Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-05 Info Packet� = 1 2�`` CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY January 5, 2012 www.icgov.org IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda JANUARY 6 SPECIAL WORK SESSION IP2 Email form Iowa League of Cities: Legislative Day, January 24 IP3 Information from Iowa City Lobbyists: Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission Report & Recommendations; Iowa League of Cities MFPRSI (Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa) City Summit, December 15, 2011; Iowa League of Cities Special Report — A Legal Review if More Than Forty Years of Home Rule Jurisprudence in Iowa: The Path Travelled and the Road Ahead; Iowa Fiscal Partnership — Tax Increment Financing IP4 Copy of Press Release submitted by City Manager: Bipartisan Proposal to improve Iowa's Roads and Bridges JANUARY 7 AND 9 SPECIAL WORK SESSIONS IP5 Budget Work Session and agenda for January 7 and 9, 2012 JANUARY 10 SPECIAL WORK SESSION IP6 Summary of Pending Work Session Items IP7 Memo from Senior Planner: 521 E. Washington Street (Red Avocado) [including press release and email from Council Member Throgmorton]; E -mail from Council Member Throgmorton: 500 E. Washington [Distributed at 1/10/12 Work Session]; Article in Press Citizen from Nila Haug: Development would benefit College Green Neighborhood [Distributed at 1/10/12 Work Session] IP8 Memo from City Clerk: Council Electronic Packets IP9 Memo from Asst. to the City Manager and City Clerk: Public Meetings in Alternative Locations IP10 Memo from Asst. City Atty. and City Clerk: Function of Boards /Commissions IP11 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show MISCELLANEOUS IP12 Iowa Chamber Alliance: A unified voice for economic growth 2012 Agenda January 5, 2012 Information Packet (continued) 2 IP13 Email from City Manager: Hot News: Governor Branstad Issues Proclamation Supporting Aviation IP14 Op -ed to New York Times from Mayor Hayek: Iowa City's Relationship with UNESCO IP15 2011 Annual Report of the Joint Emergency Communications Service Association (JECC) IP16 Memo from Director Public Works and Director of Planning & Community Development: Update: Flood Related Activities IP17 Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker II — Streets IP18 Building Permit Information — December 2011 DRAFT MINUTES IP19 Airport Commission: December 15, 2011 IP20 Board of Adjustment: December 14, 2011 IP21 Historic Preservation Commission: December 8, 2011 IP22 Housing and Community Development Commission: December 15, 2011 IP23 Human Rights Commission: December 20, 2011 IP24 Planning and Zoning Commission: December 15, 2011 IP25 Public Art Advisory Committee: December 1, 2011 IP26 Senior Center Commission: December 15, 2011 COUNCIL PACKETS ONLY AVAILABLE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR ON LINE (www.ic - gov.org) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2011 = 1 Aft CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET ..oft am- CITY OF IOWA CITY January 5, 2012 www.icgov.org IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda JANUARY 6 SPECIAL WORK SESSION IP2 Email form Iowa League of Cities: Legislative Day, January 24 IP3 Information from low City Lobbyists: Governor's Tran portation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission Report Recommendations; Iowa Lea ue of Cities MFPRSI (Municipal Fire and Police Retire ent System of Iowa) City mmit, December 15, 2011; Iowa League of Cities Specia Report — A Legal Review if More Than Forty Years of Home Rule Jurisprudence in low • The Path Travelled an the Road Ahead IP4 Copy of Press Release submitt by City Manager Bipartisan Proposal to improve Iowa's Roads and Bridges JANUARY 7 AND 9 *$PEC(AL WORK SESSIONS IP5 Budget Work Session and agenda for Alyary 7 and 9, 2012 JANUARY 10 $'PECIAL \WORK SESSION I IP6 Summary of Pending Work S sion Items IP7 Memo from Senior Planner- 521 E. Washington Str t (Red Avocado) [including press release and email from C until Member Throgmorton IP8 Memo from City Clerk: ouncil Electronic Packets IP9 Memo from Asst. t the City Manager and City Clerk: Pu lic Meetings in Alternative Locations IP10 Memo from Asst. /bity Atty. and City Clerk: Function of Boards /Cd�nmissions IP11 Memo from City% Clerk: KXIC Radio Show MISCELLANEOUS IP12 Iowa Chamber Alliance: A unified voice for economic growth 2012 Agenda IP13 Email from City Manager: Hot News: Governor Branstad Issues Proclamation Supporting Aviation IP14 Op -ed to New York Times from Mayor Hayek: Iowa City's Relationship with UNESCO January 5, 2012 Information Packet (continued) 2 IP15 2011 Annual Report of the Joint Emergency Communications Service Association (JECC) IP16 Memo m Director Public Works and Director of Planning & Community Development: Update: od Related Activities IP17 Civil Service ntrance Examination — Maint nance Worker II — Streets IP18 Building Permit I ormation —December 011 IP19 Airport Commission: DeceN IP20 Board of Adjustment: Decem IP21 Historic Preservation Comml IP22 Housing and Community D DRAFT MINUTES 2011 14, 2011 - December 8, 2011 pm e t Commission: December 15, 2011 IP23 Human Rights Commissi n: December 0, 2011 IP24 Planning and Zoning C mmission: Dece ber 15, 2011 IP25 Public Art Advisory mmittee: December 1, 011 IP26 Senior Center Co ission: December 15, 201 COUNCIL PACKETS ONLY AVAILA LE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR O LINE (www.ic- ov.or Comprehensive A nual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Yea ended June 30, 2011 ®07 IT r.