County compensation board recommendations and estimates for other local taxing bodies appear to be in the two to three percent range. And the enclosed salary survey indicates that our salaries fall below those of comparable assessment jurisdictions in Iowa. Merit increases allow step increases similar to the pay plans used by the city, the county and the schools. Those increases are also reflected in FICA and IPERS. Health insurance was increased due to a projected increase in rates for the next fiscal year. Individual Board of Review salaries were increased from $2,700 to $2,800 for a total increase of $600. Workers compensation increased because of rate increases. The auto replacement fund was increased by $3,000. This account builds by $3,000 per year and carries over until a new car is needed. Aerial photography was increased by $10,000. The previous year's $10,000 amount was unspent and will carry over. The cost of Pictometry flights was much higher than expected, so that line item was increased and hopefully the photography will be completed in the upcoming year. There was also a decrease in four line items. Leave contingency was decreased by $5,000. This amount allows for payout of vacation and sick leave for staff that leave employment with the assessor's office. Postage and printing were decreased because 2016 will not be a reassessment year and we will not be mailing assessment rolls to all property owners. Software maintenance was decreased because costs have not been as much as anticipated. If you have questions about individual items or wish to see any of the supporting documents for this budget, please feel free to phone me at the office at 356-6066 or at my home at 688-2661. Sincerely, Dennis Baldridge Iowa City Assessor The Iowa City Conference Board Agenda Monday, February 9, 2015 5:00 P.M TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Iowa City Conference Board will meet at 5:00 P.M. on Monday February 9, 2015 at the Iowa City Civic Center. The purpose of this meeting is to set a date for a public hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's proposed budget for FY 2016. AGENDA: 1. Call meeting to order by the Chairperson. 2. Roll call by taxing body. 3. Act on minutes of March 4, 2014 Conference Board meeting. 4. Assessor presents proposed budget. 5. Discuss proposed budget. 6. Conference Board acts on proposed budget. (Approve for Publication.) 7. Set date for public hearing. (Suggested date: March 9, 2015) 8. Appoint Board of Review member. 9. Assessor retirement. 10. Other business. 11. Adjournment. Dennis J. Baldridge Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD MINUTES March 4, 2014 City Conference Board: March 4, 2014 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at the Iowa City City Hall, Mayor Matt Hayek presiding. Iowa City Council Members Present: Botchway, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne and Throgmorton. Johnson County Supervisors Present: Etheredge, Rettig and Sullivan. Iowa City School Board Members Present: None. Others Present: Baldridge, Burkle, Comer, Markus, Fruin, Karr, Dilkes. Dijaital Recording: March 4, 2014. Chair Matt Hayek called the meeting to order and Clerk Baldridge called roll and stated that a quorum was present. The County (Sullivan) moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference Board meeting, February 6, 2014, the City (Dickens) seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hayek declared the public hearing on the FY 15 Budget open. After no comment from the public, the public hearing was declared closed. The City (Payne) moved to accept the proposed budget as published in the Iowa City Press -Citizen on February 14, 2014, the County (Sullivan) seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hayek suggested that members of the Assessor Evaluation Committee be appointed at a later date after committee assignments are finalized by the City, County and Schools. There being no further business it was moved by the City (Payne) and seconded by the County (Rettig) to adjourn at 5:03 P.M. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Dennis Baldridge Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ITEMIZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES FY 2015 FY 2016 INCREASE SALARIES Current Proposed 0.00% CITY ASSESSOR 103,340 108,830 105.31% CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR 87,610 92,270 105.32% DEPUTY ASSESSOR 82,480 86,860 105.31% REAL ESTATE/GIS SPECIALIST 56,290 59,000 104.81% APPRAISER (NEW CONSTRUCTION) 49,230 51,410 104.43% OFFICE MANAGER 50,880 53,320 104.80% APPRAISER (REAPPRAISAL) 52,160 54,660 104.79% MERIT INCREASES (have been added to salaries above) (10,950) 200 SUBTOTAL $481,990 $506,350 105.05% 0.00% Proposed salaries include merit increases and cost of living adjustments. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 0.00% SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 21,000 EMPLOYER SHARE: FICA 40,024 41,562 3.84% EMPLOYER SHARE: IPERS 46,721 48,503 3.82% HEALTH INSURANCE 116,000 121,000 4.31% SUBTOTAL 202,745 211,065 4.10% TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST $684,735 $717,415 4.77% OTHER EXPENDITURES SCHOOLS & CONFERENCES 13,000 LEAVE CONTINGENCY $25,000 $20,000 -20.00% BOARDS 0.00% SUBTOTAL $15,000 BOARD OF REVIEW 16,200 16,800 3.70% BOARD OF REVIEW EXPENSES 200 200 0.00% CONFERENCE BOARD 0 30 0 30 0.00% EXAMINING BOARD 100.00% APPRAISAL SERVICE 1,000 SUBTOTAL $16,430 $17,030 3.65% OFFICE EXPENSES MILEAGE & AUTO 4,500 4,500 0.00% OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,500 3,500 0.00% POSTAGE 7,000 1,500 -78.57% TELEPHONE 1,300 1,300 0.00% PUBLICATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS 700 700 0.00% PRINTING 5,000 1,000 -80.00% INSURANCE 4,200 4,600 9.52% EQUIPMENT PURCHASE 3,400 3,400 0.00% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 200 200 0.00% UNEMPLOYMENT 2,000 2,000 0.00% DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 18,000 18,000 0.00% SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 21,000 18,000 -14.29% BONDS & WORKER'S COMPENSATION 1,500 1,700 13.33% AUTO REPLACEMENT 12,000 15,000 25.00% COMPUTER REPLACEMENT 2,500 2,500 0.00% SUBTOTAL $86,800 $77,900 -10.25% PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES SCHOOLS & CONFERENCES 13,000 13,000 0.00% DUES 2,000 2,000 0.00% SUBTOTAL $15,000 $15,000 0.00% TECHNICAL SERVICES LEGAL FEES & EXPERT WITNESSES 52,000 52,000 0.00% AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 10,000 20,000 100.00% APPRAISAL SERVICE 1,000 1,000 0.00% SUBTOTAL $63,000 $73,000 15.87% TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES $206,230 $202,930 -1.60% TOTAL ASSMT EXPENSE FUND BUDGET $890,965 $920,345 3.30% UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $158,292 $146,114 -7.69% TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $732,673 $774,231 5.67% IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND 3,101,761,217 X.000675 $2,093,688 IPERS & FICA FUNDS $90,065 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION & TORT LIABILITY $4,000 MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITHOUT STATE APPROVAL $2,187,753 MAXIMUM EMERGENCY FUND 3,101,761,217 X .00027 $837,475 (requires State Appeal Board approval) MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR FY 2013 $3,025,228 PRIOR YEARS LEVIES AND RATES SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND FY AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE 1996-97 319,513 0.20450 1997-98 318,270 0.19946 1998-99 318,699 0.19269 1999-00 341,910 0.19784 2000-01 359,341 0.19823 2001-02 396,829 0.20636 2002-03 403,136 0.20694 2003-04 412,379 0.20818 2004-05 470,398 0.22926 2005-06 472,050 0.22525 2006-07 529,702 0.23164 2007-08 603,916 0.25868 2008-09 611,955 0.24917 2009-10 600,013 0.23848 2010-11 621,785 0.23147 2011-12 680,786 0.24538 2012-13 700,997 0.24164 2013-14 769,744 0.25873 2014-15 732,073 0.23866 2015-16 774,231 0.24961 SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND TOTAL LEVY AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE 17,000 0.01088 0.21538 52,834 0.03311 0.23257 184,357 0.11146 0.30415 352,508 0.20398 0.40182 180,293 0.09946 0.29769 6,442 0.00335 0.20971 4,426 0.00227 0.20921 10,051 0.00507 0.21325 15,728 0.00767 0.23693 25,995 0.01240 0.23765 0 0 0.23164 4,792 0.00205 0.26073 1,540 0.00063 0.24980 0 0 0.23848 8,730 0.00325 0.23472 2,608 0.00094 0.24632 8,384 0.00289 0.24453 N/A N/A 0.25873 N/A N/A 0.23866 N/A N/A 0.24961 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IOWA ASSESSORS SALARY SURVEY 2014-15 Assessor Chief Deputy Deputy Assessed Value 2013 Est. Year Number of Jurisdiction Salary Salary Salary (in millions) Population** Appointed Employees Polk County $127.974 $119.408 $106,023 $34,195 451,677 2014 35 Ames (City) $123,786 $99,034 '". ' $3,728 61,792 200 Cedar Rapids (City) $120.083 $103,746 $94,072 $9,813 128,429 2007 16 Pottawattamie County $115,087 $92,069 $7,700 92,728 201 Johnson County $111,297 $94,185 $6,843 67,564 2002 9 Story County $109,205 $87,865 $2,763" 30,614 200 Iowa City $103,340 $87,610 $82,480 $4,976 71,591 2002 7 Davenport (City) $100,756 $85,422 $68,411 $6,735 102,157 2014 ...12 Linn County $99,563 $89,607 $74,353 $7,109 87,682 2009 11 Woodbury County $97,840 $78,270 $73,380 $2,140 19,671 1995-,4 Scott County $97,087 $82,373* $72,758* $6,191* 68,228 1983 6* Cerro Gordo County $96,635 $75,040' $47,000* $2,264' 15,871 1979 6 Muscatine County $96,166 $64,655 $59,068 $3,106 42,836 1992 6 Boone County $95,719 $50,401 $2,196 26,364 201' Dubuque (City) $95,414 $77,073 $4,213 58,253 2001 6 Black Hawk County $95,004 $66,503 >` ':: $9,130 132,546 201 Sioux City $93,730 $80,012 $74,726 $4.311 82,459 2007 9 Dallas County $93,403 $79,392 $7,572' 641, 00� Dubuque County $90,795 $77,175 $3,460 37,444 2005 6 Mason City $82,000 57400 $1,770 1 Jasper County $80.000 $44,000 $2,672 36,641 1986 5 **Clinton (City) $77,580 $53,976 $1,414 '1982 4 Webster $76,594 61274 $2,659 37,044 1996 5 Warren County $76,500 $55,800 $3,497 .tea. 47,336.,.,:;,;;,.2010 6 Washington County $75,239 $1,923 22,015 2012 5 ri,..• nr.,,,nn 47F?1n 457 Writ 82138* 2.4. 2 4* 'S *2013-14 Amounts. No report for 2014-15 "City population has been deducted from counties with a city assessor. NOTICE THE CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENT TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD: BOARD OF REVIEW (Iowa City Assessor) One vacancy — Six -Year Term January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2020 It is the duty of members of the Board of Review to review and equalize assessments established by the assessor, to act upon any and all protests filed by taxpayers or taxing jurisdictions, and to add to the assessment rolls any taxable property which has been omitted by the Assessor. Members of the Board of Review shall be residents of the Assessor's jurisdiction. Board of Review members receive compensation. Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, February 4, 2015. The City of Iowa City encourages diversity in the appointment of citizens to boards and commissions. Persons interested in being considered should contact the City Clerk at City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street. Application forms are available from the Clerk's office upon request or on the City website at www.icgov.org. Questions about the Iowa City Board of Review should be directed to Dennis Baldridge at 356-6066. Spouses and relatives of City Council Members and members of comparable County Boards and Commissions are not eligible for appointment to City Boards and Commissions. This includes: spouse, child, mother, father, mother- in- law, father- in- law, brother, sister, brother- in- law, sister- in- law, step -father, step -mother, step- child, aunt, or uncle. (Resolution 85-354) Males: 3 Females: 1 Announcement Date: January 9, 2014 Application Deadline: February 23, 2015 Elected by City Conference Board After 04/09/2015 (3 mo from the announcement date) City Conference Board may appoint any qualified applicant without regard to gender. BOARD OF REVIEW One Vacancy - Six Year Term For a Registered Architect or person experienced in the building and construction field January 1, 2015 — December 31, 2020 Term expires for Penelope Martin Gender Balance Requirement: 1 Female (F) Phoebe Martin rX_1 1824 G St. 0 Denotes applicant completed the Confidential page of the application. City of Iowa City 1 Advisory Board/Commission/CommitteeA 10Ilk Application Form ~0%-�-- CITY OF IOWA CITY THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAST PAGE MARKED "CONFIDENTIAL." THIS APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR THREE MONTHS ONLY AND AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED FOR ANY V CANC DUV��ermF Advisory Board/Commission/Committee Name NAME �� �, _.��•�� HOME ADDRESS Is your home address (listed above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City? ®Yes No How long have you been t a resident of Iowa City? � (S Gender: Male E] Female OCCUPATION � C c: \� EMPLOYER SPAF' PHONE NUMBER: HOME SSU - RS� BUSINESS EMAIL ADDRESS: p6&k— Q 8k0&M� CID WU EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION: to koC.,A iss -S ll" I A4 1Q %f 1l 1r% MT1r C[ T -. LIT 1/AI^%A/1 Cr%flC ^C 'r L-1 n A ll\/I0l1LV r2r%A 0P►9 VYT7/1! ii7 T%JUF% rl[G•7FIV 1 l\IVWVVL. FLJVG yr I" IJ r%&JY1%7VI%I f^ WHAT CONTRIRt ITIONR CAN YOU MAKE TO THIS ADVISORY BOARD (REASON FORAPPLYINGI? LIST POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: See page 1 for Information regarding Conflict of Interest A 0 r--t— IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? ®Yes [_j No DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION? ©Yes FNo (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards or Commissions at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all the questions, Council may not consider your application. General Application February 2015 Page 2 of 7 C,J / It'Nd t to koC.,A iss -S ll" I A4 1Q %f 1l 1r% MT1r C[ T -. LIT 1/AI^%A/1 Cr%flC ^C 'r L-1 n A ll\/I0l1LV r2r%A 0P►9 VYT7/1! ii7 T%JUF% rl[G•7FIV 1 l\IVWVVL. FLJVG yr I" IJ r%&JY1%7VI%I f^ WHAT CONTRIRt ITIONR CAN YOU MAKE TO THIS ADVISORY BOARD (REASON FORAPPLYINGI? LIST POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: See page 1 for Information regarding Conflict of Interest A 0 r--t— IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? ®Yes [_j No DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION? ©Yes FNo (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards or Commissions at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all the questions, Council may not consider your application. General Application February 2015 Page 2 of 7 BOARD, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES BUSINESS LISTING +ulow `.et� CITY OF IOWA CITY Name of City Board/Commission/Committee F Date Name Ar106 ACAs __ Section 362.5 of the Code of Iowa generally prohibits, with certain important exceptions, a member of a city Board or Commission from having an interest in a city contract. A copy of Section 362.5 is attached (see page 7). List all businesses in which you, or your spouse/domestic partner, have an ownership interest (for example, sole proprietor, partner, 5% or more of corporation's stockholdings). Please Indicate if there are none. BUSINESS NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS NOTE: A new form must be completed if the above information changes or an ownership interest is acquired in an additional business. Applicant Signature Address Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all the questions, Council may not consider your application. General Application February 2015 Page 3 of 7 OFFICE OF THE IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING DENNIS BALDRIDGE ASSESSOR BRAD COMER DEPUTY MARTY BURKLE DEPUTY January 15, 2015 Dear Iowa City Assessor's Conference Board Members: This letter is to announce my retirement as Iowa City Assessor effective February 28, 2015. After serving for over 32 years in the Iowa City Assessor's Office, the last thirteen as assessor, I have decided to step down. I would like to thank the Conference Board, the Board of Review and former Assessor Dan Hudson for their guidance and support over the years. I would also like to thank the current and former staff of the assessor's office for their diligent service, which made my job much easier. It will be very difficult to leave behind the many city and county staff I have worked with for many years, but I'm sure we'll stay in touch. I would also like to offer my assistance with the transition to a new assessor and also with any questions that may arise in the future. I have attached a letter from the Iowa Department of Revenue to the Woodbury County Assessor outlining the steps that must be followed when replacing an assessor. The letter is rather lengthy but there is a chart on the second page summarizing the procedure. Briefly, the Examining Board requests a list of eligible candidates from the Department of Revenue and makes a recommendation to the Conference Board within fifteen days of receipt of the list. The Conference Board then must appoint the new assessor within seven days of receipt of the recommendation. Again, I would be happy to help with this process. Sincerely, Dennis Baldridge Iowa City Assessor Cc: Iowa City Assessor's Examining Board Iowa City Board of Review 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET • IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 TELEPHONE 319-356-6066 Director: Courtney M. Kay -Decker Hoover State Office Binding t Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Iowa Department of Revenue wwwJowa.govttax Sent via email December 11, 2014 Kathy Sands Woodbury County Assessor 620 Douglas Room 703 Sioux City, IA 51101 ksands@sioux-city.org Re: Examining Board Dear Ms. Sands: Recently, you contacted the Department of Revenue ("Department") with a question regarding the process for selecting a new assessor. Specifically you ask if you are allowed to begin the process of selecting a new assessor before the current assessor vacates the position. The facts as stated in your letter: The assessor position in your county will be vacant beginning January 31, 2015. You would like to begin the process of finding a replacement early. Answer: Iowa Code § 441.6 states "[w]hen a vacancy occurs in the office of city or county assessor, the examining board shall, within seven days of the occurrence of the vacancy, request the director of revenue to forward a register containing the names of all individuals eligible for appointment as assessor." (Emphasis added.) Iowa Admin. Code r. 701-71.14(6) mandates that the examining board "take all steps necessary to comply with the time frames set forth in Iowa Code section 441.6." The Iowa Supreme Court has stated that the word "within" can have different meanings for statutory interpretation purposes. Jensen v. Nelson, 19 N.W.2d 596, 598 (Iowa 1945). The word "within" can fix both the beginning and end of a period of time, and therefore mean "during." Id. The word can also fix the end of the time period only, and mean "not beyond, not later than, any time before, before the expiration of." Id. Courts have used both meanings, and they assign the meaning based on the statutory context. See Id.; Johnson v. Brooks, 117 N.W.2d 457, 462 (Iowa 1962). The determination of which meaning to apply is based on whether there is a "significant commencement date" that indicates that the statute's use of "within" could only mean "during." See Johnson, 117 N.W.2d at 462. Furthermore, in cases where the court found that "within" indicated a fixed end of the time period only, it was because in those cases the termination date was "the only date necessary for the full protection of the other parties." Id. Sands December 11, 2014 Page 2 In the appointment of a new assessor, there is no "significant commencement date." The Director of Revenue compiles the register of eligible candidates based on the examinations she conducts. Iowa Code § 441.5(6); 701 IAC 72.12. Regular examinations are held twice per year in October and April. The Director must notify applicants of the date and time of the examination at least thirty days prior to the date of the examination. Id. Therefore, all potential candidates for a vacant assessor position are given the opportunity to put their names on the register at the time of each periodic examination. The only date necessary to give "full protection of the other parties" is the end date of the seven day period. This "cut-off' date is to ensure that the local jurisdiction is not without an assessor indefinitely. Thus, the term "within" as used in the statute requiring the examining board to request the register within seven days means "not beyond, no later than, any time before, before the expiration of." Therefore, examining boards may request the register in advance of the assessor vacating the position. A caveat: the request of the register by the examining board triggers a chain reaction of statutory deadlines for appointing a new assessor. A table of these deadlines is below. Requesting the register "early" does not excuse the examining board and conference board from meeting the other deadlines. Action Timeframe Examining Board requests register of eligible Within 7 days of the vacancy. assessors from Director of Revenue. Examining Board submits names of eligible Within 15 days after receipt of register from assessors certified by Director of Revenue Director. and written findings from own examinations to Conference Board. Conference Board holds meeting to appoint Within 7 days of receiving report from assessor. Examining Board. Conference Board gives written notice to the Within 10 days of the Conference Board's Director of Revenue of the appointment of decision. the new assessor. Total Days Allowed After Assessor Vacates 1 39 days I hope this information is of assistance to you. Please be advised that this letter is an informal opinion and is only applicable to the factual situation referenced and to the statutes in existence at the time of issuance. Because of this, the Department could, in the future, take a position contrary to that stated in the letter. Any written advice or opinion rendered to members of the public by Department personnel that is not pursuant to a Petition for Declaratory Order under 701 IAC 7.24 is not binding upon the Department. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sands December 11, 2014 Page 3 Sincerely, Jane J. Severson Attorney Policy Section Tax Policy and Communications Division Iowa Department of Revenue (515) 725-2294 j ane. severson(a,, iowa. gov IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2014 ANNUAL REPORT LO ESsFFICE ASSESSOR IOWA CITY ASSESSOR Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report Contents 2014-2015 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD.................................................................2 IOWACITY CITY COUNCIL..............................................................................................2 IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD...................................................................2 JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS...........................................................2 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE.........................................................2 OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF..........................................................................3 IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF......................................................................3 IOWACITY BOARD OF REVIEW..................................................................................... 3 IOWACITY EXAMINING BOARD.....................................................................................3 LEGALCOUNSEL.............................................................................................................3 ANNUALREPORT...............................................................................................................4 MISSIONSTATEMENT.....................................................................................................4 GOALS..............................................................................................................................4 OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................4 VALUATIONS.................................................................................................................... 5 COURTCASES.................................................................................................................5 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD................................................................. 5 BOARDOF REVIEW.........................................................................................................5 EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT................................................................6 WEBPAGE........................................................................................................................6 ROLLBACKS.....................................................................................................................6 NEWLEGISLATION..........................................................................................................6 CONTINUINGEDUCATION..............................................................................................7 ASSESSMENTDATA...........................................................................................................8 2014 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY ................................................. 8 EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2014..............................................................8 VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED...................................................9 COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES TO TOTAL ASSESSED AND TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE....................................................11 2013 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS.........................................................................12 COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR ........................12 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS.................................................................................13 RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS...........................................................13 COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS..........................................................14 HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS........................................................15 1 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report 2014-2015 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL 2014 Council 2015 Council Matt Hayek, Mayor Matt Hayek, Mayor Susan Mims, Mayor Pro Tem Susan Mims, Mayor Pro Tem Kingsley Botchway Kingsley Botchway Terry Dickens Terry Dickens Rick Dobyns Rick Dobyns Michelle Payne Michelle Payne Jim Throgmorton Jim Throgmorton IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD 2013-14 School Board `Sally Hoelscher, President *Marla Swesey, Vice President Tuyet Dorau Patti Fields Brian Kirschling Chris Lynch **Jeff McGinness *Conference Board Designee **Alternate Conference Board Designee 2014-15 School Board Chris Lynch, President Brian Kirschling, Vice President Tuyet Dorau Patti Fields **Jeff McGinness *Marla Swesey *Orville Townsend JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2014 Board Terrence Neuzil, Chairperson Pat Harney, Vice Chairperson John Etheredge Janelle Rettig Rod Sullivan 2015 Board Pat Harney, Chairperson Rod Sullivan, Vice Chairperson Mike Carberry Terrence Neuzil Janelle Rettig IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE Courtney M. Kay -Decker— Director, Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance 2 Iowa City Assessor's Office' 2014 Annual Report OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF Dennis J. Baldridge — Iowa City Assessor Brad Comer — Chief Deputy Assessor Marty Burkle — Deputy Assessor Mark Fedler — Appraiser/Clerk Diane Campbell — Accounting Clerk Todd Kruse — Real Estate Clerk Mary Paustian — Appraiser IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW Phoebe Martin, Chairperson Jane G. Downer Ernie Galer Dave Hintze Chuck McComas IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD Karin Franklin for Iowa City Michael Kennedy for Johnson County Chase Ramey for Iowa City Schools LEGAL COUNSEL Eleanor Dilkes — City Attorney Eric Goers — Assistant City Attorney C] Date of Employment: 12 July, 1982 Appointed: 2002 thru 2007 Re -appointed: 2008 thru 2013 Re -appointed: 2014 thru 2019 Date of Employment: 14 Jan, 2002 Date of Employment: 01 Feb, 2006 Date of Employment: 20 Jun, 1994 Date of Employment: 16 Feb, 1998 Date of Employment: 14 May, 2001 Date of Employment: 05 Jan, 2011 Appointed 2013 through 2014 Appointed 2010 through 2015 Appointed 2012 through 2017 Appointed 2013 through 2018 Appointed 2014 through 2019 Appointed 2012 through 2017 Appointed 2010 through 2015 Appointed 2013 through 2018 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report ANNUAL REPORT To: Members of the Iowa City Assessor's Conference Board From: Dennis J. Baldridge — Iowa City Assessor Subject: 2014 Annual Report — Issued December 31, 2014 The following report covers the activities of this office from January 1, 2014 to date of issue. MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the Iowa City Assessor's Office is to find, list and value for tax purposes, all real property in Iowa City and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City. GOALS To establish values according to Iowa law on all commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential and multi -residential property within the City of Iowa City; to achieve equitable assessments across all classes of property based on actual physical aspects of the property and all pertinent sales data available; to improve the efficiency by which these assessments are made; to provide prompt and courteous response to all inquiries for information. OBJECTIVES 1. Receive calls and inquiries and dispense information efficiently and in a timely manner. 