%!R City Council Meeting Schedule and IP1 CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas January 5, 2012 www.icgov.org TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE - SUBJECT TO CHANGE ♦ FRIDAY, JANUARY 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:30a -8:30a Work Session — Meeting with Area Legislators Introduction of Lobbyists — Davis Brown Law Firm (Tom Stanberry & Jessica Harder) Review of Council Legislative Priorities as determined by resolution General updates ♦ SATURDAY, JANUARY 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall 8:00a -5:00p Budget Work Session ♦ MONDAY, JANUARY 9 Emma J. Harvat Hall 1:00p -7:00p Budget Work Session ♦ TUESDAY, JANUARY 10 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Work Session • Council Appointments • Agenda Items • Neighborhood Stabilization [IP # 7] • Information Packet Discussion [December 8, 15, 22, January 5] • Council Time • Summary of Pending Work Session Issues [IP # 6 ] • Meeting Schedule • Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations 7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting ♦ MONDAY, JANUARY 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall Martin Luther King, Jr. Day — City Offices Closed ♦ TUESDAY, JANUARY 24 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Work Session 7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting ♦ TUESDAY, JANUARY 31 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00p Budget Work Session (Boards /Commissions /Events) TBD Special Formal ♦ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall Presidents' Day — City Offices Closed ♦ TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Work Session 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting ♦ TUESDAY, MARCH 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Work Session 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting TUESDAY, MARCH 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Work Session �- = ®4* :.oi • p. City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas January 5, 2012 www.icgov.org 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting ♦ WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 4:30p Joint Meeting - Work Session Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: Iowa Lea katecarlucci@iowaleague.org Friday, December 23, 2011 12:00 PM Marian Karr Legislative Link Correction: Legislative Day is Tuesday, January 24, 2012 of Cities' IP2 Correction: Legislative Day is Tuesday, January 24 The League Legislative Day will be held January 24 at the Embassy Suites in Des __Moines' historic East Village. and key legislators. Governor Branstad has been invited to present awards to the winners of the League's "If I \ representatives will be invited to attend a networking reception. The legislative program runs from 2 - 5 p.m. fc Register now! Iowa League of Cities 317 Sixth Ave, Ste 800 1 Des Moines, IA 50309 Phone: (515) 244 -7282 1 mail box(cb iowa league.org I www.iowaleague.org You are receiving this email as a subscription available to Iowa League of Cities members and associates. Unsubscribe or manage subscription. Governor's Transportation 2020 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION Report Mecommendations Transportation 2020 B R A N S T A D I R E Y N 0 L D S TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.................................................................... ..............................1 Executive Summary ........................................................ ..............................2 Background..................................................................... ..............................4 PastStudies .................................................................. ..............................4 Actionsto Increase Efficiency ...................................... ..............................5 Iowa's Public Roadway System and Condition ............ ..............................5 Impact of Severe Weather ........................................... ..............................6 Changing Demands on the System .............................. ..............................7 Funding........................................................................ ..............................8 Impact of Alternative Fueled Vehicles and Increasing Fuel Efficiency.... 10 FundingShortfall ......................................................... .............................11 EconomicImpact ......................................................... .............................13 Citizen Advisory Commission Process ........................... .............................15 Recommendations ......................................................... .............................22 Appendix A - Public Input Notes .................................... .............................24 Appendix B - Motor Fuel Tax Rates by State ................. .............................45 Appendix C - Existing Revenue Sources ......................... .............................47 Appendix D - Potential Revenue Sources ...................... .............................49 Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission Nancy Richardson, Co -Chair Jim Kersten Coralville, Iowa Fort Dodge, Iowa Allan Thorns, Co -Chair Cedar Rapids, Iowa Scott Cirksena Clive, Iowa Jeff Corkery Peosta, Iowa Sister Catherine Dunn Dubuque, Iowa Geri Huser Altoona, Iowa The following legislators are ex- officio members: Senator Tom Rielly Oskaloosa. Iowa Senator Tim I(apucian Keystone, Iowa Lindsey Larson Jefferson, Iowa Rose Mitchell West Des Moines, Iowa Ann Trimble -Ray Early, Iowa Dan Wiedemeier Burlington, Iowa Larry Winum