2. Complete all daily record changes and related duties as they are received. 3. On a quarterly basis, inspect and review all new construction and demolition, and make final review of said construction and demolition by January 1 every year. 4. Notify all new homeowners of potential eligibility for the homestead and military credits by July 1 every year. 5. Notify all owners of commercial and industrial property of potential eligibility for the business property tax credit (BPTC) by March 15 every year. 6. Remove all homestead exemptions, military credits and business property tax credits from the permanent file for those who are no longer eligible to receive the credit by July 1 every year. 7. Efficiently process all other new and routine annual filings, making sure they are in compliance with all laws and rules, and filed by their statutory dates. 8. Send out assessment notices to all properties requiring assessment notices, by April 1 st.every year. 9. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review from April 7 to May 5 every year and coordinate the Board of Review meetings during the month of May. 10. Receive and review tentative equalization orders from the State Department of Revenue and Finance in August of reassessment years. 11. Receive final equalization orders by October 1 of reassessment years. 12. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review Special Session from October 16 to October 25 of reassessment year and coordinate the Board of Review Special Session from October 15 to November 15 of reassessment years, if needed. 13. Prepare and distribute the annual report by December 31 every year. 14. Hold preliminary Conference Board and public hearings to adopt the annual budget by March 15 every year. 15. Prepare and submit annual abstract to the Department of Revenue & Finance by July 1 every year. In Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report 16. Maintain assessment information on website at http://iowacity.iowaassessors.com and make improvements based on input from the public. The site went on line February 15, 2001 and has nearly 2 million hits since that time. 17. Provide on-line access to application forms for Homestead Credits, Military Exemptions, Commercial Property Tax Credits, Charitable Exemptions, Business Property Tax Credits, and Board of Review petition forms which are available on our Johnson County website at http://www.iohnson-county.com 18. Review sales as they occur and compare selling price to assessments. 19. Review selling price/assessment ratios by neighborhood, age, size, building type and other relevant criteria. 20. Make adjustments to assessed value as indicated by the sales review and land value review at least every 2 years. 21. Physically inspect properties with selling price -to -assessment ratios outside acceptable standards. 22. Utilize GIS for quality control of assessment data and analysis of valuation. 23. Update recording information (book & page) on our website for older sales. 24. Maintain recently completed in-house re -appraisal of all Commercial properties in Iowa City. 25. Annually inspect/re-appraise 10% of residential properties in Iowa City. 26. Continue to cross -train employees for tasks or skills that are outside their specific job descriptions. VALUATIONS Although 2014 was not a real estate revaluation year, some revaluation occurs each year as part of our ongoing reassessment efforts, especially in residential property. Residential new construction added approximately 92 million dollars and revaluation about 24 million. Commercial revaluation and new construction of about 17 million dollars was offset by transfers and demolitions. Most notable of these was $13 million in transfers to residential mainly due to apartments converting to residential cooperatives. 977 residential deed sales in 2014 give us a median ratio (assessed value/sale price) of 92.69% compared to 95.18% for 937 sales in 2013. This tells us that the selling prices of homes have increased since last year and relatively small increases will be necessary for the 2015 assessments. It should be kept in mind that when a jurisdiction is at the State mandated sales ratio level of 100%, a full one-half of home sales will be for less than the assessed value. Sales for less than the assessed value tend to result in appeals to the Board of Review. COURT CASES Two commercial property owners filed appeals in District Court in 2014. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD There was one commercial property appeal to PAAB for 2014. BOARD OF REVIEW The Board of Review was in session from May 1 through May 15, the day of adjournment. 32 protests were filed, with 15 being upheld and 17 denied. The total value of real estate being protested was $46,529,010. The Board allowed a total reduction of $3,383,190. 5 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT It is difficult to be both equitable among assessments and in tune with the market. Similar properties do not always sell for similar prices, so the market is not always equitable and sometimes a long way from it. Most assessors would lean toward equity if they could choose between the two. Our first priority is equity since it is not always possible to have every assessment match the selling price. Our statistics show that we are doing a good job in this regard. WEB PAGE The Iowa City Assessor's web page went online during the spring of 2001. Internet availability of comparable sales and comparable assessments has been very helpful to taxpayers concerned about the fairness of their assessments. Links are also provided to the Johnson County Treasurer for tax information and to the Johnson County GIS for online maps and aerial photography. We continue to expand the breadth of our data online and to increase the ability to query our data. We continue to look for ways to get more of our information accessible online. In the past year our historical property record cards became available online. All of this has, and continues to reduce traffic at our counter, and frees up personnel to focus on our core function of equitable assessment of property. There have been nearly 2 million hits on our web site since it went online. It can be seen at http://iowaci!y.iowaassessors.com (note that www at the beginning of the web address is no longer a valid part of our web address). We also have an internet presence through the Johnson County website at http://www.iohnson-county.com. Electronic forms for the Homestead Credit, the Military Exemption, the Business Property Tax Credit, Charitable Exemptions, and Board of Review appeals are available to the public on this web page site. ROLLBACKS The residential rollback will go up from 54.4002%, for the current taxes, to 55.7335% for taxes payable in 2015-2016. The rollback for agricultural property will increase from 43.3997% to 44.7021 %. The commercial rollback goes from 95% to 90% as part of SF 295, the new property tax legislation. NEW LEGISLATION The 2014 Iowa Legislative Session produced relatively few property tax law changes when compared to the 2013 session and SF295. SF 295, from the 2013 legislature, enacted the Business Property Tax Credit, and was applied retroactively to the 2013 assessments and greatly increased our workload. Notices were sent to all qualifying commercial and industrial property owners. Approximately 85% of those properties signed up for the credit. New procedures were also established to report those credits to the Iowa Department of Revenue and to other county offices. SF 295 also enacted a new multi -residential classification and allows for dual classification of commercial or industrial property with residential apartments on the same parcel. Procedures are currently being set up for these new classes of property. The only 2014 legislation of major significance for assessors is the Disabled Veteran Homestead Credit. This credit was expanded to include all veterans with a 100% service - connected disability rating. These veterans will be allowed a credit equal to the total taxes levied on their homestead property. 0 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report CONTINUING EDUCATION Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and deputies for re -appointment to their positions. Over a six-year term, assessors must complete one hundred -fifty hours of classroom instruction, including at least ninety hours from courses requiring a test. Deputies must complete ninety hours of classroom instruction, including at least sixty tested hours over their six-year terms. It is also beneficial for other employees to attend classes so they can update their skills and stay current with assessment practices. The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences during 2014: ISAC Spring School of Instruction (Iowa State Association of Counties) NCRAAO Annual Conference (North Central Regional Association Of Assessing Officers) IICA Summer Seminar and Workshop (Institute of Iowa Certified Assessors) ISAA Annual School of Instruction (Iowa State Association of Assessors) ISAC Fall School of Instruction 6.25 C.E. Hrs. 10.00 C.E. Hrs. 12.00 C.E. Hrs. (6.5 tested) 12.50 C.E. Hrs. 7.50 C.E. Hrs. The Chief Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2014: ISAC Spring School of Instruction IICA Summer Seminar and Workshop Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) ISAA Annual School of Instruction ISAC Fall School of Instruction 6.25 C.E Hrs. 12.00 C.E. Hrs. (6.5 tested) 15.00 C.E. Hrs. (Tested) 12.50 C.E. Hrs. 7.25 C.E. Hrs. The Second Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2014: IICA Summer Seminar and Workshop Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) ISAA Annual School of Instruction ISAC Fall School of Instruction 12.00 C.E. Hrs. (6.5 Tested) 15.00 C.E. Hrs. (Tested) 12.50 C.E. Hrs. 7.25 C.E. Hrs. Other staff attended classes and seminars related to operation and maintenance of various third party software utilized by the assessor's office. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the Board of Review, the City Attorney and her assistants, and the City Staff along with Johnson County and the Iowa City School Board for their assistance, cooperation and confidence during the past year. would also like to recognize and thank my staff at this time for their part in establishing and maintaining the professional standards of the office 7 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report ASSESSMENT DATA 2014 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY Value of Agricultural Land and Structures Value of Residential Dwellings on Agricultural Realty Value of Residential Lots and Buildings Value of Commercial Lots and Buildings Value of Industrial Lots and Buildings Value of Industrial Machinery and Commercial Equipment as Real Estate Actual Value of All Real Estate* $3,784,570 $1,202,940 $3,616,765,260 $1,158,203,990 $78,113,470 $0 $4,858,070,230 *All the above values are based on the 2014 abstract as reported to the Iowa Department of Revenue on July 1, 2014. The values for Railroad and Utility Property are supplied to the Auditor by the Iowa Department of Revenue. The taxable value of utilities and railroads in Iowa City for 2014 is $58,639,237. EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2014 Religious Institutions Literary Societies & Educational Institutions Low Rent Housing Associations of War Veterans Charitable and Benevolent Societies Forest and Fruit Tree Partial Industrial, Urban Revitalization, Recycling, Mobile Home Storm Shelter, Public TV & New Jobs, Geothermal, Historical Sub -Total University of Iowa (As Reported by U of I as of June 30, 2014) TOTAL EXEMPT 0 $82,266,890 $5,429,920 $16,482,310 $512,880 $132,920,920 $733,440 $2,822,426 $241,168,786 $2,490,982,407 $2,732,151,193 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED STATE 3,708,350 STATE ADJUSTED YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE 2014 Agricultural 3,784,570 44.7021 1,691,782 Ag Dwelling 1,202,940 55.7335 670,440 Residential 3,616,765,260 55.7335 2,015,749,866 Commercial 1,158,203,990 **90.0000 1,042,383,591 Industrial 78,113,470 **90.0000 70,302,123 M & E 0 59.9334 1,644,297 TOTAL $4,858,070,230 52.8166 $3,130,797,802 2013* Agricultural 3,708,350 43.3997 1,609,413 Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 54.4002 647,694 Residential 3,494,886,480 54.4002 1,901,225,235 Commercial 1,160,168,050 **95.0000 1,102,159,648 Industrial 80,897,070 **95.0000 76,852,217 M & E 0 0 TOTAL $4,740,850,560 $3,082,494,207 2012 Agricultural 2,743,540 59.9334 1,644,297 Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 52.8166 628,840 Residential 3,371,349,260 52.8166 1,780,632,053 Commercial 1,122,041,780 1.000000 1,122,041,780 Industrial 78,576,040 1.000000 78,576,040 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,575,901,230 $2,983,523,010 2011* +6.1% Agricultural 2,566,040 57.5411 1,476,528 Ag Dwelling 1,313,570 50.7518 666,660 Residential 3,264,269,180 50.7518 1,656,675,366 Commercial 1,182,516,370 1.000000 1,182,516,370 Industrial 80,153,050 1.000000 80,153,050 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,530,818,210 $2,921,487,974 2010 Agricultural 2,317,426 69.0152 1,599,376 Ag Dwelling 1,256,350 48.5299 609,705 Residential 3,182,677,000 48.5299 1,544,549,965 Commercial 1,170, 960,470 1.000000 1,170, 960,470 Industrial 81,786,730 1.000000 81,786,730 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,438,997,976 $2,799,506,246 N Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED - CONT'D STATE STATE ADJUSTED YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE 2009* +62.6% Agricultural 2,382,167 .662715 1,578,698 Ag Dwelling 1,256,350 .469094 589,346 Residential 3,124,020,860 .469094 1,465,459,944 Commercial 1,170,461,470 1.000000 1,170,461,470 Industrial 81,979,330 1.000000 81,979,330 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,380,100,177 $2,720,068,788 2008 Agricultural 1,548,650 .938568 1,453,513 Ag Dwelling 1,244,640 .455893 567,423 Residential 3,089,020,200 .455893 1,408,262,686 Commercial 1,153,802,900 1.000000 1,153,802,900 Industrial 74,852,940 1.000000 74,852,940 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,320,469,330 $2,638,939,462 2007* +12% Agricultural 1,612,266 .901023 1,452,689 Ag Dwelling 1,244,640 .440803 548,641 Residential 3,010,144,280 .440803 1,326,880,629 Commercial 1,131,561,840 .997312 1,128,520,202 Industrial 70,694,850 1.000000 70,694,850 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,215,257,876 $2,528,097,011 2006 Agricultural 1,584,472 1.000000 1,584,472 Ag Dwelling 1,327,700 .455596 604,895 Residential 2,736,579,660 .455596 1,246,774,747 Commercial 1,083,407,140 1.000000 1,083,407,140 Industrial 68,308,290 1.000000 68,308,290 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $3,891,207,262 $2,400,679,544 2005* Agricultural 1,785,931 1.000000 1,785,931 Ag Dwelling 1,295,110 .459960 595,699 Residential 2,642,786,683 .459960 1,215,576,163 Commercial 1,038,950,930 .991509 1,030,129,198 Industrial 65,878,350 1.000000 65,878,350 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $3,750,697,004 $2,313,965,341 The adjusted values given are not exact but are meant to give a representation of the growth of Iowa City's tax base. * Reassessment Year ** Commercial and Industrial Rollback Loss for 2014 is to be replaced by State of Iowa. 10 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report VA ASSESSED VALUES YEAR RESIDENTIAL % COMMERCIAL % INDUSTRIAL % OTHER % 2014 3,617,968,200 74.5 1,158,203,990 23.8 78,113,470 1.6 3,784,570 0.1 2013 3,496,077,090 73.7 1,160,168,050 24.5 80,897,070 1.7 3,708,350 0.1 2012 3,372,539,870 73.7 1,122,041,780 24.5 78,576,040 1.7 2,743,540 0.1 2011 3,265,582,750 72.1 1,182,516,370 26.1 80,153,050 1.7 2,566,040 0.1 2010 3,183,933,350 71.7 1,170,960,470 26.4 81,786,730 1.8 2,317,426 0.1 2009 3,125,277,210 71.3 1,170,461,470 26.7 81,979,330 1.9 2,382,167 0.1 2008 3,090,264,840 71.5 1,153,802,900 26.7 74,852,940 1.7 1,548,650 0.1 2007 3,011,388,920 71.4 1,131,561,840 26.8 70,694,850 1.7 1,612,266 0.1 2006 2,737,907,360 70.4 1,083,407,140 27.8 68,308,290 1.7 1,584,472 0.1 2005 2,644,081,793 70.5 1,038,950,930 27.7 65,878,350 1.7 1,785,931 0.1 TAXABLE VALUES 2014 2,016,420,307 64.4 1,042,383,591 33.3 70,302,123 2.2 1,691,782 0.1 2013 1,901,872,929 61.7 1,102,159,648 35.7 76,852,217 2.5 1,609,413 0.1 2012 1,781,260,893 59.7 1,122,041,780 37.6 78,576,040 2.6 1,644,297 0.1 2011 1,657,342,026 56.7 1,182,516,370 40.4 80,153,050 2.8 1,476,527 0.1 2010 1,545,159,671 55.2 1,170,960,470 41.8 81,786,730 2.9 1,599,376 0.1 2009 1,466,048,788 53.9 1,170,461,470 43.0 81,979,330 3.0 1,578,698 0.1 2008 1,408,830,109 53.4 1,153,802,900 43.7 74,852,940 2.8 1,453,513 0.1 2007 1,327,429,270 52.5 1,128,520,202 44.6 70,694,850 2.8 1,452,689 0.1 2006 1,247,379,642 52.0 1,083,407,140 45.1 68,308,290 2.8 1,584,472 0.1 2005 1,216,171,862 52.6 1,030,129,198 44.5 65,878,350 2.8 1,785,931 0.2 Commercial and Industrial Rollback Loss for 2014 is to be replaced by State of Iowa. 75% 70% 65% ro 60% m 55% d 2 50% a. 30% 25% of Taxable and Assessed Value- Past 10 Years ..x ..... X ..... X.... x..... ..... 1.....� .... { ... .}..... 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 11 • • •X• • Residential Assessed a� rn ••4.. Commercial& c Industrial U u Assessed a Q) -*-- Residential m Taxable X M f- Commercial & Industrial Taxable Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report 2013 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS (Excluding Utilities & Credit Unions Assessed by the State) 2013 COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR (Sorted by Assessor levy - Low to High) 12-13 Taxable # of Actual Rank Contract or Title holder Value Parcels 2013 Taxes 1 American College Testing $46,589,789 15 $1,790,644 2 Ann S Gerdin Trust (warehousing) $22,321,438 4 $858,130 3 Dealer Properties IC LLC (Billion Auto) $19,343,412 4 $743,392 4 Procter & Gamble Hair Care LLC $16,227,436 3 $624,270 5 Alpla Inc (Industrial) $15,527,947 3 $597,324 6 National Computer Systems Inc (Pearson) $13,800,109 2 $531,684 7 CCAL 100 Hawk Ridge Drive LLC (The Lodge) $12,856,089 201 $495,354 8 Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust $12,749,399 1 $490,272 9 Southgate Development Co Inc $12,541,663 34 $478,402 10 United Natural Foods Inc $11,961,545 1 $459,918 11 RBD Iowa City LLC (Sheraton) $10,971,094 1 $443,652 12 Core Sycamore Town Center LLC $10,905,117 1 $419,216 13 Menard Inc $10,830,000 1 $416,322 14 Midwestone Bank $9,455,864 9 $373,836 15 Plaza Towers LLC $8,481,508 71 $338,916 16 OC Group LC (Old Capitol Mail) $8,040,991 2 $324,904 17 Mclaughlin, Michael T (Retail/Apartments) $8,218,110 67 $316,616 18 Oral-B Laboratories $8,128,487 7 $311,432 19 Mercy Facilities Inc $8,106,525 10 $311,394 20 Blackhawk Partners L C (Retail/Apartments) $7,936,168 7 $304,758 21 Melrose Retirement Community L L C $7,740,572 1 $303,898 22 Hy -Vee Inc $7,804,418 9 $298,226 23 Corelogic Commercial Tax Sery (LegacyAparments) $7,616,863 2 $296,542 24 Mark IV Investors $7,375,582 2 $293,458 25 Marc Moen $6,747,046 2 $262,818 *If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2nd with $1,686,926 Taxes Billed. *If CenturyLink were included, it would rank 22nd with $304,758 Taxes Billed. * Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2013 assessment year were $2,294,105. COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR (Sorted by Assessor levy - Low to High) 12 12-13 13-14 14-15 13-14 14-15 City Assessor Assessor Assessor Total Total Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy IOWA CITY .24453 .25873 .23866 38.63862 38.52756 DUBUQUE .36188 .39028 .29320 33.71720 33.02504 CEDAR RAPIDS .21871 .34293 .32345 38.26789 38.27714 AMES .39685 .34391 .33992 32.40069 32.25490 CLINTON .69584 .67500 .35058 42.59520 42.04469 DAVENPORT .3149 .37452 .37409 41.04252 40.12151 SIOUX CITY .39159 .40706 .45866 41.62966 42.02609 MASON CITY .23272 .64245 .64240 31.72082 34.69750 12 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D. below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent. RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of Iowa City in comparison to the other 106 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2013 sales which is the last complete year available. These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D. of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its size and mobile population. SORTED BY COD Rank Jurisdiction Mean Median Weighted COD PRD 1 IOWA CITY 95.27% 95.185/. 94.64% 6.72% 100.7% 2 LINN 101.20% 99.04% 99.20% 8.06% 102.0% 3 JOHNSON 95.02% 94.36% 94.01% 8.11% 101.1% 4 STORY 95.34% 94.67% 93.39% 9.51% 102.1% 5 SCOTT 94.71% 93.17% 93.85% 9.54% 100.9% 6 DALLAS 97.77% 96.28% 93.88% 10.26% 104.1% 7 AMES CITY 96.82% 93.25% 94.66% 10.81% 102.3% 8 WARREN 100.10% 98.21% 97.33% 10.95% 102.8% 9 DUBUQUE 96.00% 93.02% 93.56% 11.60% 102.6% 10 CEDAR RAPIDS CITY 103.90% 99.89% 100.50% 12.08% 103.3% The Regression Index, also known as the Price Related Differential (PRD), is an indicator of the degree to which high value properties are over or under assessed in relationship to low value properties. An index of 100.00 indicates no difference in assessments of high value properties in comparison to low value properties based upon that year's sales. An index over 100 indicates that high value properties are under assessed in relation to low value properties. As you can see in the following table, Iowa City's regression index is still close to the ideal 100.00 level. For brevity, only the top 15 are shown. SORTED BY REGRESSION INDEX (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) Rank Jurisdiction 1 IOWA CITY 2 SCOTT 3 JOHNSON 4 CERRO GORDO 5 LINN 6 STORY 7 MADISON 8 AMES CITY 9 DUBUQUE 10 OSCEOLA 11 WARREN 12 BREMER 13 DICKINSON 14 CEDAR RAPIDS CITY 15 CEDAR _Mean Median Weighted C O D 95.27% 95.18% 94.64% 6.72% 94.71% 93.17% 93.85% 9.54% 95.02% 94.36% 94,01% 8.11% 93.76% 94.03% 92.65% 12.12% 101.20% 99.04% 99.20% 8.06% 95.34% 94.67% 93.39% 9.51% 98.55% 97.27% 96.43% 13.09% 96.82% 93.25% 94.66% 10.81% 96.00% 93.02% 93.56% 11.60% 97.61% 99.31% 94.95% 12.57% 100.10% 98.21% 97.33% 10.95% 98.90% 96.97% 96.06% 12.92% 96.14% 92.64% 93.19% 15.93% 103.90% 99.89% 100.50% 12.08% 98.95% 95.82% 95.67% 16.19% 13 PRD 100.7% 100.9% 101.1% 101.2% 102.0% 102.1% 102.2% 102.3% 102.6% 102.8% 102.8% 103.0% 103.2% 103.3% 103.4% Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City Residential Property over time. The Coefficient of Dispersion for Commercial properties varies from 8.96 to 66.76 with a Year Median C.O.D # Of Sales Average Sale Price Total Price Estimate 2014 92.69 7.47 977 210,493 205,651,661 DOR '2013 95.18 6.72 937 204,632 191,740,184 DOR 2012 96.55 8.02 826 195,585 161,553,210 DOR "2011 97.57 7.32 740 191,701 141,858,740 DOR 2010 95.92 9.99 745 182,635 136,062,994 DOR '2009 95.42 8.29 796 191,459 152,401,156 DOR 2008 95.92 7.92 833 188,873 157,331,213 DOR '2007 95.00 7.88 856 192,294 164,603,799 DOR 2006 88.70 9.67 665 197,878 131,588,850 DOR *2005 90.50 8.61 717 186,437 133,675,410 DOR 2004 84.50 9.57 751 176,136 132,277,978 DOR "2003 88.30 7.93 809 159,766 129,250,592 DOR 2002 94.32 8.03 777 152,219 118,274,003 DOR #2001 94.60 7.83 682 144,912 98,830,294 DOR 2000 89.00 9.16 675 137,725 92,964,467 DOR '1999 93.30 9.38 691 134,200 92,732,093 DOR 1998 91.60 8.24 699 129,556 90,559,435 DOR '1997 93.45 8.71 658 123,278 81,117,152 DOR 1996 91.20 9.59 636 121,069 76,999,785 DOR '1995 91.20 8.48 595 117,681 70,020,195 Re -Assessment year 121.40% 19 DICKINSON 24 114.00% # Re-Appraisal/Inspection year 103.40% 20 CERRO GORDO 19 COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 101.20% 28.89% The Coefficient of Dispersion for Commercial properties varies from 8.96 to 66.76 with a median of 27.52 for all Iowa jurisdictions while Residential C.O.D.'s vary from 6.72 to 64.57 with a median of 20.45. Commercial properties are typically more difficult to appraise than residential properties because of the wide variety of building types and fewer comparable sales. For this reason, only jurisdictions with 15 or more sale are included in table below. COMMERCIAL SALES SORTED BY C O D No Jurisdiction # of Sales Mean Median COD PRD 1 JOHNSON 53 97.18% 97.08% 11.17% 101.70% 2 IOWA CITY 20 92.98% 94.86% 18.15% 116.20% 3 SCOTT 54 95.06% 95.99% 18.25% 136.20% 4 BREMER 17 91.07% 85.64% 18.44% 105.00% 5 DUBUQUE CITY 40 103.80% 104.20% 19.15% 103.30% 6 MUSCATINE 17 96.67% 92.15% 19.97% 100.40% 7 AMES CITY 16 99.62% 91.34% 20.22% 101.60% 8 CEDAR 16 81.87% 81.67% 20.93% 122.10% 9 KOSSUTH 15 76.31% 80.88% 21.66% 100.00% 10 DES MOINES 22 94.83% 94.95% 22.01% 102.70% 11 POTTAWATTAMIE 33 101.80% 93.81% 22.72% 121.20% 12 LEE 15 83.69% 83.49% 22.82% 190.10% 13 LINN 35 89.14% 86.63% 23.21% 131.10% 14 CEDAR RAPIDS 46 97.43% 95.20% 24.04% 104.20% 15 GRUNDY 15 84.60% 75.68% 25.01% 108.80% 16 POLK 134 99.91% 98.84% 25.24% 127.90% 17 WRIGHT 15 68.52% 71.60% 25.73% 108.40% 18 DAVENPORT 86 103.60% 98.67% 27.52% 121.40% 19 DICKINSON 24 114.00% 105.10% 27.60% 103.40% 20 CERRO GORDO 19 108.80% 101.20% 28.89% 92.59% 14 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2014 Annual Report HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City commercial properties. Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales can greatly influence the performance measurements, therefore creating greater fluctuation in the numbers. See data above to illustrate this and to show Iowa City's standing. Year Median C.O.D. # of Sales Estimated 2014 90.82 17.76 14 2013 92.98 18.15 20 2012 93.51 12.84 14 2011 90.83 27.99 18 2010 97.77 12.82 29 2009 89.21 13.60 29 2008 95.29 21.32 36 2007 91.80 23.24 35 2006 87.55 17.05 26 2005 85.65 15.52 34 2004 80.90 17.82 17 2003 89.22 15.08 39 2002 92.40 16.81 17 2001 93.50 15.04 23 2000 96.85 14.99 28 1999 87.50 14.14 33 1998 89.10 11.68 25 1997 87.80 11.57 21 1996 89.50 15.78 24 1995 90.10 12.76 22 1994 87.90 12.44 24 1993 90.35 14.24 26 1992 89.90 14.86 21 1991 87.85 8.38 8 1990 89.60 19.53 13 1989 94.40 13.81 13 1988 95.40 19.77 20 1987 87.65 17.27 16 1986 98.20 14.21 15 1985 82.00 12.63 16 1984 76.80 18.30 13 1983 87.85 10.58 26 1982 78.00 10.25 8 1981 87.55 10.07 14 1980 80.85 22.69 12 1979 78.00 16.66 15 1978 84.60 13.49 12 1977 62.90 28.20 27 1976 72.30 13.19 18 1975 84.30 19.75 14 15 L077r-" IP3 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda February 9, 2015 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street 5:00 PM ■ City Conference Board Meeting ■ Consultation with Planning and Zoning (608, 610 S. Dubuque Street) ■ Questions from Council re Agenda Items ■ Council Appointments [# 12] ■ Information Packet Discussion [January 22, 29, February 5] ■ Council Time ■ Meeting Schedule ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 4 Info Packet of 2/5] ■ Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations 4k' kah CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS February 5, 2015 Pending Topics to be Scheduled 1. Discuss recycling opportunities for multi -family housing 2. Discuss city related marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions 3. Discuss community business attraction and anti -piracy compact 4. Review of the Sensitive Areas ordinance 5. Discuss formation of staff /citizen climate adaptation advisory group (spring 2015) 6. Discuss transit route planning framework 7. Review University of Iowa enrollment and housing projections ^'r®, CITY OF IOWA CITY LZ MEMORANDUM -� lumb.