Glenwood, Iowa Representative David Tjepl<es Gowrie, Iowa Representative Jim Lykam Davenport, Iowa INTRODUCTION In order to regularly re- evaluate the conditions of Iowa's public roadway infrastructure and assess the ability of existing revenues to meet the needs of the system, the Iowa Department of Transportation's 2006 Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) report to the legislature included a recommendation that a study be conducted every five years. That recommendation was included in legislation adopted in 2007 and signed into law. The law specifically requires the following: • 'The department shall periodically review the current revenue levels of the road use tax fund and the sufficiency of those revenues for the projected construction and maintenance needs of city, county, and state governments in the future. The department shall submit a written report to the general assembly regarding its findings by December 31 every five years, beginning in 2011. The report may include recommendations concerning funding levels needed to support the future mobility and accessibility for users of Iowa's public road system." • 'The department shall evaluate alternative funding sources for road maintenance and construction and report to the general assembly at least every five years on the advantages and disadvantages and the viability of alternative funding mechanisms." Consistent with this requirement, the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) has been working on completing this study that is due to be submitted to the general assembly December 31, 2011. Recognizing the importance of actively engaging with the public and transportation stakeholders in any discussion of public roadway conditions and needs, Governor Terry E. Branstad announced on March 8, 2011, the creation of, and appointments to, the Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission (Commission). The Commission was tasked with assisting the Iowa DOT as they assess the condition of Iowa's roadway system and evaluate current and future funding available to best address system needs. In particular the Commission was directed to gather input from the public and stakeholders regarding the condition of Iowa's public roadway system, the impact of that system, whether additional funding is needed to maintain /improve the system, and, if so, what funding mechanisms ought to be considered. With this input, the Commission was to develop and finalize recommendations to submit to Governor Branstad and the Iowa DOT for their consideration as they finalize their report to the legislature. This report is the documentation of the work of the Commission and their recommendations. Governor's Charge "I am pleased to announce the appointees to the Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission. These individuals will be an asset to the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) as they assess the condition of Iowa's roadway system while evaluating the current and future funding available to best address system needs." - Governor Terry Branstad, March 8, 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Iowa is fortunate to have an extensive public roadway system that provides access to all areas of the state and facilitates the efficient movement of goods and people. However, it is also a tremendous challenge for the state, cities and counties to maintain and improve this system given flattening revenue, lost buying power, changing demands on the system, severe weather, and an aging system. This challenge didn't appear overnight and for the last decade many studies have been completed to look into the situation and the legislature has taken significant action to begin addressing the situation. In addition, the Iowa DOT and Iowa's cities and counties have worked jointly and independently to increase efficiency and streamline operations. All of these actions have been successful and resulted in significant changes; however, it is apparent much more needs to be done. A well- maintained, high - quality transportation system reduces transportation costs and provides consistent and reliable service. These are all factors that are critical in the evaluation companies undertake when deciding where to expand or locate new developments. The Commission heard from many Iowans that additional investment in Iowa's roadway system is vital to support existing jobs and continued job creation in the state of Iowa. Beginning June 2011, the Commission met regularly to review material and discuss potential recommendations to address Iowa's roadway funding challenges. This effort included extensive public outreach with meetings held in seven locations across Iowa and through a Transportation 2020 website hosted by the Iowa DOT ( www. iowadot .gov /transportation2020). Over 500 people attended the public meetings held through the months of August and September, with 198 providing verbal or written comment at the meetings or through the website. Comments were received from a wide array of individuals. The public we heard from overwhelmingly support increased funding for Iowa's roads. In addition, we heard that our recommendations should be based on the following principles: • Additional revenues are restricted for road and bridge improvements only, like 95 percent of the current state road revenue. This includes fuel taxes and registration fees. • State and local governments continue to streamline and become more efficient, both individually and by looking for ways to do things collectively. • User fee concept is preserved, where those who use the roads pay for them, including