— Date: February 4, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Alec Bramel, Intern Re: Mobile Vending Regulations Introduction: Iowa City currently has an ordinance established for mobile food cart vendors to operate on the pedestrian mall. The ordinance allows no more than 6 (six) vendors to be licensed at one time. Vendors apply for City permits which are renewed every three years. Permits are issued once the vendors have met requirements including: proper cart size, selected vending location, adequate storage space, acquiring necessary health permits, payment of fees, and insuring that pedestrian traffic or the public right of way is not blocked. The next permit issuing period will end on April 30th, 2016; applications for vending permits will be solicited by the City of Iowa City in late 2015. In addition to the pedmall, mobile vendors are allowed to operate on private property through a temporary use permit. This is a 180 day (6 month) seasonal permit that is applied for by the vendor. Cost for the first season of operation is $75; subsequent cost is $25 per season. These permits most often run between April and October. At the request of local vendors, a mobile vending pilot program was set up in the spring of 2014. This pilot program accepted applications from 5 (five) local mobile vendors. This program gave the opportunity for these mobile vendors to establish their operations around Iowa City. Three locations were chosen for the mobile vendors to operate and these locations were open to all the mobile vendors. Lower City Park, the East Side Recycling Center, and the Chauncey Swan Park were chosen as pilot locations. This program was set up to determine if mobile vending operators could work successfully in Iowa City and what market environments yielded the most public interest or concern. Pilot Program Experience: Locations were chosen to determine the demand for these mobile vendors. Lower City Park was chosen to provide concession at the park and determine the demand at that location. East Side Recycling center was chosen as a destination location, to determine whether customers would seek out mobile vendors to patronize. The last location was Chauncey Swan Park, which was selected to determine mobile demand near the downtown area. Lower City Park saw no participation; however, the Park was closed during the beginning of the program due to flooding. There was no participation at the East Side Recycling Center location. Chauncey Swan Park was the only location that was utilized by mobile vendors. Of the five mobile vendors whose applications were accepted, one vendor never started, two vendors stopped midway through the program, and two continued to operate with moderate success. When the two remaining participants were asked whether or not they would participate in the same program again, the answer was no. The vendors wish to operate in other areas around the downtown, and be located in areas with higher visibility. A primary concern of the vendors was that their operations in Chauncey Swan Park were not easily visible from Gilbert. The vendors operated around the noon/ lunch hour, which is when they received the most business. February 4, 2015 Page 2 In addition to the vending in the park, mobile vendors also continued to participate in the farmer markets with success. In August, the City Council received a letter from Iowa City Downtown District Executive Director Nancy Bird expressing that the ICDD does not support modifications to the current mobile food programs. This is primarily due to the already high concentration of brick and mortar dining establishments in downtown. It was also noted that the six vendors currently vend on the pedmall, and that adding more mobile vendors anywhere downtown will take away from the tenant diversity in the downtown. The ICDD also stands behind the fact that brick and mortar establishments pay property taxes that help support government and community whereas mobile vendors pay substantially less in fees. Review of Local Ordinances: Research on this topic was pulled from many sources. I developed a list of cities that either were similar in size to Iowa City, or had drafted favorable ordinances for mobile food vendors. I looked into ordinances from cities such as Cedar Rapids, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Illinois, Colombia, Missouri, Madison, Wisconsin, Columbus, Ohio, and Knoxville, Tennessee among others. In addition to these city ordinances, further data was found in the National League of Cities (NLC) report titled "Food on Wheels: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream" (IP5 10-23-14). This article provided a greater summary of information and recommendations for municipalities to utilize if faced with these impending discussions. The NLC reports focused on four main policy areas. These four policy areas are: 1. Public Space 3. Public Health 2. Economic Development 4. Public Safety 1. Iowa City's concerns are primarily with use of public space. This is usually the case with medium and large cities that host a thriving downtown with many successful brick and mortar restaurants. The first use of public space is the question regarding time limits for mobile vendors. The majority of test cities in the NLC article found that the majority of sample cities did not regulate time at all. Enforcement of time limits is a concern for law enforcement and administrators. Constant oversight is not feasible. The NLC recommends time limits of 4-5 hours at the least, with the most progressive choice being no operating time regulation. Currently, Iowa City does not have any operation time requirements or restriction for mobile food carts on the pedestrian mail. Proximity restrictions remain the foremost determination for cities regulating mobile vendors. The question is how far should mobile vendors operate from traditional brick and mortar establishments? The NLC found restrictions ranging from 50-600ft distance requirements. Durham, NC is the shortest at 50ft as is Bloomington, Indiana while New Orleans ranked as the longest distance at 600ft. The NLC recommends a maximum of 200ft for distance to brick and mortar restaurants. Minneapolis allows mobile vendors to vend no closer than 100ft from a restaurant on the same block. In some cities, such as Bloomington, Illinois, mobile vending is restricted 15 feet from a real property line. In addition to proximity, many medium to large cities have a central downtown area. Determining what to do with food trucks in these dense downtowns is a challenge. The NLC report highlights a few of the options municipalities can choose from. The first option is to restrict food vendors from operating downtown completely. Draw up boundaries and allow food trucks to operate in areas outside of the downtown zone. This can be an incentive to food vendors to find demand in areas other than the downtown, and also to provide service to customers in areas distant from brick and mortar establishments. This was a tactic used by the February 4, 2015 Page 3 City of Denver, Colorado. Knoxville, Tennessee is currently using a mobile vending pilot program to determine how they will proceed with mobile vending regulation. Knoxville has restricted mobile food vendors from inside their central downtown area and instead issued them designated operating locations where they can vend. Other than a few complaints from citizens about reserved but empty parking spaces near the downtown, the program is going well. A second approach is simply to establish distance boundaries for mobile vendors that restrict mobile vendors from operating within a certain distance of a brick and mortar establishment. This would allow mobile vendors to operate freely so long as they remained a selected distance from another business of conflict. Operation based on distance is done in the majority of the cities studied in this report. This is done in Minneapolis, Bloomington, IL, Colombia, MO, Bloomington, IN, Chicago, Durham, New Orleans, and many others. Further regulations are in place for operation in these cities; however a distance requirement is common among all of them. A third option is to allow food trucks to operate in the downtown but only in spaces determined by the city. This would allow vendors to operate in the downtown area yet not directly interfere with the brick and mortar establishments in the heart of downtown. It is quite common for cities to have their traffic engineers, public works director, or parks and recreation director sign off on mobile vending locations. Cedar Rapids allows mobile vendors to submit locations of operation to the City, the traffic engineer's office then provides final approval to the vendor. In Minneapolis, the public works director approves vendor locations. A fourth option is deregulation, that is allowing mobile vendors to operate where they want and when they want, with limited regulation on operations. This will let the market demand for mobile food vendors determine when and where the vendors operate. Locating a parking space downtown would be a challenge in itself for mobile vendors, this along with 1 hour only meters in the downtown would be a large disincentive for mobile vendors. Mobile vendors would be required to adhere to all parking regulations and meter regulations; however where and when they operate would not be regulated. 2. With use of space comes the opportunity for the economic development of or the need for food vendors in areas of the city lacking them. Mobile vendors could provide a service to an area or neighborhood that does not have easy access to food vendors. It can also add vibrancy to neighborhoods, parks, or commercial districts that lack local food options. 3. Public health and public safety go hand in hand, while these aspects of mobile vending are important to Iowa City, the results of the pilot program demonstrated that sanitation and public health were top priorities for the participating mobile vendors. While our pilot programs were respectful and orderly concerning sanitation, it should be noted that future mobile vendors may not be. Requiring service logs, inspections, and respective county health permits, are a few examples of how a few municipalities standardize food safety with their mobile vendors. Many of these are present in the current mobile food cart administrative rules. 4. Public Safety is a crucial part of any regulatory rules that may be put in place. Many cities put sanitation regulations in place such as cleaning up waste and containment of grease and food production waste. Johnson county issues health safety permits to each mobile vendor which must be properly displayed. These operating and sanitation licenses are handled by Johnson County and determine food preparation and service requirements for vendors. In addition to food safety, public elements such as lighting and vending time could also be examined. Minneapolis only allows vending from 7 am to 10 pm. Colombia, Missouri allows vendors to operate between 6 am and 3am in metered spaces, and any other permitted area between 6 am and 11 pm. Madison has established a Late Night Vending (LNV) license; this allows vendors to operate between the hours of 9 pm and 4 am. This license is separate from a mobile vending license and the vending areas are determined by the City of Madison. Instituting a limited vending time may be used to ensure public safety and to keep vendors from operating in neighborhoods or other areas where safety or lighting may be minimal. February 4, 2015 Page 4 Recommendation: After consideration of the pilot program, review of ordinances in other cities, and taking into account the unique aspects of Iowa City, I have prepared recommendations for the council. Recommendations for mobile vendors are as follows. Staff recommends that mobile vendors operate no closer than 150ft from another brick and mortar/restaurant establishment. With the 150ft buffer in place, the impact effectively removes mobile vending from the downtown area. The Northside District will also be restricted near the intersection of Linn and Market Street as well due to the concentration of restaurants in the area. Removing Downtown and Northside will eliminate the hassle of tracking the shifting of business in and out of both areas. Mobile vendors that choose to operate from streets outside of the restricted areas and not within 150ft of a restaurant will be required to obey all traffic and parking regulations. Vendors shall vend to the side facing a sidewalk. A mobile vendor shall occupy no more than two (2) parking spaces. Angular parking may accommodate mobile vending vehicles so long as they vend facing toward the sidewalk and take no more than two (2) parking spaces. Vehicle operation and customer queues should not hinder vehicular or pedestrian traffic, nor should it interfere with the public right of way. Promising locations for mobile vendors include Jefferson Street and Clinton Street near the University dorms to the north of downtown and the Courthouse in River Front Crossings. A mobile vendor may be active from seven (7) am until nine (9) pm. Staff also recommends that no vending should take place after nine (9) at night. This is to maintain public safety at late hours and also to limit late night nuisances such as noise and litter. Currently there are no required hours of operation or time restrictions on mobile cart vendors on the pedestrian mall. Staff believes that mobile food vendors will need an exemption from the current one hour meter restriction, and has determined that a three (3) hour max is appropriate. A mobile vendor may vend from any metered parking space available, however they cannot operate in a one (1) or two (2) hour metered space for more than three (3) hours at a time. Mobile vendors have indicated that three (3) hours is sufficient for operation at a short term meter. This limit is February 4, 2015 Page 5 designed to provide parking turnover in short term metered areas. Metered spaces over two (2) hours can be utilized by a mobile vendor until the time limit is reached. Non -metered spaces have no time limits. Permitting fees will be similar to if not closely based on the fees paid by street cafes and food carts on the pedestrian mall. Permitting fees should be large enough to cover the administrative work entailed with permit application, but not so high as to dissuade entrepreneurs from entering the market. Vendors need to show proof of Johnson County Health Department compliance. There should be basic standards for all carts, vehicles, generators, trash clearance, and refuse. This recommendation would not replace the temporary use permit process or the downtown food cart permit process. While the proposed recommendation would not eliminate the current processes, it is plausible that the future of the pedestrian mall mobile vendors may be looked at for possible changes. It is conceivable that with an addition of mobile vendors in Iowa City, that the need or number of mobile vendors in the immediate downtown areas be reassessed. Providing a first right of refusal to brick and mortars may allow for greater opportunities for our downtown business to establish mobile vending of their own. Mobile vendors will continue to operate on private property with consent from the owner and the acquisition of a city issued temporary use permit. r �aw , CITY OF IOWA CITY iPs --` MEMORANDUM ,%job.. Date: February 3, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator Re: Update on partnership projects with U of I's Iowa Initiatives for Sustainable Communities Program The second semester of collaboration with U of I's program "Iowa Initiatives for Sustainable Communities" (IISC) is underway. The City's partnership with the program has been beneficial for the City and has provided U of I students with professional development by working on sustainability issues within their local community. Last semester three projects were completed and eight new projects began this month. Projects completed during the Fall 2014 semester include: • Soil analysis of the Chadek Park property for community gardens • Internal and local marketing of sustainable behavior • National and regional communication of Iowa City's sustainability More details regarding all of these projects, including the final documents submitted by the students can be found on the IISC website: http://iisc.uiowa.edu/partner/iowa-city Summaries of the current projects can also be found at this website. The eight projects that began Spring 2015 include: • STAR Community Rating System program • Stormwater management with permeable pavement • Development of South airport site improvement plans • Wastewater reclamation for irrigation for park areas along Gilbert St. • Community radon awareness campaign • Enhancing urban pollinator and beneficial insect habitat • Green alleyways in the downtown area • Tree canopy analysis and street tree inventory This work aligns with the sustainability focus areas listed in the 2013 Iowa City Sustainability Assessment. Projects were selected by the City to advance sustainability in the areas that would prove most beneficial to the community and are paired with faculty and student expertise. The original agreement was for this partnership was for one year. It has been confirmed that the University has agreed to work with Iowa City for a second academic year, through May 2016. One of the most exciting projects of the semester includes Iowa City's participation in the STAR Leadership Program. STAR is a nationally certified rating system created to recognize sustainable communities. The intent of the program is to quantify best practices over a broad range of focus areas which include equity, energy, economy, education and arts, health and safety, built environment, and natural systems. Students will assist by collecting data, creating GIS maps, and locating policies and programs present both within the City government and the community. The City will officially join in March and will have one year to complete the program. Data will be collected and uploaded to an online platform and verified by STAR program staff. Once finalized, community members can view the data, which allow for increased transparency and public awareness of the sustainable practices within Iowa City. Completion of this project will allow the City to more effective set sustainability targets and focus on areas of improvement February 4, 2015 Page 2 while celebrating successes where best practices are already in place. More information about this program can be found at: http://www.starcommunities.or-q/rating-system/ During the second week in May, the projects completed this academic year (noted in the above bullets) will be showcased at an end of the year celebration. The City Council, City administrators, faculty, staff, students and general public will be invited to this event, which will be arranged by the IISC program. More information will be provided when available. Cc: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager Doug Boothroy, Neighborhood and Development Services Director ��=c •� CITY OF IOWA CITY- •'�wr•�. IP7 CITY MEMORANDUM IOWA CITY W*SCocmOFuUMMU * original email from Sally Scott accepted'a8 #3f(5) January 20th consent calendar agenda Date: February 5, 2015 To: Thomas M. Markus, City Manager From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: Affordable Housing Location Model Introduction Recently, City Council received an email from Sally Scott outlining her concerns about the Affordable Housing Location Model adopted by City Council on February 15, 2011. The Model was in response to community concerns about the location of subsidized rental housing and involved input from various community members, ICCSD staff and affordable housing providers. Sally requested the City Council review the Model to determine whether it is accomplishing its stated goals and, if not, to develop a policy that is more likely to accomplish these goals. History/Background The Affordable Housing Location Model was adopted to address the following goals as stated in Resolution No. 11-51: 1) The City does not want to further burden neighborhoods and elementary schools that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty; 2) The City desires to have diverse neighborhoods in terms of a range of income levels; and 3) To determine the views of the Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) on the affordable housing issue. The ICCSD Superintendent told City staff that low income students, indeed all students, do better when there is a mix of income levels and that the ICCSD could provide data on three factors it views as significant in assessing whether there is such a mix. These three factors: mobility, test results, and free/reduced lunch percentage, were incorporated into the Model. In her email, Sally stated the two goals of the Model are to promote income diversity in neighborhoods and to de -concentrate poverty in Iowa City. The Model is intended to prevent additional subsidized rental housing near existing subsidized housing or areas where the ICCSD has expressed concern; it was not expected to de -concentrate poverty. The Model considers seven factors in determining where new subsidized rental housing will be placed: distance to existing subsidized housing (transitional rental, shelter and public housing), median household income, residential sales price, mobility data, ITBS test scores, free and reduced lunch percentage at each elementary school, and crime density based on calls for service to the Iowa City Police Department. Each factor is weighted. The two main determinants for location suitability are distance to existing subsidized rental housing and mobility data from each elementary attendance area as combined these two factors account for 60% of the total score. The Model does not restrict the location of City -assisted owner -occupied housing, the rehabilitation of existing rental housing and housing projects that serve the elderly and/or persons with disabilities. The Model also does not apply to Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) as the voucher follows the tenant and does not directly subsidize the unit. Since 2011, the City has assisted 125 CDBG/HOME rental housing units. 112 of these units were exempt from the policy as they were either rental housing for the elderly or disabled or the February 5, 2015 Page 2 rehabilitation of existing rental housing. The Model has applied to 13 rental housing units. These units are located in neighborhoods that are not in close proximity to other subsidized rental housing and located in elementary school attendance areas with lower mobility rates. The City was able to assist more housing units than expected due to additional funds received from the State. In 2011, the State allowed the City to retain a $2.7 million loan repayment from a CDBG Disaster Recovery project as CDBG program income. The City exceeded our 5 -year housing goals outlined in CITY STEPS due to this one-time addition of funds. This level of funding will not continue. Our 5 -year Plan for 2016-2020, adopted December 2, 2014, estimates $710,000 available for new rental housing (construction or acquisition). We anticipate constructing or acquiring 10-15 units of affordable rental housing over the next five years. The amount of funds received through these programs will not de -concentrate poverty; however the Model has been effective in not placing additional subsidized rental housing near existing subsidized housing and areas with high elementary school mobility rates. Recommendation The Model appears to be effective based on the goals established in the Resolution. That being said, the City is considering inclusionary zoning in Riverfront Crossings. One of the financing mechanisms that may be used in this area includes the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to incent affordable housing. TIF assistance is considered discretionary City funds and is currently subject to this Model. The goal to increase affordable housing opportunities within these dense, multi -family residential developments in Riverfront Crossings may be at odds with the existing Model. In order to provide City financial assistance for affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings staff recommends the City Council review the original policy that established the Affordable Housing Location Model at a future work session to consider various options. 02 o5' 5j CITY OF IOWA CITY APs M E M 0 RA N D U M Date: February 3, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show At your January 20 work session meeting Council Members agreed to the following schedule: January 21 — Botchway January 28 — Throgmorton February 4 — Dickens February 11 — Mims February 18 — Hayek February 25 — Botchway Future commitments: March 4 — Dobyns April 22 — Dobyns June 10 — Dobyns U: radioshowappts.doc IP9 � r A�;*= INAM-To CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org January 30, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Mass Transit Operator Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Mass Transit Operator. William Renneckar IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra W. Dickerson, Chair j m uj � § ) 7`- /� --------------------------k 4 ! k z ! a & CL $ f � )---------------- � ) C, \a\�N \ /\LL \m { k}{{�{ ) ° 3(D ��! ! ±i{ ��,■t2%� a�f�;! r �k) - �f a-| �2% �/! &|%\&;�|l5±1��w f,f`l�foE ;&f E f»!#klk�!})}/_!_fafaf=f-e - Eo! , _,%__ «=lm,®��u Ez!>� « §§), Ee=�!!:«i7a2�zmz/z}!§£/ziz2z<z(z�� ( § ! , ! (!) f / k a { « £ « ] 7 ) \ k ( ( } \ ƒ \ \ ; 2 6 £ n 7 0 k , ! R IN I j7 Ivity- j Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under2l PAULA Ratio Rotlo (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 120 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Airliner 223 3 0 0 41 7 14 0.1707317 0.3414634 American Legion 140 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 165 0 0 0 Bardot Iowa 2 0 0 7 1 0 0.1428571 0 Baroncini— 0 0 0 Basta 176 0 0 0 (Blackstone— 297 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Blue Moose— 436 4 0 0 58 2 2 0.0344828 0.0344828 Bluebird Diner 82 0 0 0 l Bob's Your Uncle 260 0 0 0 ] Bo -James 200 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 ] Bread Garden Market & Bakery 0 0 0 1 Brix 0 0 0 ] Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 8 2 0 206 24 46 0.1165049 0.223301 ] Brown Bottle, [The]- 289 0 0 0 ] Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar- 189 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ]Cactus Mexican Grill 0 0 0 ]Caliente Night Club 498 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 ]Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 ] Carlos O'Kelly's- 299 0 0 0 ]Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 0 0 0 ]Chipotle Mexican Grill 119 0 0 0 ]Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 ]Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ]Club Car, [The] 56 0- 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Wednesday, February 04, 2015 Page 1 of 5 C C C C C C C E E C C F C E C C E C E E C C C C E Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthlv Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA =Under 2�, PAULA Ratio -' Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Coach's Corner 160 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Colonial Lanes- 502 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87 2 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 DC's 120 10 10 0 186 56 14 0.3010753 0.0752688 Deadwood, [The] 218 3 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Devotay- 45 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 49 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 57 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 315 0 0 0 (Eden Lounge 2 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 IEl Banditos 25 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 104 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 161 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 205 0 0 0 Englert Theatre- 838 0 0 0 Fieldhouse 178 6 0 0 130 18 7 0.1384615 0.0538462 FilmScene 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ] First Avenue Club- 280 1 0 0 9 0 2 0 0.2222222 ] Formosa Asian Cuisine- 149 0 0 0 ] Gabes- 261 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 ] George's Buffet 75 5 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 ]Givanni's- 158 0 0 0 ]Godfather's Pizza 170 0 0 0 ]Graze- 49 0 0 0 ] Grizzly's South Side Pub 265 5 0 0 27 0 0, 0 0 Wednesday, February 04, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under 2-1 PAULA Ratio Ratio (prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90 7 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 IC Ugly'.s 72 8 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 India Cafe 100 0 0 0 Iron Hawk 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 71 0 0 0 Jobsite 120 5 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 Joe's Place 281 3 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 (Joseph's Steak House- 226 0 0 0 Linn Street Cafe 80 0 0 0 Los Portales 161 0 0 0 Martini's 200 7 20 1 80 33 9 0.4125 0.1125 Masala 46 0 0 0 Mekong Restaurant- 89 0 0 0 ]Micky's- 98 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 ] Mill Restaurant, [The]- 325 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ] Moose, [Loyal Order of] 476 0 0 0 ] Motley Cow Cafe 82 0 0 0 ] Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 ]Okoboji Grill- 222 0 0 0 ]Old Capitol Brew Works 294 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ]One -Twenty -Six 105 0 0 0 ]Orchard Green Restaurant- 200 0 0 0 ]Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87 0 0 0 ]Pagliai's Pizza- 113 0 0 0 ] Panchero's (Clinton St)- 62 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Wednesday, February 04, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA lhuler 21- PAULA ' ''Ratio C��! Ratio (Prev 12 Mar (Prev 12 Mo) Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)— 95 0 0 0 Pints 180 10 4 0 83 13 2 0.1566265 0.0240964 Pit Smokehouse 40 0 0 0 Pizza Arcade 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pizza Hut— 116 0 0 0 Players 114 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Quinton's Bar & Deli 149 3 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Rice Village 0 0 0 Ride 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ridge Pub 0 0 0 Riverside Theatre— 118 0 0 0 (Saloon— 120 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ISam's Pizza 174 0 0 0 ISanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132 0 0 0 (Shakespeare's 90 3 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 (Sheraton 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (Short's Burger & Shine— 56 0 0 0 ]Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 ]Sports Column 400 7 2 0 136 28 30 0.2058824 0.2205882 ]Studio 13 206 1 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 ]Summit. [The] 736 7 2 0 124 41 45 0.3306452 0.3629032 ]Sushi Popo 84 0 0 0 ]Szechuan House 0 0 0 ]Takanami Restaurant— 148 0 0 0 ]Taqueria Acapulco 0 0 0 ]TCB 250 2 0 0 80 1 0 0.0125 0 Wednesday, February 04, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Business Name Occupancy Monthly Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Thai Flavors 60 0 0 0 .4j g Thai Spice 91 0 0 0 Times Club @ Prairie Lights 60 0 0 0 Trumpet Blossom Cafe 94 0 0 0 Union Bar 854 6 1 0 153 14 50 0.0915033 0.3267974 VFW Post #3949 197 0 0 0 Vine Tavern, [The] 170 4 11 2 15 12 2 0.8 0.1333333 Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 154 0 0 0 Yacht Club, [Iowa City]- 206 2 0 0 26 0 1 0 0.0384615 ]Yen Ching 0 0 0 ]Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 0 0 0 130 52 3 1773 250 224 0.1410039 0.1263395 Totals Off Premise 0 0 4 0 0 143 0 0 Grand Totals 7 367 * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance :E2 C� `l Wednesday, February 04, 2015 Page 5 of 5 i~ .4j g Wednesday, February 04, 2015 Page 5 of 5 f 13 1 j 1 j r January 30, 2015 To our friends and partners, I am excited to announce that we are changing the name of MECCA SERVICES to Prelude Behavioral Services effective February 2, 2015. As you can tell from this letterhead, we have also updated our took; you will find a new Web site at www.preludeiowa.org, and will notice new signage at our offices. The decision to change our name was the result of agency -wide strategic planning that helped us understand that the name MECCA no longer adequately communicates what we do, or where we are headed as a behavioral health organization. We are Investing in this change to celebrate our successes over the last five decades and to position ourselves to set a new direction for how we respond to the changing needs of our clients, families, and communities. PRELUDE UFHAVIORA,.. SERVICES Since 2007 we have been proud to be affiliated with the Bernie Lorenz Recovery program in Des Moines. We will continue the Bernie Lorenz name to honor the inspiration behind this wonderful facility for women In recovery, and have updated materials to highlight the connection between Prelude and Bernie Lorenz. In similar fashion, we will continue use of the Synchrony name in Iowa City where our Employee Assistance Program (EAP), workplace training, and mental health services are provided. Staff members will temporarily continue to receive email through their current @meccaia.com address, but we encourage you to update any contacts you have with our organization to @preludeiowa.org. 34sl Eastuo Blvd We invite you to join us in our future endeavors and welcome questions you may Des Moines, IA 50317 have about this change. P 515 262.0349 f 515 266.6808 Sincerely, 430 Southgate Ave lovia City. 1A 52240 P 319 351.4357 F 319 351.4907 Ron Berg, CEO Prelude Behavioral rvices INF0@PRELUDE10V1A.0RG PRE1.UDE10WA.0116 02-05-15 * Previously distributed May 29,2014 (IP 3# Information Packet) IP13 CITY oiF k)wA CiTy 410 East w2waston sireel Iowa City. laws $2240-1426 131!) 556-5000 131" 156.5001 FAX www.kjov.orj City of Iowa City Staff Report: City/County Assessor Organizational Structure IMPETUS FOR REVIEW At the request of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, City staff conducted a review of the possible costs and benefits associated with eliminating the position of City Assessor and consolidating the assessing operations of the City and County. With retirements expected in the City and County Assessors Offices in the coming years, it is an opportune time to conduct this review. It should be noted that discussions on this topic have involved two distinct issues. First is the possibility of consolidating the two offices, as is the focus of this report. However, another related issue has been raised, which is the preferred assessment methodology employed by the respective offices. Assessment methodologies can be altered without an office combination. For commercial property, Iowa assessor's offices have recently been transitioning to the income approach. This approach uses net income information from rental properties to capitalize a value. The Iowa City Assessor's Office is currently collecting income and expense information and using the income approach for comparisons and for appeals with plans for wider use in the near future. The office plans to utilize the income approach for apartment property for the 2015 assessments. The Johnson County assessor has been using the income approach to value commercial property for the past few years. The information presented herein was compiled from reports generated by the Iowa City Assessor and the City of Ames. The study conducted by the City of Ames resulted in the continuation of separate assessor's offices. Both the Iowa City and Johnson County Assessors were extremely helpful in providing information. Input was also solicited from the cities of Mason City, which recently evaluated a merger, and Sioux City, which is in the process of beginning to study the topic. BACKGROUND Each county in the state has an assessor's office. Any city with a population greater than 10,000 may elect to have its own assessor that handles assessor's duties within that city's corporate limits. Currently eight cities in Iowa have a city assessor. The eight Iowa cities that have a city assessor are Ames, Cedar Rapids, Clinton, Davenport, Dubuque, Iowa City, Mason City, and Sioux City. Six of the nine largest cities in the state maintain a separate city assessor including Iowa City. There is no overlap in cost or services provided by the Iowa City and Johnson County Assessor's Offices. The City Assessor is funded through the property taxes of Iowa City residents and provides services exclusively to Iowa City. The County Assessor is funded through property taxes paid by County residents outside of Iowa City. The decision to maintain a city assessor or to consolidate the service with Johnson County will be solely at the discretion of the Iowa City City Council. OPTIONS EVALUATED Staff evaluated three options: maintaining the status quo of two separate offices; consolidating into the County Assessor's Office; or maintaining a City Assessor's Office, but contracting with the County to provide assessor duties within Iowa City. The third contract option was evaluated by the Iowa City City Attorney's Office and it appears that State code may not allow for such an arrangement, though to staff's knowledge it has never been tested. DECISION-MAKING CRITERIA It is staffs view that consolidation of assessor's offices should occur only if the following benefits are achieved: 1. Cost savings for Iowa City taxpayers 2. The same or better representation of Iowa City interests on governing and appeals boards 3. More equitable assessments among Iowa City property owners 4. More accurate assessments among Iowa City property owners S. Better customer service provided to Iowa City property owners These goals are consistent with the evaluation performed by the City of Ames. The City of Sioux City has identified many of the same issues, noting that the "main consideration for the review of the merger is saving for the taxpayer." ;41*1W1_NIZW One rationale for pursuing a consolidated assessor's office would be if cost savings can be realized for Iowa City taxpayers. The majority of any savings realized would likely be the result of the elimination of a supervisory position. Conducting this review at the present time is consistent with the City's practice of evaluating vacant or soon-to-be vacant positions in order to implement reductions in staffing primarily through attrition. Additional cost savings could potentially be realized through sharing computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) and web software. The FY2013-14 County Assessor levy rate for County residents is $0.2647 per $1,000 of taxable valuation. The City Assessor rate for the same fiscal year is $0.2587 per $1,000 of taxable valuation. Over the ten years covering fiscal years 2005 through 2014 the Iowa City Assessor's tax rate has averaged $0.2440 while Johnson County Assessor's average has been $0.3638. FY2014-15 tentative tax rates will be approximately $0.23 and $0.31, respectively. The following table presents the levy rates for each assessor's office over the last ten years. County Assessor Bill Greazel does note the following influence on the difference between the two levy rates when asked about factors explaining the differential: The major factor influencing my levy rate is the extensive use of TIF on the commercial properties in Coralville, North Liberty, and residential in Tiffin. I cannot levy against these properties but must value and defend those values in court. Coralville does contribute $50,000 per year for litigation costs. The assessed value of TIF real estate in my jurisdiction is $967 million, in the Iowa City office it is $21 million. In 2017 $35 million will sunset, in 2018 $470 million will sunset. This will bring the levies closer together. The County Assessor also states that after a consolidation, he "would not expect the levy rate to change in a way that the average taxpayer would notice." City Assessor Dennis Baldridge notes the following: FY2013-14 budgets are $853,856 for Iowa City and $1,211,570 for Johnson County, and taxable valuations are $3.021 billion and $3.093 billion. If budgets were combined, the levies would be effectively averaged and the resulting levy would probably fall somewhere between the two. The assessor's levy could increase for Iowa City property owners and decrease forJohnson County property owners outside Iowa City. Mr. Baldridge also notes that significant individual savings by property owners would require a significant reduction in total expenses, as the tax impact of the difference between the two offices' respective FY2014-15 levy rates will be approximately $8 for a $200,000 residential property. That being said, at this point it would not be feasible to develop a budget for combining the two offices with any precision. Further, all cost savings would not be immediate, as there would be some upfront costs associated with consolidation. Start-up costs could include converting both offices to the same computer systems, possible office remodeling, equipment and supply costs, and potential costs in equalizing salaries and benefits. The information below was presented in the Ames study. It compares the pre- and post- consolidation expenses for assessor's offices in Iowa that have consolidated their operations. Ames staff cautions that FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 v Year Average Iowa city 0.23693 0.23765 0.23164 0.26077 0.24980 0.23848 0.23472 0.24632 0.24453 0.25873 0.243957 Assessor Johnson County 0.33885 0.32458 0.35393 0.35333 0.47873 0.37928 0.43792 0.37289 0.33390 0.26472 0.363813 Assessor County Assessor Bill Greazel does note the following influence on the difference between the two levy rates when asked about factors explaining the differential: The major factor influencing my levy rate is the extensive use of TIF on the commercial properties in Coralville, North Liberty, and residential in Tiffin. I cannot levy against these properties but must value and defend those values in court. Coralville does contribute $50,000 per year for litigation costs. The assessed value of TIF real estate in my jurisdiction is $967 million, in the Iowa City office it is $21 million. In 2017 $35 million will sunset, in 2018 $470 million will sunset. This will bring the levies closer together. The County Assessor also states that after a consolidation, he "would not expect the levy rate to change in a way that the average taxpayer would notice." City Assessor Dennis Baldridge notes the following: FY2013-14 budgets are $853,856 for Iowa City and $1,211,570 for Johnson County, and taxable valuations are $3.021 billion and $3.093 billion. If budgets were combined, the levies would be effectively averaged and the resulting levy would probably fall somewhere between the two. The assessor's levy could increase for Iowa City property owners and decrease forJohnson County property owners outside Iowa City. Mr. Baldridge also notes that significant individual savings by property owners would require a significant reduction in total expenses, as the tax impact of the difference between the two offices' respective FY2014-15 levy rates will be approximately $8 for a $200,000 residential property. That being said, at this point it would not be feasible to develop a budget for combining the two offices with any precision. Further, all cost savings would not be immediate, as there would be some upfront costs associated with consolidation. Start-up costs could include converting both offices to the same computer systems, possible office remodeling, equipment and supply costs, and potential costs in equalizing salaries and benefits. The information below was presented in the Ames study. It compares the pre- and post- consolidation expenses for assessor's offices in Iowa that have consolidated their operations. Ames staff cautions that there are many factors that influence each office's finances, and thus drawing conclusions from this data may be problematic. City of Marshalltown/Marshall County Consolidated 1999 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 County $251,969 $261,754 $444,823 $409,089 $426,640 $441,116 City $175,822 $183.531 ------ ------------- ----------- -------- Total $427,791 $445,285 $444,823 $409,089 $426,640 $441,116 City of Des Moines/Polk County Consolidated 1997 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 County $1,385,537 $1,347,958 $2,933,881 $3,224,338 $3,290,358 City $1,649,526 $1,674,222 Total $3,035,063 $3,022,180 $2,933,881 $3,224,338 $3,290,358 City of Fort Dodge/Webster County Consolidated 1992 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 County $117,952 $130,448 $134,380 $206,822 $204,732 City $119,994 $128,179 $131,310 Total $237,946 $258,627 $265,690 $206,822 $204,732 City of Newton/Jasper County Consolidated 1991 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 County $99,750 $90,777 $98,202 $110,478 $159,055 $169,804 $272,605 $192,972 $201,412 City $77,879 $63,537 $69,656 $74,741 $81,639 $72,700 Total $177,629 $154,314 $167,858 $185,219 $240,694 $242,504 $272,605 $192,972 $201,412 City of Waterloo/Black Hawk County Consolidated 1987 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 County $207,340 $233,817 $203,130 $376,861 $343,540 $547,640 $513,670 City $260,094 $238,348 $238,116 Total $467,434 $472,165 $441,246 $376,861 $343,540 $547,640 $513,670 4 Ultimately, it appears that any expected cost savings for Iowa City taxpayers from consolidation would be uncertain at best. Even if the total expenses of the two offices were to diminish, the reduction may not be significant enough to decrease the assessor levy for Iowa City taxpayers. The Iowa City Assessor's Conference Board, currently composed of the Iowa City City Council, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, and the board of the Iowa City Community School District, makes important policy decisions that impact the financing and service delivery of the assessor's office. The city government has one vote, the county government has one vote, and the school district has one vote. The elimination of the City Assessor's Office would result in a lessening of the City's impact on the Johnson County Conference Board where the one city government vote would be determined by the majority vote of the twelve city governments in the County. The Board of Review is an important body as well in the assessing process. This body is empowered to adjudicate appeals from property owners regarding assessments made by an assessor. It is crucial that the members of this body have specialized knowledge of the Iowa City market. Members need only be residents of the assessor jurisdiction; therefore there is no guarantee that any Iowa City property owners, who represent a little over half of the County's population, would be represented on the County's Board of Review. Currently, the Johnson County Board of Review has three members, one of which must be a farmer. The Iowa City Attorney's Office represents the Iowa City Assessor's Office and Board of Review in all litigation dealing with assessments. They provide legal advice and represent the assessor's office in assessment appeals to district court and to the state appeal board. If the assessor's offices were combined, those duties would fall to the Johnson County Attorney's Office EQUITY AND ACCURACY OF ASSESSMENTS A variety of tools are available to judge both the accuracy and the equity of Assessors' property assessments. These include equalization orders, the coefficient of dispersion, median ratios, and the price -related differential or regression index. These measures are available for residential and commercial properties, but not for industrial properties. Historical information using these measures for Iowa City and Johnson County is presented in this section. Both the Iowa City Assessor's Office and the Johnson County Assessor's Office have produced excellent statistics for many years. While these measures are presented for both residential and commercial assessments, they are best utilized for residential sales because there are enough transactions to be statistically significant. Using these measures for residential properties assessed at over $800,000 can also be problematic, as there are not enough sales in that price range to constitute a dependable sample size. Median Ratios: The preferred measure of central tendency in assessment ratios is the median rather than the mean because the mean tends to be unduly influenced by high or low ratios. The ratios measure selling prices in the current year against assessments set in the previous year, so if the assessments are accurate, the result shows whether selling prices are going up or down. The Iowa Department of Revenue uses the median assessment to determine equalization orders in odd - numbered years. If, after assessments have been set by the local assessor, the median ratio is higher than 105% or lower than 95%, the state will issue an equalization order. Assessors use median ratios to adjust values to current market condition and can avoid equalization orders by making changes locally rather than allowing the state to do it for them. Median ratios for the Iowa City and Johnson County assessors' offices have traditionally been very good. Iowa City has avoided residential and commercial equalization orders for at least the last twenty years and Johnson County has a similar record. Residential Median Ratio 98 9.5 9] 96.5 96 95.5 95 94 S 94 2009 2010 2011 2012 a owa City 9].12 95.92 11.5] 96.55 �loh nson Cowty 95.42 96.37 91.05 95.81 Equalization orders are mandated for classes of property across an entire jurisdiction. They are based upon sales ratios, which compare assessments to selling prices. Equalization orders are issued biannually by the Iowa Department of Revenue when assessors have not done a close enough job of approximating true market value for respective classes of property. Of the five equalization adjustments issued over the most recent ten-year period, no equalization orders were issued for residential or commercial properties assessed by the Iowa City or Johnson County Assessor's Offices. Three orders were received for agricultural property by the Iowa City Assessor and two by Johnson County. Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is a measure of assessment uniformity based upon the degree to which sales ratios for individual properties vary from the median ratio. The higher the COD, the greater is the degree of inequality in assessments within a given class of property. The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) has established standards for COD. A score beyond those standards indicates the existence of an inequitable assessment pattern for that given class of real estate, provided that a sufficient number of sales took place within the jurisdiction. The State of Iowa has likewise adopted 11 Commercial Median Ratio 100 98 96 94 92 911 88 86 84 2009 2010 2011 2012 • Iowa City 89.21 9J] 90.83 93.51 ■Joh on County 99.03 93.5 98.51 92.42 Equalization orders are mandated for classes of property across an entire jurisdiction. They are based upon sales ratios, which compare assessments to selling prices. Equalization orders are issued biannually by the Iowa Department of Revenue when assessors have not done a close enough job of approximating true market value for respective classes of property. Of the five equalization adjustments issued over the most recent ten-year period, no equalization orders were issued for residential or commercial properties assessed by the Iowa City or Johnson County Assessor's Offices. Three orders were received for agricultural property by the Iowa City Assessor and two by Johnson County. Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is a measure of assessment uniformity based upon the degree to which sales ratios for individual properties vary from the median ratio. The higher the COD, the greater is the degree of inequality in assessments within a given class of property. The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) has established standards for COD. A score beyond those standards indicates the existence of an inequitable assessment pattern for that given class of real estate, provided that a sufficient number of sales took place within the jurisdiction. The State of Iowa has likewise adopted 11 standards for COD, but those standards are more liberal. That likely reflects the variety of properties and non -urbanized nature of the state. The charts below show coefficient of dispersion data for Iowa City and Johnson County over the last four years. There is virtually no difference in residential CODs between the Iowa City Assessor's statistics and those of the Johnson County Assessor. Both are excellent and rank at the top among all Iowa assessors. Both offices perform well below the state median for both residential and commercial CODs. Between 2009 and 2012, both the Iowa City and Johnson County Assessors Offices were among the best three offices in the state in terms of residential coefficient of dispersion. In both 2011 and 2012 they were ranked first and second in the state, with the Iowa City office first in 2011 and the Johnson County office first in 2012. While residential CODs for the Johnson County and Iowa City offices have both been below 10% each of the last four years, the statewide median has been above 20%. By this measure, both offices are doing an excellent job of ensuring uniformity of assessments. Commercial CODs are normally much higher than residential CODs, mostly because of the low number of commercial sales, as noted above. Both jurisdictions normally have several hundred residential sales per year, while commercial sales number less than fifty per year. Therefore commercial CODs tend to be more erratic and less reliable as an indicator of the quality of assessments as can be seen by the highs and lows in the commercial CODs below. The IAAO suggests commercial COD standards between five percent and twenty percent. Residential COD 25 20 15 10 5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 ■ Iowa City 8.29 9.99 7.32 8.02 ■Johnson County 7.07 9.83 8.46 7.14 ■ State Median 20.01 23.61 20.46 21.09 Between 2009 and 2012, both the Iowa City and Johnson County Assessors Offices were among the best three offices in the state in terms of residential coefficient of dispersion. In both 2011 and 2012 they were ranked first and second in the state, with the Iowa City office first in 2011 and the Johnson County office first in 2012. While residential CODs for the Johnson County and Iowa City offices have both been below 10% each of the last four years, the statewide median has been above 20%. By this measure, both offices are doing an excellent job of ensuring uniformity of assessments. Commercial CODs are normally much higher than residential CODs, mostly because of the low number of commercial sales, as noted above. Both jurisdictions normally have several hundred residential sales per year, while commercial sales number less than fifty per year. Therefore commercial CODs tend to be more erratic and less reliable as an indicator of the quality of assessments as can be seen by the highs and lows in the commercial CODs below. The IAAO suggests commercial COD standards between five percent and twenty percent. Commercial CODs for both Iowa City and Johnson County are somewhat erratic because of the low number sales of commercial property and the unpredictable nature of those sales. Iowa City especially has seen a noticeable reduction in the number of apartment sales in recent years with the increased practice of converting apartment buildings to condominiums and residential cooperatives. That being said, both offices have typically outperformed the statewide median in the data presented above. The Price -Related Differential (PRD) or Regression Index is another measure of assessment equality. Property appraisals can sometimes result in unequal tax burdens between high and low properties within the same property group. The price -related differential (PRD) is a statistic for measuring assessment regressivity or progressivity. PRD is the mean ratio divided by the weighted mean ratio. Since the weighted mean utilizes selling prices and assessed values, the PRD gives an indication of fairness of values. A PRD above 1.00 indicates that lower valued properties are being treated unfairly in comparison to higher valued properties. In other words, it would suggest that high value properties are under -assessed in relation to the low value properties which would indicate regressivity. A PRD below 1.00 indicates the opposite, higher values are being treated unfairly by being over -assessed in relation to the low value properties. IAAO recommends PRDs in the range of 98% to 103%. The range is not centered on 100% because there is an upward mathematical bias to the PRD. Both regressive and progressive PRD's can result from misclassification, appraisal techniques or systematic problems in appraisal schedules. Commercial COD 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 ■ Iowa City 13.6 12.82 27.99 12.84 NJ ohnson County 14.02 37.37 11.96 20.59 ■ State Median 31.72 23.64 30.89 25.85 Commercial CODs for both Iowa City and Johnson County are somewhat erratic because of the low number sales of commercial property and the unpredictable nature of those sales. Iowa City especially has seen a noticeable reduction in the number of apartment sales in recent years with the increased practice of converting apartment buildings to condominiums and residential cooperatives. That being said, both offices have typically outperformed the statewide median in the data presented above. The Price -Related Differential (PRD) or Regression Index is another measure of assessment equality. Property appraisals can sometimes result in unequal tax burdens between high and low properties within the same property group. The price -related differential (PRD) is a statistic for measuring assessment regressivity or progressivity. PRD is the mean ratio divided by the weighted mean ratio. Since the weighted mean utilizes selling prices and assessed values, the PRD gives an indication of fairness of values. A PRD above 1.00 indicates that lower valued properties are being treated unfairly in comparison to higher valued properties. In other words, it would suggest that high value properties are under -assessed in relation to the low value properties which would indicate regressivity. A PRD below 1.00 indicates the opposite, higher values are being treated unfairly by being over -assessed in relation to the low value properties. IAAO recommends PRDs in the range of 98% to 103%. The range is not centered on 100% because there is an upward mathematical bias to the PRD. Both regressive and progressive PRD's can result from misclassification, appraisal techniques or systematic problems in appraisal schedules. Again, both offices perform very well in this measure. Both offices ranked in the top eight of all offices statewide in residential PRDs in each of the last four years with data available. Residential PRDs 140.00 112.00 100.00 110.00 60.00 108.00 20.00 106.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 104.00 0 Iowa City 108.10 107.47 102.00 129.60 100.00 98.63 96.90 91.68 98.00 96.00 94.00 92.