non- residents. • Revenue - generating methods are fair and equitable across users. • Increase revenue generating mechanisms that are viable now but also begin to implement and set the stage for longer -term solutions that bring equity and stability to road funding. • Continue Iowa's long standing tradition of state roadway financing coming from pay -as- you -go financing. Iowa must not fall into the situation that other states are currently facing where the majority of their new program dollars are utilized to pay the debt service of past bonding. Recommendations Based on a thorough analysis of relevant data, material and extensive public comment, the Commission recommends that the Iowa DOT include the following recommendations in their 2011 report to the Iowa legislature in order to raise, at a minimum, an additional $215 million annually in road user fees to be spent by the counties, cities and state on Iowa's roads and bridges. Securing this additional revenue is vital to address deficient bridges on priority city, county and state highways; deteriorating roadway conditions that have the greatest impact on the movement of goods and people; and continued development of corridor projects. Following is a summary of the recommendations which are fully documented on page 22. 1. Increase the state fuel tax rates across the board by eight to ten cents. Estimated Annual Revenue: $184 million to $230 million 2. Increase the "Fee for New Registration" from five percent to six percent. Estimated Annual Revenue: $50 million 3. Iowa DOT should evaluate and recommend a funding mechanism in their report to the legislature that applies to alternatively fueled, hybrid and high fuel efficiency vehicles (including commercial vehicles). 4. Consistent with existing Code of Iowa requirements, new funding should go to the TIME -21 Fund up to the cap ($225 million) and remaining new funding should be distributed consistent with the Road Use Tax Fund distribution formula. 5. The Code of Iowa should be changed to require the study of the sufficiency of the state's road funds to meetthe road system's needs every two years instead of every five years. 6. Iowa DOT should at least annually convene meetings with cities and counties to review the operation, maintenance and improvement of Iowa's public roadway system to identify ways to jointly increase efficiency; efficiency actions should be quantified, measured and reported to the public on a regular basis. 7. By June 30, 2012, Iowa DOT should complete a study of vehicles and equipment that use Iowa's public roadway system but pay no user fees or substantially lower user fees than other vehicles and equipment. BACKGROUND The Commission began their work with meetings in June 2011 to review background information regarding past studies, conditions, funding and other issues that impact Iowa's public roadway system. Past Studies While the current requirement to conduct a study of roadway needs and revenue is a relatively new requirement, several ad hoc and legislatively mandated studies have been completed in the last ten years in response to the many challenges facing the Iowa DOT and local jurisdictions in addressing roadway needs. These studies are summarized below. 2002 Ad Hoc Study Recognizing that all jurisdictions in Iowa were facing many challenges to adequately maintain and improve Iowa's public roadways, representatives from the Iowa DOT, cities and counties launched a major initiative to identify actions to increase efficiency and maximize the funding available for roadway maintenance and construction. The group met for over a year and identified several actions to increase the efficiency of operations. These recommendations, described in more detail later in the report, were adopted by the legislature in 2003 and resulted in more funding being available for public roadway maintenance and construction in Iowa. 2006 RUTF Study While the 2003 legislative actions increased the efficiency of roadway administration, maintenance and construction, it became evident to the legislature that more action was needed. In 2005, the legislature directed the Iowa DOT to undertake a study of the long -range construction and maintenance needs of Iowa's public roadway system and the sufficiency of existing transportation revenues to meet those needs. The 2006 study projected a $27.7 billion shortfall in revenue to meet all current and future needs over the next 20 years. Recognizing some needs have a greater economic benefit than others, and also recognizing it is not reasonable to secure funding to address all of the needs of Iowa's public roadway system, the needs were further stratified to identify those that are most critical to sustain and grow Iowa's economy. The critical need analysis identified an annual funding shortfall of $200 million per year. The study included a recommendation that $200 million in new state road funding be generated and targeted to a fund that directs new money to those most critical needs. In response to the 2006 RUTF study, the legislature adopted and the governor signed a bill in 2007 that implemented many of the policy recommendations of the study, most notably creation of the Transportation Investment Moves the Economy in the 21'` Century (TIME -21) Fund. The bill also included language requiring the Iowa DOT to conduct periodic reviews of the long -range needs of Iowa's public roadway system and sufficiency of existing transportation revenues to meet those needs. Additionally, these periodic reviews are to evaluate alternative funding sources. The following 2008 legislative session, the legislature adopted a bill, signed by the governor, which modified vehicle registration fee formulas, trailer registration fees and title fees. These changes were phased in over time and began generating TIME -21 revenue during Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, although far below the $200 million per year critical need funding level. Another important part of the legislation was the elimination of the motor vehicle use tax funding mechanism and implementation in its place of an equivalent "fee for new vehicle registration." While this change did not generate any additional road funding, it extended the protection found in Iowa's Constitution to a greater share of state road funding because the fee for new vehicle registration is covered by the Constitutional protection where the use 4 tax was not. The result is that now about 95 percent of RUTF revenues are required by Iowa's Constitution to be spent only on roadways. 2008 TIME -21 Study Recognizing that the revenue increases adopted in 2008 would raise revenue below the critical funding shortfall, the legislature included language to require the Iowa DOT to update the roadway needs and revenue study and determine the funding shortfall. The Iowa DOT completed this study in December 2008 and determined that the critical funding need had increased from $200 million per year to $267 million per year. This increase was due to the delay in securing new funding, increased construction costs, severe weather impacts, and deteriorating conditions. Actions to Increase Efficiency As documented in these many studies of Iowa's public roadway needs, there are significant funding shortfalls. Iowa's jurisdictions have a long history of taking individual actions to increase efficiency and working as partners to maximize the funding available for roadway maintenance and construction. As described earlier, even before funding shortfalls were formally documented, Iowa's jurisdictions began meeting in 2002 to study the public roadway system and identify actions to increase efficiency of operations. The group met throughout 2002 and made recommendations that were shared with the legislature. Those recommendations were the basis of subsequent legislation, drafted by the Iowa DOT, and adopted by the legislature in 2003, to accomplish the following: Rationalize the Primary Road System by transferring 712 miles to county and city governments. Transfer responsibility to the counties for farm -to- market extensions in cities under 500 population. Allow the board of supervisors to initiate a change in county road classification to area service "C." Establish a study committee to evaluate the distribution of the Street Construction Fund for the Cities. In addition, the Iowa DOT and individual cities and counties have taken actions to increase operational efficiency that included reductions in staffing, agency reorganizations, consolidation of facilities, reductions in vehicle fleets, sharing of resources (i.e. facilities, staff, and equipment), and many others. Over the last 10 years, counties have reduced staff by approximately 300 people. The Iowa DOT reduced staff by 750 since 2002, eliminated 39 field offices /garages, and reduced the number of vehicles in their fleet. Cities across Iowa have also taken similar actions. These actions resulted in more funding being available for public roadway maintenance and construction. For example, the Iowa DOT's actions alone reduced operational costs by approximately $45 million annually making that funding available for road construction. Iowa's Public Roadway System and Condition Iowa's public roadway system is comprised of over 114,000 miles of roads with approximately 25,000 bridges. Table 1 is a summary of mileage and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) by jurisdictional responsibility. Table 1- Mileage and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) by System Source: Iowa DOT —Office of Transportation Data *This table and report do not include the small amount of mileage within Iowa's parks and institutions. While the size of Iowa's public roadway system has not increased significantly over the last two years, the infrastructure burden on Iowans remains significant. Nationally, Iowa ranks fifth in number of bridges and 13th in miles of roadway, yet the state ranks 30th in population and 23rd in land area. The public roadway system is deteriorating at a rapid rate due to the age of the system. Much of Iowa's public roadway system was built or modernized in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s which means there is a wave of infrastructure needs that require significant reinvestment due to their life cycle. An annual study from the Reason Foundation compares the conditions of roads and bridges of each state using data submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. Table 2 is a comparison of Iowa's rankings in several categories from the report published in October 2006 (the time of the 2006 RUTF study), the report published in July 2008 (TIME -21 Study), and the most current report published in September 2010. Table 2 — Comparison of Iowa's Roadway Condition Rankings from 2006 to 2010 Category Mileage* (as of January 1, 2010) %of Total Mileage 2010 Total VMT (Millions) %of Total VMT 2010 Large Truck VMT (Minions) %of Total Large Truck VMT Primary 9,400.77 8.2% 19,463 61.6% 2,449 92.2% Secondary 89,866.00 78.7% 5,296 16.8% 183 6.9% Municipal 14,886.80 13.1% 6,820 21.6% 23 0.9% Total 114,153.57 Rural Arterial 31,579 43rd 2,655 +2(-3) Source: Iowa DOT —Office of Transportation Data *This table and report do not include the small amount of mileage within Iowa's parks