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 ■ Iowa City 101.20 101.95 98.10 101.50 ■Johnson County 101.00 102.08 101.50 101.20 ■ State Median 105.60 109.57 108.40 108.00 Again, both offices perform very well in this measure. Both offices ranked in the top eight of all offices statewide in residential PRDs in each of the last four years with data available. Commercial PRDs appear to be much more erratic than residential PRDs because of the extremely low number of sales. IAAO standards recommend at least thirty sales. Statewide medians are unavailable for commercial PRDs. In summary, available historical data provides the following insights and comparisons regarding relative accuracy and equity of assessments with and without consolidation: �; Commerical PRDs 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 0 Iowa City 108.10 107.47 115.80 129.60 ■ Johnson County 98.63 96.90 91.68 106.30 Commercial PRDs appear to be much more erratic than residential PRDs because of the extremely low number of sales. IAAO standards recommend at least thirty sales. Statewide medians are unavailable for commercial PRDs. In summary, available historical data provides the following insights and comparisons regarding relative accuracy and equity of assessments with and without consolidation: �; • Over the last ten years, residential and commercial property classes in Iowa City and Johnson County received no state equalization orders. Both offices are performing very well on this measure. • Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) data is also very favorable for both offices. Iowa City and Johnson County have both been at the top of statewide rankings for several years. • The attached Ames, Iowa study stated that Coefficient of Dispersion data for five other counties where the City Assessor's Office was eliminated showed only limited evidence that accuracy and equity for the major cities were improved after consolidation. In four of five cases the commercial COD's were significantly worse after consolidation. • Price Related Differential data indicates that PRD's for both jurisdictions are generally within the IAAO standard. How a professional position can be eliminated with no impact to Iowa City property owners is a logical question. One way that this can be achieved is by improving efficiency and the quality of customer interactions through the use of technology. The County Assessor's Office is largely a paperless office, relying on its online presence to generate digital applications for homesteads, business tax credit applications etc. This helps to receive and store the data efficiently and provides additional convenience to the customer. Appraisers are equipped with tablet collection devices to eliminate the generation and storage of paper records. The Iowa City office relies more on paper forms. This works well for the Iowa City Assessor staff as they are working in proximity to their office and make frequent trips to their workstations. County Assessor duties exist outside of Iowa City and therefore staff have a greater need for mobile communication as they are at their office workstations less frequently. Ina consolidated office, the distribution of assessment information over the web would be limited to one site instead of two, using Beacon software. As with assessment methodology, customer service-oriented process improvements and technology upgrades can be implemented with or without consolidated offices. Both assessors' offices utilize a CAMA system for valuations. Iowa City uses VCS from Vanguard Appraisals, Inc. for residential, commercial and industrial property. Vanguard is an Iowa company, whose CAMA system is used by over ninety percent of Iowa assessors. Johnson County uses VCS for commercial and industrial property and ProVal, a national company, for residential property. Combining offices may provide some customer service benefit in terms of uniformity of processes and self-service applications. However, this migration to a common residential appraisal software would entail some upfront costs and potential short-term effects on service delivery as the conversion would also consume staff time. Some of the cities that have evaluated consolidating assessor offices have the additional service delivery challenge of a county seat located in a city separate from the city with an independent assessor's office. Such was the case with the Ames evaluation; the city had to weigh the effect consolidation to a single office in the Story County seat of Nevada would have on customers in Ames. Ames also evaluated the possibility of a single assessor operating out of two offices, one in Ames and one in Nevada. A potential 10 Iowa City/Johnson County consolidated office would not have this additional challenge, as both offices currently operate out of the Johnson County administration building on South Dubuque Street. CONCLUSION Cost savings: It seems intuitive that the consolidation of two offices providing like services and the elimination of a professional position would entail long-term cost savings. However, it appears that any potential cost savings to Iowa City taxpayers would be modest at best and would not be immediately realized. In fact, there would likely be upfront costs to the conversion of software systems and the merging of personnel structures. While the two assessor levies will likely come closer together as large TIF districts elsewhere in the County sunset in the coming years, in immediate terms the assessor levy would potentially increase for Iowa City property tax payers as the current Iowa City Assessor levy is effectively averaged with the somewhat higher County Assessor levy. The levy could increase for Iowa City property owners and decrease for Johnson County property owners. Representation: Iowa City will necessarily lose Conference Board and Board of Review representation if the two offices are merged. Furthermore, the Iowa City City Attorney would no longer represent the City in litigation dealing with assessments. Legal guidance and representation would be provided by the County Attorney's Office. Equity and Accuracy of Assessments: Both offices have an excellent track record in the metrics that evaluate the equity and accuracy of assessments. It would be expected that assessments Iowa City properties would continue to perform well in these measures with or without office consolidation. Additionally, assessment methodology or performance to these metrics can be addressed independent of an office merger. Customer Service: It would be expected that customers would continue to enjoy current customer service levels with or without a separate City Assessors office. As with cost savings, there may be long- term marginal benefits to be realized that may come at a short-term cost of staff time diverted from service delivery. Potential negative customer service effects of office consolidation are minimal given that both offices currently operate out of the same building. Further, even in the event that separate offices are maintained, both offices could be asked to use the same policies, procedures, and forms to the extent possible to facilitate positive and consistent customer service interactions. The recent review conducted by the City of Mason City resulted in the continuation of separate offices, as did the review conducted by the City of Ames. Mason City staff noted that, When we went through the process of considering the consolidation of the two offices we decided not to consolidate for a couple of key reasons. [The] first reason was the costs of consolidation and keeping separate assessors were going to be very similar. The county assessor was going to have to hire staff and convert our records to his system which was going to be costly and time consuming. The second reason was loss of control in the operation of the assessor's office. We would be one of many cities in the county making decisions on these types of matters versus only dealing with the county and school. 11 In summary it came down to cost to the taxpayers was going to be less with keeping the City Assessor and we maintained better control of this aspect of our government. City staff recommend maintaining a separate City Assessor's Office while continuing to transition to the income approach for commercial assessments within Iowa City. While the City is confident that the equity and accuracy of assessments and customer service would continue to be exemplary under either organizational structure, the uncertain cost savings of a transition coupled with the certainty of reduced representation make it unlikelythat a consolidation would be of net benefit to the taxpayers of Iowa City. Attachments 1. Statistical Calculation Definitions for Mass Appraisal 2. Defining and Discussing the Ratios that are Important to Assessors 3. Coefficient of Dispersion: Hypothetical Examples of How to Calculate the Coefficient of Dispersion and the Effects on the Individual Taxpayer 4. Coefficient of Dispersion for Jurisdictions in Iowa that Have Combined Assessor's Offices 5. Davenport City And Scott County Assessor Offices Draft Consolidation Plan 12 ATTACHMENT 1 Statistical Calculation Definitions for Mass Appraisal Iowa Department of Revenue 13 Statistical Calculation Definitions for Mass Appraisal INDIVIDUAL Obtained by dividing the total assessed value by the sale price of ASSESSMENT the individual property. SALES RATIO: MEAN RATIO: Obtained by dividing the total of individual ratios for a class of realty by the number of ratios. MEDIAN RATIO: The ratio located midway between the highest ratio and the lowest ratio when individual ratios for a class of realty are ranked in ascending or descending order. The median ratio is most frequently used to determine the level of assessment for a given class of real estate. WEIGHTED RATIO: The ratio produced by dividing the total assessed value of all sales in a group by the total consideration of those sales. STANDARD The standard deviation is the degree of difference between the DEVIATION: mean and any single data. The standard deviation is arrived at by calculating the mean of a set of data, subtracting each individual data item and squaring the resultant value. The average of these new values (the variance) is divided by the number of values minus 1. The square root of this number is the standard deviation. COEFFICIENT OF Technically defined as the standard deviation divided by the mean, VARIATION times 100; a high Coefficient of Variance (COV) suggests greater (VARIANCE): variety in individual ratios. The closer the COV is to 0, the more stable the sales group (provided there are a sufficient number of sales). Whatever the COV percentage is, given a normal distribution, it represents the range within predictability where 68% of the sales lie. For example, if the mean is .80 and the COV is 25.0, then 68% of the ratios will lie between .60 and 1.00 (.80 - [.25 x .80]) The COV can be a good measure of uniformity. COEFFICIENT OF The Coefficient of Dispersion is calculated by first identifying the DISPERSION: difference between each individual sales ratio and the median ratio. These differences are added (without reference to negative or positive numbers) and divided by the total number of sales in the group (this is the Average Deviation). Divide the Average Deviation by the Median Ratio and multiply this result by 100. the lower the Coefficient of Dispersion, the more uniform are the assessments. A high Coefficient of Dispersion suggests a lack of equality and uniformity among individual assessments. Iowa Department of Revenue — Property Tax Division 1 04/20/09 14 Statistical Calculation Definitions for Mass Appraisal PRICE -RELATED The Price -Related Differential (PRD) is a statistic for measuring the DIFFERENTIAL: regressivity or progressivity of assessment. It is calculated by dividing the mean ratio by the weighted ratio. Generally, PRDs have an upward bias, as well as the sample mean, with the weighted mean not exhibiting an upward bias except where sample size is small. The upward bias originates from the numerator in the calculation and can exhibit regressivity when the condition of assessment time lags exists. This bias should be offset by a reasonable margin for sampling error in interpretation. Except for small sample size, PRDs should range between .98 and 1.03. Progressivity is indicated by a lower PRD and, conversely, regressivity is indicated by a higher PRD. Iowa Department of Revenue — Property Tax Division 2 04/20/09 15 ATTACHMENT 2 Defining and Discussing the Ratios that are Important to Assessors City of Ames 2005 staff report eA Sales Ratio Definition: The ratio of an appraised or assessed value to the sale or adjusted sale price. (Property Appraisal otd Assessment Administration, The International Association of Assessing Dniccrs, 1990.) Example: Assessed Value = $140,700 = 0.97 = 97% Sale Price $145,000 Discussion: The sales ratio is the basic unit of measurement used to analyze appraisal uniformity as it relates to fair and equitable assessments. It can be used to examine individual equity as well as a basic statistic in analyzing uniformity of assessments in groups or categories of properties. Median Ratio Definition: The ratio located midway between the highest ratio and the lowest ratio when individual ratios for a class of realty are ranked in ascending or descending order. The median ratio is most frequently used to determine the level of assessment for a given class of real estate. (Summary of Real Estate Assessment Sales Ratio Study, compiled by Iowa Depaninent of Revenue and Finmtx.) Discussion: As indicated by the definition, the median ratio is the middle, or midpoint, ratio when the ratios are arrayed in order of magnitude_ When you have an even number of sales, the median is computed as the average of the two middle ratios. The median divides the ratios into two equal groups and is not greatly impacted by extreme ratios. The median has several advantages in ratio studies. It is easy to compute and interpret. It discounts the effects of data errors unlike other measures of central tendency. The disadvantage of the median is that is that it gives no weight to legitimate outliers. There are outliers that are valid sales that need to be considered in a ratio study as the following example demonstrates. Sale Number Assessed Value Sale Price Sales Ratio Outlier 1 $375,000 $150,000 2.50 2 $440,800 $190,000 2.32 3 $480,000 $250,000 1.92 4 $470,400 $320,000 1.72 Median 5 $510,000 $500,000 1.02 6 $1,150,000 $1,250,000 0.92 7 $1,980,000 1 $2,750,000 0.72 8 $3,100,000 1 $5,000,000 0.62 Outlier 9 $3,250,000 1 $6,500,000 1 0.50 The example brings up two more points: First of all, even if you were to determine the outliers in the above array of sales were not valid sales, the resulting coefficient of dispersion would indicate a lack of equity and uniformity in the assessments. This point will be demonstrated in our discussion of the coefficient of dispersion. The second issue that the example displays is that what would appear to be a good median ratio does not necessarily mean good assessments. 17 Coefficient of Dispersion Definition- A measure of assessment uniformity based upon the degree to which individual ratios vary from the median ratio. The higher the coefficient of dispersion, the greater is the degree of inequality in assessments within a given class of property. In general, a coefficient of dispersion in excess of I.A.A.O. standards indicates the existence of an inequitable assessment pattern for that particular class of real estate, provided a sufficient number of sales exist. (Property Appraisal and Assessmenl Adminisrralion, The International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990.) Discussion: The coefficient of dispersion (COD) is the most widely used measure of uniformity in ratio studies_ The COD provides a measure of appraisal uniformity and equity that is independent of the level of assessment and permits direct comparisons between groups of properties. The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) recommends that the COD for residential property be within the range of 0 to 15. The IAAO's range for a commercial COD is 0 to 20. The only way to achieve a COD within a range of 0 to 15 is to actively study the sales of residential properties in your jurisdiction, conduct periodic interior inspections and apply the sales information to accurate assessment information. As you may have noticed when you were looking through the hypothetical examples, an assessment jurisdiction with a reasonable median ratio can have an unacceptable COD. Equalization orders do not improve the uniformity or equity of the assessments within an assessment jurisdiction. In some instances, equalization orders can make the COD worse by increasing the total absolute of the sales ratio. The COD is a valuable tool for indicating if individual property" owners are paying too little or too much in property taxes. In addition, the COD can indicate if a particular group of properties arc paying a disproportionate share of property taxes. An example of this would be if high value properties were under -assessed. This could have a negative effect on the tax base for the entire assessment jurisdiction. As mentioned before, equalization orders would not correct this problem. In summary, the COD is a valuable indicator to assist the assessment jurisdiction in developing fair and accurate assessments. This benefits both the individual taxpayer and the taxing jurisdiction. \/�MiM Definition: Obtained by dividing the total of individual ratios for a class of realty by the number of ratios. The mean ratio is used in computing the regression index. (Summary of Real Fesiate Assessment Sales Rollo Study, compiled by Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance.) Discussion: When the sales data has been properly obtained, screened and processed the mean provides a valuable measure of appraisal level. 18 Weighted Mean Ratio Definition: The ratio produced by dividing the total assessed value of all sales in a class of realty by the total consideration of those sales. The weighted ratio is used in computing the regression index. (Summney gjReal £slate Assessment Soles Ratio Study, compiled by Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance_) Discussion: The weighted mean ratio weights each ratio in proportion to its sale price. The mean and median give equal weight to each sale price. The weighting feature of the weighted mean makes it the appropriate measure of central tendency for estimating the total dollar value of a population of parcels. The weighted mean is required in the calculation of the price related differential. Price -Related Differential (Regression Index) Definition: The mean divided by the weighted mean. The statistic has a slight bias upward. Price - related differentials above 1.03 tend to indicate assessment regressivity, price -related differentials below 0.98 tend to indicate assessment progressivity. (Property Appmiwl anal Asmssmenl Administration, The Intemmional Axsnciation of Avsoscing Otticus, 1990.) Discussion: Property appraisals can sometimes result in unequal tax burdens between high and low properties in the same property group. The price -related differential (PRD) is a statistic for measuring assessment regressivity or progressivity. If the PRD is greater than 1.00, it would suggest high value properties are underassessed in relation to the low value properties which would indicate regressivity. If the PRD is less than 1.00, it would indicate that the high value properties are overassessed in relation to the low value properties. The International Association of Assessing Officers recommends a PRD between 0.98 and 1.03. Both regressive and progressive PRDs can result from misclassification, appraisal techniques or systematic problems in appraisal schedules. Comparing Median, Mean, Weighted Mean Ratios and Price -Related Differential Median: Weighted Mean: Sale Number Assessed Value Sale Price Sale Ratio 1 $ 171,000 $ 190,000 0.90 2 $ 227,500 $ 250,000 0.91 3 $ 294,400 $ 320,000 092 4 $ 490,000 $ 500,000 0.98 5 $1,300,000 $1,250,000 1.04 6 $2,887,500 $2,750,000 1.05 7$5,300,000 $S,OOQ 000 1.06 Column Totals $10,670,40 $10,260,000 6.86 0.98 $10,670A00 = 1.04 $10,260,000 Mean: 6.86 = 0.98 7 Price -related Differential: 0.98 = 94.2 . assessment progressivity 1.04 ATTACHMENT 3 Coefficient of Dispersion: Hypothetical Examples of How to Calculate the Coefficient of Dispersion and the Effects on the Individual Taxpayer City of Ames 2005 staff report K11 21 N T "i go v o M 0 75 y O 0 O 0 O 0 O Q O O d O p Q O � L 0 0 0 C9 O O b d o E o --- a+ la W o— y G Q d M vl Q N V� p1 00 Vl � N Q T h N 00 � O 'J O 9 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 k in 6 4 to 69 69 b9 GNH cM+/ G�r3 � G c m U9 69 i/l � fn iff � a+ A ° N d z o 21 N T "i go v o M 0 � V G L 0 0 0 C9 O O b d o E a+ o— y � O J IL b 0 0 0 b O b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 k in 6 +Mh N_ V� r N 9�0ry � � U9 69 i/l 69 fn iff � ° N d d �.s vs rA rig vNih� ° F L C N � Zv 21 N T "i go v o M 0 W [a] d W a ✓� d0 K5 n O N 43 c9 u9 u9 u9 u9 u9 rL Y u L q G7 0 0 V d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' rrrhhhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L O. Ol P ,� 0000000 �O M M M M M M M a, 0000004 0 0 0 4 4 4 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a T d Y v x w F � x � 7 a�oananv dm Lzi m Ca�naQoolo x a0 01 00 09 ri 7 [s7 F N vl � b M �O N a iiF W —nn�o MOM C u L N N N N N N N no Y Q, O, O+ Q� N 7 7 7 7 7 C C L O �j �"'rvrvnrrvrvh N V V V V V V d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O x rv=rncr-er a } 0 w 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N �D O N N h iD � 69 b9 b9 b9 b9 b9 fA N d d a z [a] PPA M d W a ✓� d0 K5 n O V V i D 0 0 E a a o 0 0 0 0 ,4 rrrrrrr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L O. Ol P 0000000 �O M M M M M M M m 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T d x F x � 7 � m a�oananv d m Ca�naQoolo x N ri 7 [s7 F N vl � b M �O N a W C L N N N N N N N Q, O, O+ Q� N 7 7 7 7 7 C C O �i it '� rv=rncr-er y fA £A fA fA fA Vi to 4 z PPA M PR] ri I 1+i R V1 co a M o N 0 0 o O 0 .Mv U 'a W 0 o h O ? G C ^p � � a •u C � d rOl N ty � GO N V M o � 7 o c a GO 0. O+ Ot Oi Oi v � N O d w d w � O YN r C C R ' a CLm a ❑ o � y > > E V] O a u IIc Y c w •Y °�' O ..i = W C w ❑ 4 0 o O -��- y•L pL, o00 0o b o.S �.^ s y A � aLi F O® C C C C a a D+ h N O a L G'O 4 yQj G O ;,uo.Vi%VdV t,1 in ca U ❑ LU � vQ N rfl Fn U b9 PR] ri I 1+i R V1 a y C a M o N 0 0 o O 0 .Mv 0 oo N 0 h V 0 o h O 0 d Yt b R GO O � M o � 7 0. O+ Ot Oi Oi O O O d w w � a fA � a u 0 6 O G 4 0 0 O -��- y•L pL, o00 0o b o.S �.^ 16 C O® C C C C a a D+ h N O of vl O t,1 in � � rfl Fn us b9 ss 0 O O O O O O O a O O O O b b O O d �F y ri tq ce +,nom O vNi O L cs u c+n cs cs as w C � da q PR] ri I 1+i R V1 u C o y Ea d 0 a M o N 0 0 o O 0 .Mv 0 oo N 0 h V 0 o h O a Yt b R GO O � M by Ul ": d a a u 0 6 O 4 0 0 O -��- pL, 2 S o G ^ N M V1 N h O t,1 in � � rfl Fn us b9 ss e Q O O O O b b O O y m R O Vi O N O cs u c+n cs cs as w L N � da q PR] ri I 1+i R V1 N d a+s� h Krnoo v��rcr ynih 69 69 h"e+i df a6 r N h � ^ M O1 O to fA Vi fA 69 fA fA ci V L N_ O a u O DY O UU a 0 Q. 0 d 0 O 0 O g Q� 0 0 01 0 U 0 T 0 E C' M p M p C' p M 0 M o M p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a� m a 0 0 0 0 0 a w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dF y C 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M O M 0 X 0 0 0 o C 0 0 � a Q y a a � a, d 't" x a {� a a g o a o a X >'0000 FO v� 700.nO 000 ^ r Q 4 O r p d r N a• a O a0 O 0 N N V M� t1 w A �+odoaapa x o 0 0 0 gq 0 0 OO r 0 �l O N O E d9 b969 b9 �9 bM9 b�9 } vi M N y a m a z m m N 24 U Kv�-rn a+s� h 1 69 69 d9 df f5 &9 V3 u Q O +n 1 O DY O UU a 0 Q. 0 d 0 O 0 O g Q� 0 0 01 0 U 0 T 0 a+ C' M p M p C' p M 0 M o M p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a� m X dF X � x a w d P W a a g o a o a >'0000 FO v� 700.nO 000 ^ r Q 4 O r p d r N a• a O a0 O a N N V M� t1 a m m E 'L 24 U ATTACHMENT 4 Coefficient of Dispersion for Jurisdictions in Iowa that Have Combined Assessor's Offices Important Notes • A COD of 0.00 occurs when a jurisdiction has only one sale. This indicates a perfect statistical level of assessment for this type of reviewing method. Multiple sales are required to produce an accurate indication of the level of assessment for a particular class of property. • COD is based on sales where the property was conveyed by a deed in an arms -length transaction. No contract sales were included in this study. • The IAAO acceptable range for residential COD 0.00-15.00, while commercial property is 0.00 to 20.00. • Source: Summary of Real Estate Assessment Sales Ratio Study, compiled by the Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance, 1983-2003. City of Ames 2005 staff report P1.7 0 City of Des Moines / Polk County Commereial COD for City of Des Moines and Polk County from 1994-2002 (Combined in 1998) 40,00- 35.00 30.00 25.00 - ° 20.00 - i ° u a•. 15.00 - U, 10.00- 5.00 0.00 -. ra 2002 2001 1 2000 1 1999 : 1998 ( 1997 ! 1996 1 1995 11994 -�-City of Des Moor7 21.8b 127.08 126.66 27.96 32.16 27 es 37.7 .09 119.88 26-75 ■ Polk County { 17.74 14.73 25.76 120.11 ! 21.66 126.31 25.34 125.52 i 17.48 Year K-1 Residential COD for City of Des Moines and Polk County from 1994-2002 (Combined in 1998) 40.00- 35.00 - i 30.00 I 25.00 ° O 20.00 15.00 10.00 -- 0 0 ...-•t7 ...... 0--- ....... p.... -,L7...... fl......p 5.00 --- 0 Oil 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 -t- City of Des Moines 15.72 13.35 15.18 14.16 13.39 15.58 15.51 13.41 14.04 Polk County 7.84 7.35 7.70 7.25 7.28 1 736 18.19 1 7.29 1 7.62 Year Commereial COD for City of Des Moines and Polk County from 1994-2002 (Combined in 1998) 40,00- 35.00 30.00 25.00 - ° 20.00 - i ° u a•. 15.00 - U, 10.00- 5.00 0.00 -. ra 2002 2001 1 2000 1 1999 : 1998 ( 1997 ! 1996 1 1995 11994 -�-City of Des Moor7 21.8b 127.08 126.66 27.96 32.16 27 es 37.7 .09 119.88 26-75 ■ Polk County { 17.74 14.73 25.76 120.11 ! 21.66 126.31 25.34 125.52 i 17.48 Year K-1 City of Fort Dodge I Webster County Residential COD for City of Fort Dodge and Webster County from 1988-1996 (Combined in 1992) 70.00- 65.00 60. 55.00 50.00-- 45.00-- 40.00 0.45.40. p 35.00 .411 U 30. 25. 20.00 15. 10.00 5.00 0. -0 City of Fort D -. WebsterCoun L Year O U Dodge ty 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 50.00 b0 - 00 00 1199b � 1995 11994 11993 1992 11991 11990 11989 11988 16,29 18-50 121.35 17.39 � 18.22 � 20.41 119.31...+ U.99 � 16 99 � � 25.03 � 22.28 31.56 33.83 � 24.24 22.61 � 19.57 19.93 � 22.32 Commercial COD for City of Fort Dodge and Webster County from 1988-1996 (Combined in 1992) -0- Cityof Fort ■-• Webster Coi 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20-00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0-00 �t 1996 �1 1995 1994 i 3993 11992 ! 1991 1990 1 1939 11988 36-63 � 46.59 140.05 ! 25.$3 30.31 � 33.54 132.09 27.85 25.11 24.25 127.15 10.00 i 31.07 1 65.95 l 3.86 0.00 10.00 � 0.00 Year Note: Webster County had only one commercial sale where 0.00 is listed. M a City of Marshalltown / Marshall County Residential COD for City of Marshalltown and Marshall County from 1995-2003 (Combined in 1999) 50.00 45.00 --- 40.00 35.00 - ---- i 30.00 - .. p 25.00 U 20.00 �.. -.�._ .#�•,...� � .,.,.�, 15.00"" " 0.00 2003 2002 2001 1 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 -4--- City of Marshalkown I. 14.70 14.03 13.84 13.44 1 1434 1 11.43 9.98 13.50 12.00 •••i-- Marsha0 County 21.51 19.12 118.70 13.89- 22.00 + 15.68 11599-j 20.05 110-35 Year Commercial COD for City of Marshalltown and Marshall County from 1995-2003 (Combined in 1999) 50.00 45.00 - --- 40.00 �- - - - `• 35.00 _ :q 30.00 -- -� p 25.00 - r U 20.00- % 0.00- 15.00 - 10.00- 5.00 - 0.00 2003 2002 j 2001 2000 1999 1 1998 11997 1 1996 11995 City of Marshalhown 48.27 35.54 41.21 27.14 1 27.72F24.36 1 14.93 1 17.13 I4.01 0 • - Marshall County 41.10 7.52 19.83 20.99 35.25 1 24.53 26.36 1 46.37 1 17.38 Year K-1 City of Newton / Jasper County Residential COD for City of Newton and Jasper County from 1987-1995 (Combined in 1991) IUU.UV - Commercial COD for City of Newton and Jasper County from 1987-1995 (Combined in 1991) 90.00- 100.00- 00.00.90.00•80.00 90.00- 80.00 --------- - 0.00 70.00- 70.00 -; 60.00- 0.00-50.00 - 50.00 V 60.00 60.00 II 30.0 -19 >••.... 'M_ I O 50.00 20.0 - - U 40.00- 10.00 - 0.00-1 1995 1994 1993 1 1992 11991 1990 1989 1988 11987 30.00 1-111- Jasper County1 31 1 18.87 1 28.02 23.34 1 30.52 , 17.56 -� 20.00 • . r ®v� .. �.._ r.....•, s .- • ■�. - - 10.00 0.00 1995 1994 1993 1992 11991 I-1990 ( 1989 1988 1987 -0. City of Newton 13.18 115.26 I4.61 13.74 115.41 I 14.67 14.97 17.05 115.11 -1111-- Jasper County 121.90 1 22.79-.1._17.68 1 22.00 1 2391 L21.15 1 21.21 21.54 , 22.99 Year F - Commercial COD for City of Newton and Jasper County from 1987-1995 (Combined in 1991) 100.00- 00.00.90.00•80.00 90.00- 80.00 -j 70.00 -; 60.00- 0.00-50.00 - 50.00 V 40.00 II 30.0 -19 >••.... 'M_ I 20.0 - - 10.00 0.00-1 1995 1994 1993 1 1992 11991 1990 1989 1988 11987 - City of Newton P26.51 12.98 1 15.22 12.51 1 8.57 15.53 1 32.70 121.77 22.35 1-111- Jasper County1 31 1 18.87 1 28.02 23.34 1 30.52 , 17.56 10.0 1 26,19j 89.07 ---- ---- Year Note; Jasper County had only one commercial sale where 0-00 is listed. City of Waterloo / Blackhawk County Residential COT! for City of Waterloo and Blackhawk County from 1983-1990 (Combined in 1986) 60.00 55.00 - ---- 50.00 - - -- 45.00- 40.00-- 35.00 5.0040.00 35.00- A 30.00 - U 25.00 20.00 --- �- ..,!♦.__.,• 15.00 --. 10.00 - - -- - _ _ -- - - - --U 5.00 - -- 0.00 ` 1990 I 1989 1988 1987 1986 j 1985 .I 1984 I 1983 City of Waterloo ) 22.18 122.44 122.71 121.3420.57 119.05 123.96 138.04 r Blackhawk County 16.00 16.32 18.32 15.29 17,71 16.72 13.95 l 12.04 �..----.--._ - Year ------.- Commercial COD for City of Waterloo and Blackhawk County from 1983-1990 (Combined in 1986) 60.00 55.00 50,00 45.00 40'00 35.00 O 30.00 U 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 �- City of Waterloo_ 8-- Blackhawk Counq Year _ I1 IL Li rb• 1990 1989 i 1988 1987 73839 135.44_ ; 23.08 153.46 18.07 45.88 21-83 I 37.49 1986 j 28.77 iY 31.00 1985 1984 1983 1 5695 48.27 127.32 J 156.55 144.68 I 16.90 Year ATTACHMENT 5 DAVENPORT CITY AND SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICES DRAFT CONSOLIDATION PLAN 31 DAVENPORT CITY AND SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICES DRAFT CONSOLIDATION PLAN REQUESTED BY DAVENPORT CITY CONFERENCE BOARD Scott coon , AUGUST 2013 32 Studv Overview The Mayor of Davenport requested that a working group of staff from the City, County, and Davenport School District develop a draft plan for the consolidation of the City and County Assessor Offices. The staff group was formed in May and have worked together to review the current staffing, budget, and programs of the two offices along with comparisons of other large county offices both consolidated and separate. The group developed average cost by parcel, population, and assessed value as well as average number of employees and type of job classes. The previous two studies done in 2002 and 2006 by PVM Consulting also were reviewed. The charge from the Mayor was a plan to consolidate the offices and not an analysis of the cost benefit of a consolidation. (Letter included for reference.) With that in mind, staff reviewed current impediments to consolidation that would have to be overcome and the timing of actions to make a clear path for consolidation. The City Assessor has announced her retirement in August of 2014. The State law requires the Examining Board to request a list of eligible applicants to fill the vacancy within seven days of that vacancy. The consolidation legislation should occur prior to the City Assessor vacancy. The County Assessor term ends December 31, 2015; therefore, he will be able to implement the consolidation after merger. A smooth transition would require that both Assessors create one FY15 budget that would allow for the consolidation in August. Both Assessors have significant fund balances; however most of these dollars are pledged to projects for assessment software or hiring outside appraisers for update work. The unaudited County Assessor fund balance at June 30, 2013 is $1,079,915. The unaudited City Assessor fund balance at June 30, 2012 is $443,378. CASH AND FUND BALANCE 6/30/13 6/30/13 6/30/12 6/30/12 Cash Fund Balance Cash Fund Balance County Assessor 1,125,340 1,079,915 1,142,419 1,073,205 Davenport Assessor 525,282 443,378 240,959 160,376 $ L650.622 S 1.523293 S 1383378 LLL The FY14 budget of the City Assessor resulted in a property tax asking of $1,508,459 including the utility tax replacement dollars. That FY14 levy is $0.37452. The County Assessor's budget resulted in a property tax asking of $985,000 and a levy rate of $0.27996. The FY14 tax asking is lower than the FY 14 budget due to the use of accumulated fund balance for outside assessment work. Combining property tax dollars levied over all taxable property in the County for FY14 results in a combined levy rate of $0.33043. A goal of the consolidation should be to save enough dollars that the combined rate is not higher than the previous rate for the County 19191 Assessor alone. The resulting decrease in the City Assessor levy would reduce taxes for a median Davenport homeowner by approximately $5 and a $250,000 small business by $22. Meeting that goal would require a reduction of costs between $350,000 and $400,000. FY 2014 Utility 0.37452 N/A Comparison with Other Counties $ 2.493.459 0.33043 $ 2.112.610 0.27996 $ (380.8491 Below is a summary review of budgets, levies, and staffing for the five largest counties in Iowa for FY13. FY13 numbers were used in this analysis as comparison information for FY14 was not yet available. In the cases of Linn and Johnson Counties, each has a separate city assessor similar to the current arrangement in Davenport. Replacement and Property FY 2014 Tax Dollars County $ 985,000 Assessor FY 2014 Davenport $ 1.508.459 Assessor and Property FY 2014 Consolidated $ 2.493.459 Assessor Tax Dollars Tax Levy Savings 0.37452 N/A Comparison with Other Counties $ 2.493.459 0.33043 $ 2.112.610 0.27996 $ (380.8491 Below is a summary review of budgets, levies, and staffing for the five largest counties in Iowa for FY13. FY13 numbers were used in this analysis as comparison information for FY14 was not yet available. In the cases of Linn and Johnson Counties, each has a separate city assessor similar to the current arrangement in Davenport. Combined FY 2014 Adjusted FY Utility 2014 Utility FY 2014 Replacement Replacement Tax and Property FY 2014 and Property FY 2014 Goal Levy Tax Dollars Tax Levy Tax Dollars Tax Levy Savings 0.27996 N/A N/A 0.37452 N/A Comparison with Other Counties $ 2.493.459 0.33043 $ 2.112.610 0.27996 $ (380.8491 Below is a summary review of budgets, levies, and staffing for the five largest counties in Iowa for FY13. FY13 numbers were used in this analysis as comparison information for FY14 was not yet available. In the cases of Linn and Johnson Counties, each has a separate city assessor similar to the current arrangement in Davenport. 34 Assessor Information FY 2013 # of FY 2013 100% Assessed Budget per Budget per Budget per County Population Levy Parcels Budget Valuations $100K Valuation 100 Population 100 Parcels Polk 430,640 0.24382 167,145 5,695,206 31,602304,842 $18.02 $1,322.50 $140234 Linn 211,226 0.51059 48,444 3314,958 15,885282,262 $33.53 $2,521.73 55,104.01 Cedar Rapids 0.21871 55,916 2,011,586 5,326,544 Scu0 165,224 0.28081 36,526 1,135,714 12214,855,249 $19.08 $1,410.67 $2,994.84 Davenport 0.3149 41,300 1,195,047 2,330,761 Black Hawk 131,090 028236 73,913 1,500,280 8,439,105,003 $17.78 $1,144.47 52029.79 Johnson 130,832 03339 38,599 1,144,486 10,704;574,672 $18.37 $1,502.83 83,136.21 Irma City 0.24453 22,180 822,449 1,966,935 34 In order to create a more apples -to -apples comparison, this chart attempts to combine the FY13 funding levels of the Davenport City and Scott County Assessor's Offices to analyze how the cost of the assessment function in the entire county compares to that of the largest five counties in Iowa. Even at current funding levels, a merged assessor's office is above average in efficiency for this group. If nothing were reduced by combining these offices, the new assessor's office would be in line with large Iowa counties. FY 2013 Levy Rate Budget per $100K Valuation Budget per 100 Population Budget per 100 Parcels % of Commercial Properties Combined City and County Assessors City = $0.3149 / County = $.28081 $19.08 Comparison Between Offices $1,410.67 $2,994.84 7.01% Average of Iowa's Five Largest Counties $0.3037 $21.36 $1,580.44 $3,354.44 6.37% When considering merging the Davenport City and Scott County Assessor's Offices, it is important to consider what is fundamentally different and similar about the two organizations so that proper planning and thought can be given to addressing potential issues down the road. Similarities • Both offices have converted to the Vanguard Software system and in the case of the City Assessor have budgeted for the commercial base conversion, which will provide a basic platform for combining valuations. An opportunity to reduce consolidation costs may be available by transitioning future revaluations into Vanguard as they are completed. • Both the City and County Assessor's Offices utilize a Board of Review for appeals. A Board of Review can be maintained in Davenport if the offices are consolidated. Differences • The Davenport City Assessor's Office utilizes an in-house work force to complete assessments. The Scott County Assessor's Office utilizes a contract with an outside firm to provide the majority of its assessments. • Davenport City Assessor's Office employees are on a different pay scale than Scott County Assessor's Office employees. • Davenport City Assessor's Office employees participate in the City's benefit plan, which would change if the office were merged with Scott County. Bbl Cost Savings of Merger The following goals have been identified as major goals if the two offices are merged. • Maintain the Scott County Assessor's Office levy rate, which is lower than the Davenport City Assessor's Office levy rate. • Reduce operating costs by approximately $400,000 in order to maintain a consistent Scott County Assessor's Office levy rate. Merging the offices together will ultimately result in staffing changes. While it is not the function of this report to advise what the staffing will be for a merged assessor's office, below is an example of how staffing could be structured to obtain significant operational savings. While staffing levels would remain fairly constant, it is likely that the contract for outside appraisals could be significantly reduced and/or eliminated. The total annual budgeted amount for those contracts is approximately $500,000. The County Assessor Office's Second Deputy is retiring in FY14 prior to a merged budget. To smooth the consolidation this position should be held vacant until the merger. The combined office functions should be further analyzed to assure that through some basic process changes and reassignment of duties that all of the administrative functions are being met. Also the two Assessors should map out a process and timeline to change to more in house assessment work to significantly reducing the requirement of outside contracts. This change will create the savings needed to accomplish the levy rate goal. BRi Combined City and Example Staffing in County Employees Consolidated Office Assessor 2 1 Chief Deputy 2 1 Second Deputy 1 0 Deputy 1 2 Appraiser 6 9 Office Coordinator 0 1 Office Administrator 1 0 Admin Appraiser Coordinator 1 0 Chief Clerk 1 1 Clerk 4.5 4 Total 19.5 19 While staffing levels would remain fairly constant, it is likely that the contract for outside appraisals could be significantly reduced and/or eliminated. The total annual budgeted amount for those contracts is approximately $500,000. The County Assessor Office's Second Deputy is retiring in FY14 prior to a merged budget. To smooth the consolidation this position should be held vacant until the merger. The combined office functions should be further analyzed to assure that through some basic process changes and reassignment of duties that all of the administrative functions are being met. Also the two Assessors should map out a process and timeline to change to more in house assessment work to significantly reducing the requirement of outside contracts. This change will create the savings needed to accomplish the levy rate goal. BRi Plan Implementation The FYI budget is due no later than January 1, 2014 by law. It would be reasonable to expect that a combined budget could take 60 to 90 days to prepare. In order to begin that process the City of Davenport would need to vote on resolution which would state its intention to eliminate the City Assessor Office on July 1, 2014. The resolution should further address the need to collaborate with the County Assessor on the merger and to pledge the fund balance of the City Assessor Office for payouts and merger expenses. The resolution also should state that it is not the intention of the merger to increase taxes on the other jurisdictions but the City would work with the other local governments to assure that the goals of flat county levy rate can be maintain for FY15 and FY16. After those budgets, the levy rate would be a factor of revenue available to meet the budget needs of the merged office. That resolution should be approved not later than the end of September 2013 to follow the timeline suggested. KrA Memorandum To: Craig Malin, Davenport City Administrator From: Mayor Gluba Date: March 12, 2013 Re: Development of a Draft Plan for Assessor Consolidation Dear Craig, At the last meeting of the Davenport City Conference Board it was decided to establish a working group consisting of myself, the Chairman of the Scott Board of Supervisors, and the President of the Davenport Community School Board to develop a plan for consolidation of the Davenport City Assessor's Office and the Scott County Assessor's Office (See the attached editorial). I am officially asking you, or your designee, to begin working with staff from the other jurisdictions on a draft proposal to accomplish the above in a timely, legal and effective manner. This draft proposal would then be presented to the above elected officials for our review and consideration. I would like for staff to start work on this as soon as possible and to provide periodic reports to the above officials. Perhaps this could be done in conjunction with our intergovernmental meetings. I have asked the County Board Chair and the School Board President to select a staff person from their respective offices to work with you on developing this plan. Please let me know how you plan to proceed with helping us accomplish this initiative. William E. Gluba Mayor, City of Davenport, IA cc. Ralph Johansen, President, DCSD Board Larry Minard, Chair, Scott County Board of Supervisors BI:3 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 02-00-10 IP14 PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Kent Ralston OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Cilek, Marc Moen, Sarah Clark, Rockne Cole, Alan Swanson, Jim Knapp, Casey Cook, Amanda Van Horne, Ann Christensen, Mark Nolte, Marc McCullum, Tim Conroy, Pam Michaud, Cecile Kuenzli, Ethan Diehl, Rudolf Kuenzli, Matthew Fleming, Mary Bennett, Nancy Bird, John Fogerty, Joyce Summerwill, Amanda Ward, Joseph Knock, Dick Summerwill, Joe Hughes, Deanna Furhmeister, Dan Furhmeister •ja ►I_Lei • • The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to approve REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. There were none. Comprehensive Plan Item A public hearing for discussion of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District): and the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). Yapp began discussing the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and that it states identifies two areas, one located generally east of Gilbert St and north of Burlington St, the other located north of Iowa Ave Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 2 of 23 and west of Dubuque St, as areas that were not included in the Downtown Master Plan or the Central District Plan. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan states that while both areas have the potential to redevelop at higher densities both should comply with the policies and goals of the Central District Plan in order to ensure quality design and appropriate transitions to the areas that border them. Both of these areas are currently part of the Downtown Planning District (from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan). Yapp showed a map of the area and defined the two areas in question. For the purposes of this report, staff has separated the North Clinton I Dubuque District and the Civic District, and have provided staff recommendations for each district separately. First is the North Clinton I Dubuque District. The majority of the North Clinton I Dubuque District is zoned Planned Residential Multi -Family (PRM). It is characterized by multi -family apartments, former single family homes converted to apartments, religious and other institutions, and other public uses. With close proximity to the University of Iowa, demand is strong for multi -family residential as well as institutional and public uses. The purpose of the PRM Zone is to provide for the development of high density multi -family housing in close proximity to centrally- located employment, educational and commercial uses. The PRM zone is subject to multi -family design standards, and allows for both a density bonus and height increase up to 65 feet (5-6 stories) provided certain 'public benefits' are included in the project. These public benefits include a masonry finish on the exterior of the building, usable open space for the occupants of the building, rehabilitation of a historic building, provision of assisted housing, streetscape amenities, additional landscaping and/or windows that have a height 1.5 times greater than their width. Yapp pointed out on the south end of the Clinton St / Dubuque St District by Jefferson Street that is a portion of the Jefferson Street Historic District is represented on the map as Overlay Historic District (OHD). Freerks asked Yapp to discuss or explain how the overlay will come into play with this change to the area. Yapp stated that the historic overlay will not be affected by the comprehensive plan changes. Freerks asked how the historic overlay district would be affected by development. Yapp explained that any demolition of properties, or proposed exterior changes, such as an addition or change in the exterior of the property, or construction of an accessory building such as a garage, would need to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission before a building permit could be issued. Eastham asked of the OHD limits redevelopment height? Can a two-story building in an OHD be replaced by a five -story building? Yapp stated that it would depend on two different things. One the underlying zoning, and what that zoning would allow in terms of height, and two it would need to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Yapp continued his presentation showing a map of the land uses. The North Clinton / Dubuque St District has many land uses, private institutions (religious), multi -family uses, mixed-use buildings consisting of both residential and commercial or offices, and there is also an office use and single- Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 3 of 23 family or duplex uses in this district as well. Yapp showed photos of the area to show the variety of the land uses. Yapp moved on to describe the Civic District, The Civic District, so named due to the municipal/public uses in the district, is a mixed-use area in that it contains a variety of uses. Besides municipal uses, it contains multi -family, commercial, and institutional uses. Historically the three municipal blocks (bounded by Gilbert St, Iowa Ave, Van Buren St and Burlington St) have been identified as municipal campus blocks. These blocks contain City Hall, Fire and Police stations, the Recreation Center, Swan Parking Facility, and Chauncey Swan Park. The zoning of this area is also a mix, the municipal blocks are zoned public, for the most part with portions of them zoned CB5 for non-public uses. The east side of Van Buren St and the north side of Iowa Ave are zoned CB -2 and CB -5, which are central business support classifications. The land uses in the Civic district are public uses, and a mixture of office, commercial, and mixed-use land uses Yapp explained that they received public comment on the Ralston Creek Corridor, and he believes the Ralston Creek Corridor represents an opportunity for the area. He showed images of the area and stated that some of the comments were to clean up some of the invasive species in the corridor, make Ralston Creek more accessible, and provide trail and/or way -side parks along the creek corridor. Additionally much of the public comment was related to historic buildings, and he showed on the images the designated historic landmarks at 130 E. Jefferson Street and 30 N. Clinton Street. There are also several potential historic buildings in both the areas discussed this evening, 10 S. Gilbert Street, 410 & 422 Iowa Avenue, and 109 E. Market Street. Yapp began discussing the staff recommendation for the Central District Plan and stated that staff proposes adding the North Clinton I Dubuque St District to the Central District Plan map with land use categories consistent with the rest of the Central Planning District. Staff recommends the remainder of the Civic District, outside of the three municipal blocks, be added to the Central District Plan and identified as mixed-use (These properties are already identified as 'mixed-use' in the larger Comprehensive Plan land use map). This proposal will fit in with existing polices and goals in the Central District Plan which include: • Goal #1: Promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the district and by supporting new housing opportunities. • Goal #1(d): Support the goals and objectives proposed in the Historic Preservation Plan. • Goal #2(d): In higher density multi -family zones, ensure that adequate infrastructure and open space is provided to create a livable environment for residents. • Goal #3(c): Implement targeted code enforcement for areas that receive a higher level of complaints regarding zoning code violations, snow and weed removal, and trash control that affect neighborhood quality of life Selected Existing Transportation Goals —Central District Plan Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 4 of 23 • Goal #1: Balance traffic circulation needs, preserve neighborhood character, and public safety issues. • Goal #1(b): When planning for street improvements, give consideration to all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and driving. Balance these needs with desirability of on -street parking and street trees. • Goal #3: Develop a plan to formalize safe bicycle and pedestrian connections between the major destinations in the district, including downtown Iowa City, neighborhood commercial areas, the UI campus, parks and elementary and secondary schools. • Goal #3(d): Continue to explore options such as high -visibility crosswalks to improve pedestrian crossings where major pedestrian routes intersect with arteria! Streets • Goal #4: Encourage development of businesses, institutions, and public entities that provide goods, services, and amenities that support healthy neighborhoods. • Goal #4(a): Encourage a diverse range of businesses that provide essential services to the Downtown area -grocery, clothing, household items, etc. • Goal #4(b): Encourage investment and reinvestment in existing commercial areas that provide goods and services for Central District neighborhoods. • Goal #5(a): Install pedestrian lighting where needed to create safe travel corridors for pedestrians. • Goal #5(c): Provide for walkable/bikable routes to and through commercial areas. Selected Existing Transportation Goal — Central District Plan • Goal #3(e): Explore the viability of alternative routes for bikes and pedestrians along Ralston Creek, recognizing the difficulties posed by private ownership of the creek, access, and flooding. Selected Existing Open Space Goals —Central District Plan • Goal #3: Improve the amenities offered in existing parks or other open spaces • Goal #5(a): Develop plans for improving visual and physical access to Ralston Creek and for restoration of the stream along both public and privately owned sections of the creek. Yapp explained that some of the input they received they could not find a goal or policy in the existing district plan, so as part of putting these areas into the Central District Plan staff recommends three additional goals: • Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors without overly discouraging redevelopment. • Transportation Goal #3 (k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque St and Clinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. • Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 5 of 23 Yapp reconfirmed that this is the recommendation for the Central District Plan. Freerks asked Yapp to discuss and explain how this plan is different and used different than the Civic use map. She pointed out it appears there are additional properties. Yapp explained that when they reviewed the existing boundaries of the central district use map, there were slight inconsistencies with what was in the comprehensive plan. He pointed out the area that is being recommended to add to the Central District Plan, and the rest is already in the Central District Plan. Yapp discussed the remainder of the Civic District, the three municipal blocks, those are part of the old downtown planning district, in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. Yapp explained staff is recommending these three blocks be added to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings area and will be subject to some of policies and goals of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan: • New development should be located on sites that do not contain historic buildings. • Active uses, such as ground floor retail (and not blank walls) should front onto the street frontages and the City Plaza. • Upper floors should contain office, commercial, and residential uses. • Buildings should be built to the property line. • Corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings, creating a block structure with taller buildings on the comers and lower scale historic buildings between them. • The taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistent with [any] adjacent historic buildings to make them 'feel' contextual with the rest of downtown, while also limiting the perceived height of towers. • Parking should be located both on -street and behind storefronts in parking structures Eastham questioned the recommendation that new developments not be located on historic properties, and asked if there was a sequence to the staff's planning process, stating that specific consideration cannot be given to historic properties, if they do not know what the historic properties are. Yapp replied that it is for the properties that are already designated as historic or if designated in the future through the historic landmark designation process. Yapp continue on and gave the staff recommendation for the three municipal blocks in the Civic District are: 1. Staff recommends the three municipal blocks, bounded by Iowa Ave, Gilbert St, Burlington St, and Van Buren St remain in the Downtown Planning District and be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit B. 2. Staff recommends the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Land Use Map be amended to include the three municipal blocks shown as a mix of 'Civic' and 'Mixed Use' and be added to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit C. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 6 of 23 3. Staff recommends the remainder of the Civic District, north of Iowa Ave and east of Van Buren St, be added to the Central District Plan and shown as 'Mixed Use' as shown on Exhibit A. Eastham asked if "Mixed Use" in this area would have the same meaning as the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, as in the Central District. Yapp explained that yes "Mixed Use" means buildings that have a variety of uses, including residential and/or commercial or office uses. Freerks questioned why in the Civic Land Use Map Ralston Creek was not used as more of a barrier and kind of a dividing area, and instead have the boundary in the middle of block. Swygard agreed that there is a question in the area between the Civic District and the east side of Van Buren Street. Freerks confirmed that the entire area is confusing, multiple districts, multiple overlays, and bringing the Riverfront Crossings area over to this area, and giving a designation to an area that has in the past been a "no man's land". Her feeling is that doing this movement within districts is kind of a "up zoning". Yapp explained that it is a comprehensive plan land use map redesign, but it could result in re- zoning actions or be a basis for rezoning actions in the future. He reiterated that staff recommended that the three municipal blocks be part of the Downtown District for the reasons they are higher intensity in use, they are served by major arterial streets, and they are served by a parking structure. Therefore the remainder of the area, north of Iowa Avenue and East of Van Buren St they recommend being part of the Central District due to the types of uses of the buildings, the intensity of the uses, are more in keeping with the Central District policies and goals. Freerks commented that in the past there has been public comment on keeping transitions from areas to areas, and she doesn't think this district has enough transition. Hektoen stated that the boundary of the Central District already includes the home to the east. Yapp confirmed that only the three municipal blocks would be going into the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown area. Eastham also questioned how the staff recommendations build the concept of transitions both in the concepts, height and building design, characteristics, etc. from one side of the transition are to the other. Yapp stated that consideration was given, with Ralston Creek there is a topographic transition east and west of the creek, and also in the zoning as east of Van Buren St. it is CB -2 and CB -5 zoning and then to the east transitions to multi -family zoning, then further east transitions to the College Green Historic District. Also the recommended land use map indicates mixed use designation east of Van Buren and north of Iowa Avenue, which then transitions to residential land use designation, so there is mixed use and multi -family between the downtown and residential areas. Eastham believes that the staff recommendation actually extends CB -10 zoning across Gilbert Street into those three blocks of civic uses. Yapp stated it could be CB -5 there as well, however Thomas pointed out there is no CB -5 zoning in the Downtown District. Freerks asked staff to explain what the area east of the Civic District is. Hektoen said that was the Central District, and the staff recommendation is to add the area of the Civic District, with the exception of the three municipal blocks from the Civic District into the Central District. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 7 of 23 Thomas asked if the Northside Market Place was in the Central District and Yapp confirmed that it was. Freerks opened public hearing. Dan Cilek (Oakland Avenue) works for Meta Communications Company and they recently moved offices from South Gilbert St to the Downtown District, and stated he does support the proposed recommendation due to the effect it is having on his business. He really hopes to see trails built along Ralston Creek and to have more recreational area around the creek. Cilek hears from his staff that they want to live in housing near the downtown area to be close to work and other businesses. Marc Moen, commented about the Civic District, having focused on the area for many years, and made investments in the area, and the area that was once reserved for City Campus would now be considered for development. On that consideration, his company retained design and landscape experts to look at the possibilities of the area, most specifically the corner of College Street and Gilbert Street. After a couple years of research on what that area could be, and sustain, it seemed logical it would be part of the Central Business District. Having this area included in the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan will be great for this building, and Moen supports this proposal. He stated it is critical to move forward to sustain Iowa City, but also critical to maintain the historic buildings and areas which is a crucial part of the fabric of downtown. This proposal allows the City to move forward and attract the best and the brightest of people and businesses in Iowa City, and allows businesses to recruit which is very important. Adding mixed use buildings to the area will only expand the area, the alternative is to take buildings down, which would lose the integrity of the fabric of the downtown area. Moen reiterated he supports the recommendation to Council to allow mixed use buildings in this area and feels it will be an advantage to both the College Green area and the downtown. Sarah Clark (Brown Street) distributed copies to each commissioner a letter signed by 21 folks who live in the north side and Goosetown neighborhoods. The letter states: As longtime residents of closest to downtown Iowa City, we are writing to share our concerns about the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission's Public Hearing to be held of January 15, 2015. While we are in general agreement with City Staff recommendations, to add the North Clinton/Dubuque Street district to the Central District we are troubled by the proposed addition Civic District to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Master Plan. Our concerns are these. We believe it is critically important to prevent the abrupt and unsightly transition between the high-rise structures allowable in certain Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Districts and their low-rise and largely historic neighbors. One can imagine for example the Civic District one day being populated with shoulder to shoulder 15 story apartments or condos towering over and destroying the views from College Green Park and the near north side. We would thus advocate the requirements of more appropriate transition zones between districts as recommended in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Instead of adding to the Downtown District, the Civic District presents an ideal opportunity to create a distinctive mixed-use area on the near -east side just as north -side market place has its own distinctive character and that would further strengthen the Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on appropriate transitions between districts. Cities need diversity and Iowa City is deficient in walkable commercial districts. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 8 of 23 Finally, we strongly encourage the development of more diverse and affordable housing options within both the Downtown/Riverfront Crossing and Central Districts for populations other than college students. We are thinking retirees, working professionals, young families. And further, that such options incorporate a multitude of housing types, from single-family homes, as promoted by the admirable UniverCity Program, to mid -rises, duplexes, low-rise townhouses, apartments and even pocket neighborhoods. Expanding the Downtown District without additional discussion and possible zoning adjustments would erase these valuable and fleeting opportunities to enhance the quality and livability of Iowa City's unique downtown and surrounding districts. As Joni Mitchell (and I'm showing our age here) so famously sang "You don't know what you've got until it's gone". We urge the City to reconsider the addition of the Civic District into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings District and instead, within the Central District require more appropriate transitions zones, encourage more mixed use area zones, and incentify more affordable housing options for all. Rockne Cole (1607 East Court Street) is speaking as co-chair of the Iowa Coalition Against the Shadow and as a concerned citizen related to this project. We oppose adding the three blocks contained in the Civic District to the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan. This Commission should defer this decision until the Commission can come up with a plan specifically tailored to the unique aspects of this area. Kohl believes the key thing to emphasize here is they have some incredibly articulate logical members of this community on both sides. He is quite confident regardless of which argument the Commission hears tonight, they will not be able to determine whether this is a downtown area or a neighborhood area. And the reason is because it has aspects of both. On the one hand, you are essentially within one block from the College Green Park. On the other hand, you look to the west of that and you are two blocks down to the downtown and it's precisely because that no side is going to be able to tell you definitely whether it's purely downtown or purely a neighborhood. That is what makes it a transitional area. As far as he can tell by the comments made tonight by Mr. Yapp, what he is identifying as a transitional zone is essentially to the east of Ralston Creek to College Green Park. So basically a half a block protection. The reality is, it's true Mr. Moen has put in a lot of time effort, but the City should have had this conversation four years ago before it put out the request for proposal for that area. The reality is now there is a proposal that has polarized the community. Cole believes the greatest irony here is as we look forward, how do we save the downtown, and how do we save our neighborhoods. The proposal tonight is destabilizing the neighborhood, it's destabilizing the long- term residents that are there. I know each and every resident that resides along the west side of College Green Park, every single one of them is opposed to this project, this zoning designation. The Trinity Church has spoken as a church and while it's not confirmed, a substantial number of the members are opposed to this designation. And so because, and when you have a designation where there are two sides of the community, operating in good faith, both passionately believing in the purpose of what they believe in, that is precisely when this commission should step back, allow additional time, delay this process, and reopen so we can get something uniquely tailored for this area. Cole stated he is quite confident that if allowed, and the multitude got their ability to participate, the result would be something less controversial. Everyone agrees it needs to be developed, everyone agrees it needs to be mixed use, the question is, are we going to essentially have an intense use building within a block of a historic neighborhood. Cole is asking the Commission to defer, and one final comment some of the downtown developments have been Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 9 of 23 good, but the reality is they are downtown, and moving into the transitional zone will just create more conversations of the same in years to come. Alan Swanson (Blank & McCune Real Estate). His business is in the Civic District, or very close to it. He thinks moving the Civic District into the Riverfront Crossings area is a stroke of genius. It is something that looks to the future, and should not be waited on, not only are there young people who want to live downtown, many people of all ages from all over the country are looking to live in downtown Iowa City to be close to everything going on as possible. This would be a way to have higher density for people to live here beyond the students. Young professionals and retirees will live there and use all the things that are coming to Iowa City more and more and it's a time to move forward for Iowa City. Swanson stated he sees Iowa City as an international city, and while there may be a few tall buildings, they are not and will not be side by side, there will be some discretion where they are put. Jim Knapp stated there was an area in the Central Business District that appears to be absent and that is the corner of Clinton and Burlington, and the northeast side of that. There is a privately owned parking lot there now, but supposedly there are no legally owned privately run parking lots within the City of Iowa City, but this has been allowed by special agreement. This lot is large enough to house a city parking structure, and is competing against the already existing City parking lots. Knapp questioned why it is allowed to have a privately owned parking lot there. This would be an area perfect in the Central Business District perfect for a tall building, rather than in an area where it will be a shadow on a church and part of the rest of Iowa City. Knapp feels that high- rise buildings should not be on the edge of the district where there are parks and residential areas. Casey Cook (1 Oakpark Court) stated planners are like hockey players, the most successful ones anticipate where the puck is going to be. You are looking at the big picture, the Comp Plan reflects this perspective. It also considers the big picture, the community at large. Cook stated what he liked about this plan, he feels this plan continues the City's commitment to compact incontiguous development as a critical element in a community that works. This plan supports and enhances an investment in the Central Business District, it is the heart of the community, and we need to build on that success. Cook stated the City should continue to nurture a trail and pathway system the knits our community together and passively contains stormwater and emits flooding. An efficient community can be humane as well as gentle on the environment. We should continue to compete effectively with the communities around us, and capitalize on our resources as a critical aspect of good stewardship. We are all part of a large and complex community, a community of communities in fact, and he encourages the Commission to bring manifold considerations into their deliberations. Cook then stated his concerns about the plan, as well as additional questions for the Commission to think about. Is there some coordination between the planning policy and the concerns of the finance department? Specifically what is the impact on revenues from recent changes imposed by the state, that now assess partial commercial properties, mixed use, at residential rates. Basically half their value. What are the consequences of the rollback on multi- family assessments on City, County and School revenues? How committed do you believe the state is to backfill these lost revenues and for how long? And how does it affect your planning? If the City continues to trade restrictive zoning for tax benefit dollars, at what point are you willing to reduce support for the Senior Center? At what point do you cut support for the Summer of Arts, or Jazzfest? At what point are you prepared to cut support for human services? Can the City afford to jeopardize their support of the library? These are the kinds of considerations Cook believes Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 10 of 23 needs to come into the process, he feels the people in this room are asking important questions, wanting to know where historic preservation fits it, the priorities in the planning process, the quality of design and architecture. Cook stated as a six-year member of the Planning Commission, and a commercial real estate appraiser with a 30 year history in Iowa City, with a master's degree in urban planning from The University of Iowa, he shares the concerns. While design, architecture and historic preservation are important parts of the process, the Comp Plan needs to be a lot more. Amanda Van Horne (1722 Ridgeway Drive) is before the Commission as an elected representative of Trinity Episcopal Church. Van Horne stated that Trinity Episcopal Church is a Iowa City institution that has been on that corner since 1871. The church has been against the Chauncey development and can make the same arguments tonight because changing the Comprehensive Plan allows that development to proceed. She could argue that high-rise buildings impinge on the light of their neighbors, that buildings over 10 stories are not cost-effective to build, and that these costs are passed along to their tenants, making it impossible for affordable housing, that density alone does not make for environmental sustainability, and the use of a TIF for this sort of building hinders tax payers dollars without realizing a significant community benefit in return. But the question of the Chauncey is not before the Commission today, what is before the Commission today is changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Many of the arguments about the Chauncey is that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and with these changes that alter the default zoning, that would no longer be the case. The Comprehensive Plan shares a vision seen amongst a diversity of the community on how land is used to serve the good of all. What is that vision for Iowa City? How is the manner in which we use land and other resources affect the community? A city gains its character from the relationships between businesses, cultural institution, government and individual citizens and visitors. Churches are in the category of private cultural institutions. Among their unique contributions to a city's character is their ability to draw people together across boundaries of age, economic status, and personal interests. Secular public stations offer similar opportunities for people to come together. We've chosen neighborhoods, occupations, and neighborhoods, based on generation, economical, and other characteristics. Van Horne notes that the Central District and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan as it was presented today, does not support the continuation of these private sources. Van Horne represents Trinity Episcopal Church because they believe the changes that will come from this Comprehensive Plan will harm churches and infringe on spaces that allow for public discourse in the city. Trinity and other downtown churches operate seven days a week, hosting group meetings, social events, and art performances in addition to offering spiritual care for their members. Chauncey Swan Park serves as a spontaneous town square, hosting the farmer's market, food trucks, protests and other political speech. Incorporating this entire area into the Downtown Planning District makes it possible for tall buildings to be built in multiple locations. A tall building that towers over the nearby park and other buildings, eclipsing them from sunlight throughout the day, will be detrimental to the character of the public spaces, and will have a chilling effect, literally, on the park. A tall building, who's users monopolize the parking garage because the building itself does not supply significant parking, will place a particular burden on nearby churches and other community organizations like the recreation center and farmer's market creating a barrier to participation in these areas for those that cannot easily walk and ultimately effecting their growth and mission potential and restricting participation. The church views this as an improachment on their historic space. The contributions of Trinity and other Iowa City churches to the community is significant. Trinity has provided space to The University of Iowa jazz department, since their offices and classroom Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 11 of 23 spaces were destroyed by the 2008 flood. Trinity provides volunteer labor and publicity for the annual shelter house book sale, has been an overflow location for the program, and it provided leadership for the Agave Cafe. Downtown churches are united in efforts to provide free lunch, EIP, and annual school supply and outwear drives. All of this is work that flows from our community in the downtown area, and would not take place if the church was located in another space. Churches are an untapped resource of volunteers and social services, churches makes friends of strangers, even if that stranger doesn't attend that community of faith, an in a civic culture that favors for-profit entities the contributions of faith communities will remain unacknowledged until pressures placed on them, such as the changes proposed by this Comprehensive Plan, impair their ability to do their work. At that time, the extent to which they contribute to the City's quality of life, will become readily apparent in its absence. If this change to the Comprehensive Plan goes forward, if the zoning is changed to allow the Chauncey to be built, Van Horne believes Trinity will follow the lead of First Christian Church, St. Patrick's, and perhaps the Unitarian Church, and leave the downtown area. The community will be the poorer for it, many of Iowa City's faith communities are among their oldest, they've had an integral part in knitting together its fabric, and making it what it is today. What would a community be like without any of its faith organizations? What will be lost if these faith communities disappear from downtown? What holes would there be in our everyday life? Van Horne challenges the Commission to consider how these proposed changes will be realized, and indeed much of that vision has already been articulated by the City, but to think of who will be unintentionally harmed, and urges the Commission to vote against the changes to the Civic District Plan. Ann Christensen (827 Dearborn Street) read to the Commission a passage from a book by Bill Brycen, who is an Iowa native, grew up in Des Moines, but spent most of his adult life England. He writes about growing up in Des Moines, and highly recommends his books, they are non-fiction, historic books, with a lot of width to them. At one point when he was living in England, he's married to an English woman, they were moving back to America for few years, he decided to take a walking tour of England, and he critique the various towns and cities he walked through, and he was very critical in much of what was done in the name of urban development, in the name of progress. And in Manchester, his comment was, he talked about what he considered two very ugly buildings, and then he said "but let me also say that neither is as bad as the Maples Building, that rises like some kind of half-witted practical joke, a dozen or so stories into the air in the middle of a long street of unguinous Victorian structures. Now how did that happen, he asked". If this high- rise building is permitted on that corner, the Chauncey, Christensen is going to write to Brycen and explain to him exactly how this happens, and how we end up with a blithe in our community. That tall of a structure does not belong on that corner, and there are a lot of other places around town that it could go. Mark Nolte (lives on the west side of town) has been a resident of Iowa City since 1993 and moved here from a community that continues to shrink, because there is apathy. What is so great about this community, there are people are both sides of this issue, but as Nolte represents the community as his job is to attract people and businesses to come to this community, and that we are at a very unique point in history. The City needs to think about how they are going to sustain and grow the tax base, what people are looking for now is density, to live in areas that are fun and healthy and vibrant and they don't need a car. Nolte stated he supports historical preservation but also acknowledges we need more density, more office spaces (office vacancy rates are near zero). Nolte hears from companies all the time that would like to come to Iowa City but there is not Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 12 of 23 sufficient office property downtown for them. Additionally any housing that can be added that fits the design and ethos of the community he supports, stating there needs to be more done for affordable housing, and some of those elements have been addressed in the Chauncey development. Nolte stated his support of the staff's recommendation, believing it is something Iowa City needs. Although he is not a parishioner of the church, nor lives on Iowa Avenue so he is not personally affected and is sensitive to those who are, however long term the City needs to be thinking about how they can grow, and move forward sustainable. Nolte stated height should not be the issue, as long as there is good design and good architecture, it can be a nice addition to the community (gave the example of Grant Park in New York City, surrounded by very high buildings). Marc McCullum (13 South Johnson), just purchased this property about a year and a half ago, even after the development issues had arisen, but still wanted to be in this neighborhood. On the east side view of his building he has wonderful views of the park, and on the west side of the building he has wonderful views of a direct skyline view of downtown Iowa City. McCullum supports density and development, but is afraid of, is by having this move in the Central Planning District, there are design guidelines, in the Downtown District there are no design guidelines. McCullum finds that visitors to Iowa City like the areas such as Clinton Street, the lower -rise buildings. The Washington Plaza Building is built to CB -5 and it doesn't feel like there is a transition from that building to the residential areas. That building followed the Central Planning District guidelines, and that same developer is building a wonderful building up on Linn Street. McCullum feels that if the Commission adopts this plan, while there might be provisions to protect historic structures, there are no guarantees, as seen from other areas in the Riverfront Crossings District. If this proposal goes forward, he believes the area will lose the church, the youth homes, every property owner is re-evaluating their property situation. Tim Conroy (1410 Foster Road) questioned why this area wasn't originally considered when the Riverfront Crossings District was first discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. The area in question seems to be one of the most organic organizing meeting areas for Iowa City residents, such as farmer's market, Rummage in the Ramp, and the Rec Center. All of these are amazing public gatherings and to bring it into the Comprehensive Plan, is a good thing. The question is if the area should go beyond Ralston Creek, which would serve as a natural divide, as Commission Freerks brought up. Conroy doesn't feel a bunch of tall buildings will go up if the Civic Area is pulled into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings area because a lot of the land in question is owned by the City. He agrees with pushing the boundaries a little to include more businesses into the Downtown District. There are several businesses east of Ralston Creek that would like to be in the Downtown District. Conroy does not discount the fears and feelings of the residents of the College Green Park area, but that will not be included in this proposal. The project looming in everybody's mind, the Chauncey, is another discussion. Pam Michaud (111 South Johnson) stated she has lived in her house for 24 years and has seen four Victorian houses destroyed right behind her home to be replaced by a block long, ungraceful, four story building for undergraduates. 120 bedrooms were added to the neighborhood in a year. That was zoned CB -2, limit of 45 feet high. Michaud can see keeping the Gilbert Street area CB -5 because it is stepping down from CB -10. Michaud stated that terms like Central District and Comprehensive Plan are euphuisms for "taking over". A transition zone to a historic area is not two buildings. It's hardly even two blocks. It is ludicrous to say there is a transition zone when buildings of any height will be built right up to the historic neighborhood. Michaud stated that as Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 13 of 23 seen in major cities in America and abroad, historic areas make a difference, and Iowa Avenue will not be the same without the Unitarian Church and the two Victorian houses. Being part of a historic district is an honor, and stated there is a need for transitional zones. Michaud also stated that developers of large buildings, that will allow residents to have dogs, should be required to also provide a dog park for the residents. That would be structuring in green space. She also stated that she believes Iowa City will soon have an overabundance of hotels and more and more people are wanting to stay at B&B's so hotel prices need to drop to compete. In closing, Michael reiterated that massive block long buildings do not belong adjacent to historic Victorian homes. Cecile Kuenzli (705 S. Summit Street) is asking the Commission to not fold the Civic District into the Riverfront Crossings District because if it is done, there will be no transitional zone between the high-rises and the residential areas east of Van Buren Street. Mr. Yapp acknowledged that when asked, and stated there would only be a half a block of transition. Well, half a block does not constitute a transitional area. Additionally a lot has been said this evening from the developers and real estate community on how attracted young people will be in the future to this new development. Kuenzli stated that everyone needs to remember during the public hearing for the Chauncey the young people came out in force to oppose that project because what they liked about Iowa City was the old areas and the "funky" parts of Iowa City and made a point to state they don't take visitors to see high-rise structures, rather they take people to see places like The Mill, The Haunted Bookshop, The Hamburger Inn, The Soap Opera, New Pioneer, and such. Some of those businesses have already disappeared and she urges the Commission to save what is left and the transitional areas. Ethan Diehl (201 E Washington St) and grew up in Iowa City since his family moved here in 1975, moving away to attend college and then later live in Austin Texas for 16 years. He moved back to Iowa City and specifically to live in the 201 E Washington Street building, Marc Moen's building downtown. He chose to move back to Iowa City for the small town charm, as well as the international flavor of the Writer's Workshop. He remembers when an Iowa City that was opposed to the Ped Mall in 1977, and then again opposition to the Hotel Vetro, and opposed to a number of beautiful projects in the downtown area. If the Council is interested in young people coming back to Iowa City, which is a good thing considering how good the public schools are, they should be in favor of projects like this and this new development. Rudolf Kuenzli (705 S. Summit Street) had many questions when listening to Mr. Yapp give his presentation. There seems to be terms used, such as Central Business District, and trying to fold the three municipal blocks into the Central Business District. (Yapp confirmed that the three municipal blocks would be folded into the Downtown District.) Kuenzli stated that there is always consequences in zoning, because the Central Business District has been designated for density, high-rise buildings as has the Riverfront Crossings. Kuenzli agrees with the staff that the Riverfront Crossings will be the future of Iowa City, there are so many plans and projects in the works. Having lived in Iowa City for 45 years, coming during the middle of downtown urban renewal, and since then, until now, he has not seen so much planning and so many projects. Kuenzli is trying to suggest to put the emphasis of the Central Business District into the Riverfront Crossings and try to keep Gilbert Street, due to its proximately to the east side historic district, as the beginning of a transitional area. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 14 of 23 Matthew Fleming presented an anecdote in support of the proposed changes. A year and a half ago he was offered a position at Mercy Hospital and when his wife and he considered moving to Iowa City, if the mixed use structures that exist in downtown Iowa City were not here, they likely would not have come to this great community. So as a somewhat young professional, he believes Iowa City needs more of structures developed in Iowa City and they will attract younger people. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Ave) is very concerned about the College Street Park and as the oldest park in the town it is not being shown its due respect. She had listened to the many hours of debate on the Chauncey building project, it is appears that this proposal it to retro fit some of the plans in an effort to accommodate more growth in the city. Bennett stated her concern about how this will impact the Civic area, being an avid user of the rec center she enjoys coming out of that building and looking at the sky and enjoy the space around Ralston Creek. The Civic buildings were designed 50 years ago with the skyline in mind and keeping the views unobstructed to show respect to the neighborhoods. These two buildings are part of the historic Iowa City and could be nominated for the National Registry at some point. While these are city -owned properties right now, that can change in the future, and new structures could get built. Will the City build a high- rise building for their offices? If the City continues to grow, there will be a premium on the city - owned land. Bennett believes the downtown area has already grown out of control, and does not need to improach onto the neighborhoods to the east. It is ironic that 175 years ago Chauncey Swan himself came to this area and stood on the land where Old Capital was built, and wrote about how beautiful it was and how appropriate of a location to have a city in this location. He commissioned the drawing of the first map of Iowa City that designated very prominently areas for churches near the immediate downtown area. Areas for schools, in the immediate downtown area, where are those schools now? Where are those churches now? He talked about promenades and green spaces, even in 1839. Why isn't there green spaces surrounding Ralston Creek, why don't we imagine a beautiful farmer's market under a canopy right next to the creek, instead of underneath a parking ramp. Bennett feels the City needs a broader imagination in looking at how our community is going of grow. The tax base will grow alone with all the development and high- rises in the Riverfront Crossings area, and feels there needs to be stop to the erasing of the past throughout the City. If the City approves drawing the boundary line for the Downtown District half- way up to Johnson Street, how long after will it be that more multi -family structures will be built in the area. This proposal tonight does start a trajectory that will be very harmful. Additionally Bennett works at the State Historic Society of Iowa, the 400 block of Iowa Avenue was once all nice mansions, on the north side, and on the other side very nice four square farm houses. Bennett encourages the Commission and the City to slow down, get the correct boundaries set, and focus on the needs of the community. Nancy Bird, the executive director of the Iowa City Downtown District, and has had the pleasure of being introduced to Iowa City over the past couple of years. Their board has discussed many times what the boundaries of downtown Iowa City are. She has been listening carefully of when people talk about downtown, what they think downtown is, the various constituent areas, and to support the businesses of the downtown area. So for those who don't know, the boundary of the Downtown District is from Burlington Street up to Bloomington Street, including the north side neighborhood, and then from Gilbert Street to Clinton Street. In essence they have three neighborhoods in the downtown area, the Old Capitol Center, the downtown and the north side. What strikes Bird about the proposal tonight, which she supports, and her board supports, the community at large, these boundaries are on a map in a book, and people don't know where they Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 15 of 23 are. There are natural boundaries such as Ralston Creek, and other boundaries such as parking structures. One of the things her board is trying to do is listen to the property owners and citizens discuss historic buildings and there is a lot of passion around these buildings. Some are in need of repair and reinvestment and in order to do that the City has to be careful about new growth around these areas, recognizing one of the best things you can do to maintain a sustainable area is make sure you have density in the core, and believes in keeping the density downtown. Bird stated in her career of working with municipals, it is imperative that every five years they look at their Comprehensive Plans due to technology changes, market shifts, and climate shifts. One of the challenges of her job is not having enough spaces to put interested people, the vacancy rate is less than 2% and there a lot of people are invested in this community and being able to have some flexibility east of Gilbert Street will give the City the space that may be needed in the future for growth while saving historic areas as well. Therefore Bird gives here support to this proposal. Freerks asked Bird if her association has had much discussion on historic districts. Bird replied that yes, they have talked about historic properties. And with the guidelines established, she has been working with City staff on making them more stringent so there is predictability of what can be done to avoid controversy. Predictability is very important. Freerks stated there is very little protection in that area right now. John Fogerty, one of the co-chairs of the Iowa Coalition Against the Shadow, spoke to the Commission about compromise, feeling Ms. Bird was the only speaker so far this evening that supported the proposal but saw the need for compromise on the properties east of Gilbert Street. Fogerty believes this whole proposals is because of Mr. Moen's project, it his project was in the already CB -10 zone, or Riverfront Crossings, and there wouldn't be a need for this conversation. Fogetry stressed to the Commission to think if there are other options for bringing all these young people back to Iowa City. There is plenty of space south of Burlington Street. He believes that yes there are options for these three blocks that would bring in revenue for the City and allow for the appropriate transition to the College Green District and allow for some mixed use development. He implores the Commission to think about the effects of this proposal years down the road and the impact it may have on the Victorians in the neighborhood. He feels they should look at other options, and is in support of emphasizing the Riverfront Crossings area and south of Burlington. Joyce Summerwill stated she is a retiree who recently moved downtown, and did so because they wanted to. They had lived in a very nice neighborhood in Iowa City, having lived here for over 50 years, and what she has seen Iowa City become is many thanks to the folks that serve on commissions and who serve in the City and have made the City better to live in. The purpose for everyone tonight is because they all feel passionate about their views, whatever they are, but from her perspective that living downtown with a variety of people, with the wonderful churches, with the wonderful parks, with the services, with the variety of people, this is what attracts people to Iowa City. Change is going to happen no matter what anyone wants to do to stop it. The best thing to do is to manage the change that comes with good thinking, good planning, good design, good usage, and from her perspective in Iowa City currently, the best use of land. She believes vertical development, planned accordingly with good design, is the only way to secure good neighborhoods that are already in Iowa City. It has sadden her over the years to see what apartment complexes that have gone up in the neighborhoods, the so called sprawl, probably necessary because students needed a place to live. But now we are even seeing the University Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 16 of 23 endorsing higher buildings, so she believes the question of whether we like or don't like vertical buildings, is not the question. We have to think as planners and as future people who may want to live here, what you want your city to be, and we want all of these components to be a part. She feels the plan the City has outlined is a good use for growth. Amanda Ward (201 E Washington St) is relatively new to Iowa City, only having lived here for three months. She had moved here from Los Angeles and at first was very disappointed but came here to be the director of VIP Services for Hotel Vetro so is in the unique position of talking to the travelers that come to Iowa City every day. One of the first things she noticed about the Ped Mall was the mix of old buildings and new buildings, where in California they don't have that, and found the old buildings to be beautiful but also likes the mix of the new architecture, including the new building she lives in. Ward discussed the Victorian homes, and stated there is a huge difference between a Victorian home and a home on the National Registry, so when she first drove through Iowa City and was looking at the Victorian homes, she noticed buildings with broken cornices, trash cans in front of them, that are falling apart and are run down, not the beautiful mansions everyone is talking about this evening. She continued to discuss the arbitrary boundaries and the time put into these conversations, and the appeal to slow down and don't make a rush decision. Ward feels the opposite, speed up, make a decision, and hopefully it's a decision of moving Iowa City forward, into young and old, newbies and traditional people who have lived here a long time. As she mentioned, she talks to people every day, they are attracted to the downtown area, they are wanting to live in the Ped Mall, they are wanting to be down where they are close to the action of the city for its vibrant nature, so having the opportunity for buildings that will provide that for people, that will become a draw for people to come to Iowa City, she can't see that as a negative thing. Ward stated she understands the emphasis on the old and protecting the old, but the new is as equally as important. Joseph Knock, agrees with the people who say a decision should not be made tonight, that there should be some consideration for what should be expanded and what should be kept. If however, this district is folded into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan, he would suggest that they try to save or preserve as many historical properties as possible. He also suggests that new buildings adhere to some of the architecture of that area, so rather than having an out of place, block long development, to try to have the development resemble what is already there. Knapp thanked the Commission for showing the beautiful picture of the congregation because back in 1989 he rebuilt that steeple and was on scaffel 65 feet above ground. He reiterated that they town needs to keep its historic nature and building new high-rises that are 15 or 20 stories high are not necessary. Dick Summerwill stated he was going to speak in favor of this proposal but after hearing Casey Cook talk earlier and feels his comment need to be taken note of. Summerwill stated he has lived in Iowa City almost his whole life, was away for 10 years, but came back, and when he came back the downtown was a mess, it was the kind of downtown that the University would not bring their professors through when they were recruiting them. Young people were fleeing the area. Urban renewal came and went, and frankly made this discussion look like a piece of cake. Summerwill feels this is a wonderful conversation because it is discussing compromise and what can be done. The biggest idea tonight for a compromise is to make Ralston Creek the boundary, because that is a natural boundary. After going through urban renewal it took 30 years to get enough buildings Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 17 of 23 and streetscapes to encourage people to come downtown, they are now coming. Summerwill believes the downtown is the best today as it's ever been and that is because there are cohesive efforts between the University of Iowa and the City of Iowa City and it is growing and dynamic and there needs to be room for more growth. In closing he urged the Commission to not delay the project, but to move forward. Cook stated that he has renovated three old houses, ages 1910-1920, and there is a big distinction between an old house and a historic house and questions if historic has been well defined. Cook also sat on the Board of Directors for the United Action for Youth and that house at 422 Iowa Avenue has a nice paint job, but it is not in good condition, and if designated as a historic property, it will devalue that home around a half million dollars. Cook has also done some work on the Unitarian Church, and if that building stay intact, on that site, it will reduces its value by about two- thirds. When you think about what people are paying for land in the downtown area, it makes him very much in favor of this district. Cilek spoke to give a comparison to what is Meta experienced, they were on South Gilbert Street, in half the amount of space, and when they moved into the new building at 201 Washington, they have approximately twice the space, the utility bills are half as much, due to LED lighting, and other upgraded features. So when folks talk about historic that is important but they need to recognize a business looks at utilities, high-speed internet, and other amenities that come with a new building, is what will attract new businesses to Iowa City, and outweighs worrying about where the buffer zone is. Cilek feels the his company will be looking for additional space in the future, and will want to be close to their current downtown location. McCullum stated that Mr. Cook just re-emphasized the concern about how it seems that every church in this area is being looked at as a development project. The community will lose all those properties, those churches, so there won't be any old, just new. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks stated that this is a topic that needs to be discussed and mulled over, and entertains a motion to have discussion. Eastham moved that the Commission defer this item until the first meeting in February. Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham questioned staff on how many sites of redevelopment on multi -story currently are identified in Downtown District Plan. Yapp stated that would take some time to count. Hektoen asked if Eastham was just asking how many are designated in the plan itself, and Eastham confirmed that was his question. Swygard also had a question for staff on the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan, it says that ultimately the City should pursue the creation of form -based code to regulate all new development downtown, and asked staff to comment on if that is in the works. Yapp confirmed it is on the staff work program, and the initial steps of that was a discussion with the Downtown District earlier this week regarding establishing design standards, facades, signage and so forth, and that he sees this as a first step to establishing a form -based code for the Downtown District. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 18 of 23 Eastham stated that staff has asked the Council to establish proposals for inclusionary affordable housing, and asked if the staff has considered extending those proposals or measures into the Civic District. Yapp answered that the City Council direction that they were given was to develop and propose inclusionary zoning standards for just the Riverfront Crossings Area at this time. Eastham asked for confirmation that the staff proposal is to only include into the Downtown District Plan only three blocks of this Civic Area, and Yapp confirmed that was correct. Eastham also noted that there is only one potentially historical structure in that three block area, and Yapp confirmed that is correct as well. Freerks stated her concern that the Commission may not even be ready to vote on this issue even at the next meeting, as this is such a big subject with a lot of energy around it, and the ongoing discussions of historic structures, and lessons were learned in discussions of previous historic areas that need to be heeded at this time. Freerks believes that not all structures need to have gone through the historic preservation process, but the Commission and the City needs some type of map showing the areas that might be in question so people can move forward with the correct expectations. Freerks feels this proposal today seems hobbled together and if moved forward will just divide those interested more. She understands the need for taller structures and building vertically in some areas, but there is also the need to maintain parts of these areas, and protect areas, and could not do so if they moved forward with the proposal as it is. The boundary being set in a middle of a block does not make sense, and there is a need to go through and look at what the base zones are in these areas and are those zonings really what the community wants for these areas. Freerks believes there needs to be a better plan and wants to call for an informal meeting to discuss this issue prior to the next formal meeting for this topic. Informal meetings are also open to the public. Hektoen clarified that the proposal is not talking about establishing a boundary mid -block. That boundary is there currently. Freerks understands but still feels the issue needs to be looked at overall for more clarity. Eastham stated as he understands this proposal, staff has suggested that three square blocks which are almost entirely owned by the City of Iowa City, be incorporated into the Downtown District. So the Commission is tasked with deciding if that is a good idea or not. Whether there are existing proposals of development on that area is not of the Commission's concern. Martin stated she would like to see these two Comprehensive Plan Amendments broken into two separate pieces. Eastham agreed that would be a good idea. Thomas agreed that they should be discussed separately as they are on two different timelines. Dyer shared her confusion still on the area in question. Yapp explained the areas on the map outlined in blue are proposed to be added to the Central Planning District, as they are both part of the old Downtown Planning District, and they were not included in the Downtown Master Plan, and were not included in the Central District Plan. Yapp stated that staff would work to schedule an informal meeting to discuss this issue and once the time is set it will be posted to the website. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 19 of 23 Swygard had a question regarding the motion, and if the motion is to delay to the next meeting or further. Freerks stated it could be discussed again at the next formal meeting, but hopes an informal meeting can be held as well. A vote was taken, motion carried 7-0 REZONING ITEM (REZ14-00023) Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. (REZ14-00023) Miklo showed the location map of the property, this property is located in the North Corridor District. This property is currently zoned Interim Development — Research Development Park (ID - RP) and the proposal is to change the zoning to Commercial Office Zone (CO -1). The purpose of the CO -1 zone is to provide specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semipublic uses may be developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The CO-Izone can serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plans show this area as Office Research Development Center. The proposed CO -1 zoning, as well as the Research Development Park (RD) and Office Research Park (ORP), are appropriate zoning districts to implement the land use plan. The property to the south is currently zoned CO -1 and developed as Northgate Office Park. Properties to the west, north and east are currently used for agriculture, including a farm residence that is located directly north. The land use plan depicts the areas to the west and east of the subject property as also being appropriate for Office Research Development Centers; the property to the north is identified as Rural Residential. Miklo said the CO -1 zone is generally viewed as being compatible with residential neighborhoods. It has a maximum building height of 25 feet (generally two stories) and does not allow more intense commercial uses that may detract from nearby residences. The Commercial Site Development Standards that apply to the CO -1 zone require street trees, parking lot coverage trees and landscaping around the perimeter of parking lots to further improve compatibility with nearby residential uses. Miklo said that there are some traffic implications with this development. Initially the only street access to this property will be via Northgate Drive, which intersects with Dodge Street (Highway 1). In the long-term Oakdale Boulevard is planned to cross the northern portion of this property to provide additional access to Highway 1. Additional access may also be available from Moss Ridge Road as shown on the concept plan. Staff measured existing traffic volumes, and forecasted future volumes, at several locations along Northgate Drive. It was concluded that at the Steindler Orthopedic Clinic Driveway the average daily traffic (ADT) on Northgate Drive would be approximately 5,547 upon full 'build -out' of the subject property — assuming similar land -uses currently present on Northgate Drive. This figure was derived using existing traffic counts and existing developed acreage which resulted in an additional 84 vehicles per day per acre. Traffic volumes were measured at the Steindler driveway as there is a secondary means of access at this point which allows egress between Northgate Drive and the Quality Inn Property. Therefore, Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 20 of 23 staff does not foresee any major traffic implications related to the subject plat. Traffic volumes will be managed through optimizing the traffic signal timing at the Northgate Drive and Highway 1 intersection. He said that Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner, was available to answer questions about the traffic study. Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. Freerks questioned some of the notes the Commission received stating concern about some buffer. Miklo responded that staff did discuss whether there is a need for a buffer in addition to what is required in terms of landscaping. He said all parking lot areas will be landscaped. Parking lot and trees are also required. The required setbacks are not very great in the CO -1 zone, however when you look at a typical office use, there are larger lawns and greenspaces around these buildings. As noted in the zoning ordinance, because of the CO -1 zone's low intensity and limit to two-story buildings, typically no buffering is required, and staff does not feel it is necessary in this case due to the intensity of the development. Most of the areas around this development will continue to be used as agricultural for some time. Additionally in the future when Oakdale Boulevard is developed there would be a right-of-way and buffer between the office development and the farm to the north. Dyer asked about Moss Ridge Road. Miklo answered that the development of that road would also depend on future development of the properties to the west. Freerks asked Miklo to discuss the future developments possible in the area, and he replied that there would be no drive-thru fast food restaurants permitted in this zone, so the noise and lighting from those would not be an issue. Restaurants are permitted by special exception, but he doesn't feel there is a market for a restaurant in this area. Freerks discussed the lighting pollution, and effect on neighboring properties. Miklo stated that the requirements state that when next to a residential property the light poles have a limit of 25 feet, but since there is no residential next to this property, that would not be enforced. However the Commission could add that condition onto their approval if so desired. Eastham asked if in the staff recommendation if there was any language in requiring a right-of-way to be reserved for Oakdale Boulevard. Miklo stated that would be a condition that would be dealt with when the development is platted. Eastham then questioned if there were to be additional traffic due to the development of this parcel, is here any way to stop additional development until Moss Ridge Road is constructed? Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner, addressed the question stating that in the study they did for this area, they took into consideration full build -out of the rezoned area. There are some concerns about the delay at the intersection of Northgate, but it does meet the existing delay perimeters and will not in the future even at full build -out. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 21 of 23 Eastham asked about the request of the right turn lane, and it that would be off of Northgate. Ralston replied that they have looked a lot of options for dedicated right turn or left turn lanes and feel that it is not necessary. Ralston stated there would be traffic delays at certain times of day, especially in the evening when everyone is leaving work, however it is really for only about a half hour a day and still meets the standards used throughout the city. Martin asked about the traffic survey process, Ralston spoke about a computer model, but Martin wanted to know if someone physically goes out to the site during the peak times and observe the traffic? Ralston confirmed that they do, and all the software and reports are based off actual traffic counts and then they add in an estimate of the traffic that would be generated by the new development. Freerks opened public hearing. Joe Hughes, representing Southgate Companies, stated they are nearly built -out on the other lots on Northgate Drive and have had great success with the area and it has brought lots of jobs to the community. The main feedback they received at the good neighbor meeting was the concerns about having to wait at the intersection, it would be nice if some of the bigger employers would stager the employee release times, but as Ralston stated the traffic situations are confined to a certain time of day. Hughes stated that having Oakdale Boulevard eventually extend to the property allows for 100 feet from the edge of the office lot to the edge of the Furhmeister's property so it gives quite a bit of distance. The Furhmeisters have mentioned in the past the need for some screening so people aren't looking at the backside of their farm buildings, so Hughes is asking the City to allow them to put some landscaping in the 100 foot right-of-way it would benefit both sides. Eastham asked Hughes if the developer could also add screening on the north side of the property. Hughes replied that the screening will be on their property which will eventually become the right- of-way when Oakdale Boulevard is built. Miklo stated the difficulty in planting the trees at this point on the right-of-way is there isn't yet a construction layout of Oakdale Boulevard, and the staff position is this is an office park and not an intensive type of commercial that requires some type of screening other than what is required by the zoning code. Deanna Furhmeister said that she and her husband Leo own the property directly north of the parcel being considered for rezoning, and their lane is the only thing that separates them from this property. Their property is agriculture and they actively farm, there is livestock, and they smell, they have drying bins that are very loud when in use, and use fertilizer and chemicals on their fields. Having said all that, she urges the Commission to give considerable thought on how to approach the situation of rezoning, and what kind of buffer strips or distance between the two properties can be used to secure the best results for harmony for a commercial property and a Century Farm of 122 years. Dan Furhmeister has very recently become the owner of the farm to the east of this property that is being rezoned for 17 additional commercial buildings. His farm has been in his family since the 1880's having just purchased his great, great grandparents farm. He stated he is not for or against the development in any way, he just wanted the City to be aware that he also has cattle and crops and is concerned that there is a need for a buffer between the properties. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 22 of 23 Miklo pointed out that the right-of-way for Oakdale Boulevard will be 100 feet and they don't anticipate that being built anytime soon so there will be a 100 foot buffer built in until such time that Oakdale Boulevard is built and the City Forester could work to ensure that there is some landscaping on the north side of that right-of-way. Freerks asked Hughes if he, as the developers, were willing to put landscaping in that right-of-way area. Hughes confirmed that he feels it makes sense for both sides, they just need to hear from City staff if they would allow trees in the right-of-way and if they are not worried then if construction of Oakdale Boulevard in the future would then destroy those trees. Miklo stated that was the concern, that if the trees are planted today, and then with the road design, the trees may need to be taken out. Miklo suggested that felt it was necessary to put in screening rather than putting it screening in the right-of-way of Oakdale Boulevard, to put the screening on the north side of lots 31 and 30, and requiring a 10 foot landscaping buffer on the north side of those lots. Thomas asked if it would also have to be on the east side, since there is also agriculture on the east side as well. Hektoen mentioned that when the Commission talks about any conditions they may impose they must be addressing public needs generated by this rezoning, and thinks it is reasonable to have the screening on lots 30 & 31 due to the farm residence to the north, but not for the additional screening to the east. Deanna Furhmeister also added they have another farm just north west of the proposed rezoning and feels there needs to be buffer strips all the way though the property because they have cattle on all their property. Miklo suggests that the buffer be to benefit the farm house and if the concern is buffering the office uses from the agricultural uses the office developers can do that themselves for their own benefit. Hughes stated the zoning already calls for buffering on the specific lots, City staff is recommending no additional buffering, perhaps they can move forward now in good faith and the specifics be worked out in the platting stage. Dan Furhmeister asked if the buffer had to be trees, or if it could be a berm. Freerks replied that the reality was once Oakdale Boulevard is built, the businesses would want to be able to be seen from that road, so a berm would not be appropriate. Freerks stated for the record that if the Commission were to move forward on good faith with this rezoning application, that the issue of buffering and trees needs to be addressed at the time of development. Hektoen stated that when Miklo and her work to draft the rezoning they could put in a whereas statement addressing the special issue of buffering. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that the Commission approve REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 23 of 23 Martin seconded the motion. Freerks stated this rezoning seems compatible to the area, and likes the idea of extending the commercial area into this part of the city. Thomas questioned if they had seen a summary report on the good neighbor meeting in the staff report before? Miklo answered it was the first time that one has been submitted by the applicant. Miklo said it is a new procedure that staff has implemented for the Good Neighbor Policy. Commissioners indicated that it was very helpful. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 18, 2014 There were several corrections where Swygard and Theobald's names were mixed up. Theobald moved to approve the corrected minutes for December 18, 2014. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo reported that the Council has asked staff to form a citizen committee to draft an inclusionary housing requirement for the Riverfront Crossings Area and is seen as being a pilot that might or might not be expanded. ADJOURNMENT: Swygard moved to adjourn the meeting. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. Z 0 � 0 OV 0WW) W z W N Eu I OQ� NN 06 Z Ur W Z_~ Z Q J a z p W W J O LL z P W W a O LLz � xxxxxxx N x x x x x x x N Nxxxxxxx �x x XOX X X �XXXXXXX co M W co co 00 r— Ln OC) LO ;WaLOU)LOLOLO �X0000o00 nen W W WJ Z }Q Z W a G 0 2 0CL-) 0<=0 J mLU Q W N W Q t W O Q>- ZC) Qoc W u. 2 2 F- c � � O WN a� 0cv� cn O o �aQZ� n ii u n u XOW O� W Y