and institutions. While the size of Iowa's public roadway system has not increased significantly over the last two years, the infrastructure burden on Iowans remains significant. Nationally, Iowa ranks fifth in number of bridges and 13th in miles of roadway, yet the state ranks 30th in population and 23rd in land area. The public roadway system is deteriorating at a rapid rate due to the age of the system. Much of Iowa's public roadway system was built or modernized in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s which means there is a wave of infrastructure needs that require significant reinvestment due to their life cycle. An annual study from the Reason Foundation compares the conditions of roads and bridges of each state using data submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. Table 2 is a comparison of Iowa's rankings in several categories from the report published in October 2006 (the time of the 2006 RUTF study), the report published in July 2008 (TIME -21 Study), and the most current report published in September 2010. Table 2 — Comparison of Iowa's Roadway Condition Rankings from 2006 to 2010 Category 2006 Ranking 2008 Ranking 2010 Ranking Change (based on 2004 data) (based on 2006 data) (based on 2008 data) 2006 to 2008(2008 to 2010) Rural Interstate 32nd 32nd 38th 0(-6) Condition Urban Interstate 44th 47th 43rd -3( +4) Condition Rural Arterial 45th 43rd 46th +2(-3) Condition Deficient Bridges I 32nd I 34th I 34th 1 -2(0) Urban Interstate 19th 20th 19th -1( +1) Congestion Source: Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems. Reason Foundation, David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E., and Ravi K. Karanam, October 2006 and July 2008. While Iowa's rural arterial condition ranking improved slightly between 2006 and 2008, the ranking regressed in 2010 and still ranks near the bottom of the country. In the other rankings, Iowa has lost ground or virtually remained the same over the time period. It is important to note that the data used in this report has a lag time of two years. Therefore, the most current rankings are based on 2008 data which does not reflect the impact recent flooding and severe winters have had on Iowa's public roadway conditions. Impact of Severe Weather Iowa has experienced severe weather in recent years which has had a significant short -term and long- term impact on Iowa's public roadway infrastructure. The uncharacteristically severe winter of 2007- 2008 severely impacted the condition of Iowa's public roadway system. According to the State Climatologist Office, the calendar year of 2008 ranks as the 4th snowiest on record statewide, and comes after a very snowy 2007 year (9th snowiest). Exceptional winter seasons have produced heavy snowfall and many freeze -thaw cycles. This has greatly accelerated pavement and supporting roadbed damage to all roadways, resulting in increased operation costs for all jurisdictions, needing to advance projects costing millions of dollars, and spending the springs repairing damaged roadways. Flooding events, including on -going flooding in western Iowa, have resulted in severe impacts on infrastructure. The floods of 2008 caused $19 million in damage on the primary road system and an estimated $43 million in damage on county road systems in 92 counties. Calendar year 2010 also brought frequent rain, producing flooding along the Maquoketa River and washing out the Lake Delhi dam. A period of consecutive nights of rain soaked central Iowa, producing record or near - record flooding in the Ames and Des Moines areas and locations downstream. Flooding events continued in 2011 with flash floods in the Dubuque area in July and sustained, long -term flooding of the Missouri River in western Iowa that contributed to many road closures and detours due to severe damage to the primary and secondary road system. At the time this report was finalized, the 2011 damage to the primary road system was estimated to total approximately $46 million. This does not include repairs completed by Iowa DOT forces or damage to city and county roads. This extreme weather also has an impact on operational expenses for all jurisdictions when the priority is keeping roadways open to traffic in a safe manner. To keep roadways open in extreme weather conditions, whether it is winter weather conditions or flooding, requires extensive labor, equipment, and material resources. These operational costs must be covered using existing budgetary funds; therefore, covering the costs to meet these needs is accomplished by reducing other activities including maintenance and preservation of the roadway system. Deferring maintenance and preservation activities has a long -term negative impact on the roadway system which is difficult to quantify but is significant. While flooding and severe weather conditions resulted in significant and identifiable deteriorated roadway conditions, of greater concern is the undetectable, incremental advancement in condition deterioration. While there is no way to quantify the loss in useful life of Iowa's roadways caused by the recent weather, transportation engineers acknowledge it is significant. In summary, the extreme weather conditions caused not only immediate damage to the roadway system but also long -term deterioration reducing the life of the system. These impacts were felt by all Iowans and the frustration they expressed is further evidence of the importance of transportation to our well -being and economy. Changing Demands on the System Total travel in Iowa, across all systems, from 1990 through 2010 (the most current available) has increased 36 percent (31.6 billion miles of travel in 2010). During that same period, large truck travel or Iowa's public roadways has grown 42 percent. This continuing increase in large truck travel significantly impacts road and bridge conditions, capacity, operational requirements, and the ultimate life of the roadway. Increasing numbers of oversize and overweight movements are due in part to renewable energy developments (wind energy and biofuel plants). The production and installation of wind energy components and the hundreds of thousands of truckloads of corn and soybeans shipped to biofuel plants result in increased wear and tear on the roadway system and, in some locations, congestion. The increased traffic also causes increased safety concerns at intersections near these developments necessitating intersection improvements up to and including construction of new interchanges. As Iowa continues to be a hub for development of wind energy farms (and also the manufacturing of components for wind energy equipment) and biofuel production, the large and heavy loads are taking a toll on Iowa's roadways. Movement of this equipment and these products has an impact on the condition of roadway infrastructure, safety, and the operational characteristics of the roadway, occasionally resulting in the need for changes in intersection design to handle the large sizes. In addition, due to deteriorating bridge conditions, the movement of heavy components is often inefficient as loads are routed around the state to bridges that can safely handle the weight. These changing demands on the system accentuate the need to address Iowa's transportation needs in a multimodal approach. Investments in rail, aviation, bicycle /pedestrian, and public transit are necessary to assure that Iowans have access to transportation. Each mode serves a unique role in the movement of goods and people that are vital to growing and supporting Iowa's economy. While the mission of the Commission was to address roadway funding needs, the Commission recognizes the need to invest in all modes of transportation. This was also a message heard through the Commission's public outreach. Funding State RUTF /TIME -21 State revenue to the RUTF and TIME -21 Fund comes from various sources as summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3 — State Road Funding Fuel Tax 1 $430 million 36 percent Yes Annual Registration Fee $470 million 39 percent Yes Fee for New Registration $240 million 20 percent Yes Other* $70 million 5 percent No Total $1.21 billion * Driver's license fees, title fees, trailer registration fees, and other miscellaneous fees. Source: Iowa DOT — Offices of Program Management and Systems Planning It is important to note that 95 percent of all the revenue that flows into the RUTF /TIME -21 Fund is required by the Iowa Constitution to be spent on Iowa's public roadways and cannot be diverted for non - roadway programs. Of these funding sources, only fuel tax and pro -rated annual registration fees from commercial vehicles generate funding from out -of -state drivers. The Iowa DOT estimated in their 2008 TIME -21 study that out -of -state drivers generate 20 percent of total travel on Iowa's roadways but provide only 13 percent 91 of state road revenue, while Iowa drivers produce 80 percent of the total travel on Iowa's roadways but provide 87 percent of state road revenue. Impact of Inflation Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, state road funding saw relatively high growth from year to year. This was due to rapid growth in travel, little change in fuel efficiency, and elimination of non - roadway appropriations from road funds. Since 2000 (see Table 4 and Figure 1), road funding has remained relatively flat, even experiencing one year where funding fell from the previous year. However, construction cost inflation has had a dramatically negative impact on the buying power of road funding. Over the five -year period from 2004 to 2008, the construction cost index in Iowa grew by 67 percent, the largest five -year increase in construction costs since the measure has been tracked. Construction cost growth slowed in recent years due to the economic recession, however costs are up 5.4 percent over 2010 through the second quarter of calendar year ICY) 2011. FY 2010 saw growth in actual road funding due to the phase in of TIME -21 revenue changes adopted by the legislature in 2008. However, the buying power of FY 2010 revenue is still 24 percent less than the buying power that existed in FY 1997. This only compounds the challenges already faced with deteriorating conditions, aging infrastructure, severe weather, and changing demands on the system. In addition to construction cost inflation, other operational costs have grown dramatically. The high cost of fuel, which has been above $3.00 per gallon for almost a year, increased operations costs for all jurisdictions. This high cost has been compounded with an increase in fuel usage due to extreme weather conditions over the past few years. The cost of salt also has increased significantly. As previously discussed, the impacts of severe weather and increased fuel and salt costs reduce available funding for maintenance and preservation resulting in further deterioration of the system and loss of useful life. Table 4 - RUTF/TIME-21 Revenue History Year RUTF /TIME -21 Revenue Actual Receipts (Millions) Percent Change from Previous Year RUTF /TIME -21 Revenue Adjusted to Constant 1997 Dollars Based on Iowa Construction Cost Index (Millions) Percent Change from Previous Year 1997 $856 3.1% $856 0.4% 1998 $880 2.7% $859 0.3% 1999 $950 7.9% $857 -0.3% 2000 $1,002 5.5% $866 1.1% 2001 $1,002 0.0% $863 -0.4% 2002 $1,036 3.4% $877 1.6% 2003 $1,057 2.0% $915 4.3% 2004 $1,082 2.4% $863 -5.7% 2005 $1,087 0.5% $799 -7.4% 2006 $1,101 1.3% $721 -9.7% 2007 $1,106 0.4% $661 -8.3% 2008 $1,138 2.9% $589 - 11.0% 2009 $1,123 -1.3% $580 2010 $1,203 7.1% $648 11.7% Source: Iowa DOT - Offices of Program Management and Systems Planning Figure 1— History of RUTF and TIME -21 Revenue (FY 1997 to FY 2010) $1,300 $1,200 $1,100 $1,000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 Actual Receipts Constant 1997 Dollars Source: Iowa DOT — Offices of Program Management and Systems Planning Instability of federal funding In addition to concerns regarding state revenues for roads, there are increasing concerns about federal funding for roadways. In September 2008, the Iowa DOT came within one week of having to suspend construction lettings of some federal -aid projects in Iowa due to the impending insolvency of the federal Highway Trust Fund (funding for the Highway Trust Fund comes primarily from federal fuel tax). States were notified that only partial federal reimbursements would be made until the Highway Trust Fund received additional funding. Congress passed a last minute transfer of $8.017 billion in general fund revenue to the Highway Trust Fund to keep federal funds flowing at appropriated levels. This transfer is one of several transfers of general fund dollars in recent years that totaled approximately $35 billion to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent. The end of Federal Fiscal Year 2009 saw the end of the latest federal highway and transit authorization bill that is adopted every five to six years to reestablish federal highway and transit transportation funding levels. In recent history, authorization bills are typically passed well after the previous bill expires, but with the challenges facing federal funding, no new bill has been passed in the last two years. Since then, there have been multiple continuing resolutions and extensions to keep federal highway funds flowing. It is unlikely that Congress will approve additional transfers of general fund dollars to the Highway Trust Fund or increase the federal fuel tax. Therefore, in Federal Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond, annual federal funding revenue to the state of Iowa will likely be reduced 25 percent to 30 percent, or approximately $100 million, from current levels in order to match revenues that flow into the Highway Trust Fund. Impact of Alternative Fueled Vehicles and Increasing Fuel Efficiency Compounding the state and federal funding challenges is the impact that alternatively fueled vehicles and increasing fuel efficiency are having on fuel tax revenues. Today, state fuel taxes make up about 36 10 percent of state road revenue and federal fuel taxes make up about 91 percent of federal road funds. People desire increased fuel efficiency due to the high -cost of fuel and in order to reduce their dependency on petroleum and the federal government is also mandating increases in fleet fuel efficiency. For the last several decades, the average fuel efficiency of new model light -duty vehicles averaged around 25 miles per gallon (mpg). With new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, the model year 2010 average fuel efficiency increased to 29.2 mpg. CAFE standards require this to increase to over 35 mpg in 2016. In addition, CAFE standards are now proposed for heavy duty vehicles. All of this will encourage increases in fuel efficiency and the use of alternatively fueled vehicles, resulting in a negative impact on fuel tax revenue. Researchers are currently working to develop a new approach to assess road user charges that is based on the number of miles a vehicle travels within each jurisdiction. Known as a vehicle - mile - traveled (VMT) fee, the system would calculate road mileage actually traveled and apply an appropriate rate within each jurisdiction. While this is widely viewed as a better and fairer way to assess and collect road user fees, the necessary technology does not yet exist in new cars, would be difficult to retrofit into older cars, and may have additional issues with applying charges to out -of -state drivers. Privacy issues must also be adequately addressed prior to implementation. Some states are considering applying an annual fee to alternatively fueled vehicles and plug -in hybrid vehicles to make up for the fuel tax revenue they are not generating despite their use of the system. Funding Shortfall As the basis for the Commission evaluation of city, county and state funding needs and shortfall, the Iowa DOT completed a preliminary assessment of total twenty -year needs, critical needs and revenue. The same methodology was utilized as used for the 2006 RUTF study and the 2008 TIME -21 study. Following is a summary of the preliminary results of the needs analysis. Table 5 —Total Funding Shortfall * Includes forecasted TIME -21 revenue As shown in Table 5, over a twenty -year period the funding shortfall to meet all current and future needs of Iowa's city, county and state roadway system is projected at $32.5 billion. On an annual basis, the funding shortfall is over $1.6 billion. The estimate of total needs of the roadway system does not take into account the fact that some of the needs have a cost that exceeds the benefits to the state. In an effort to take into consideration the economic benefits of different types of improvements on roadways with different traffic levels, the total needs were further refined to determine critical needs on the system. 11 Twenty-Year Total (in millions) Average Annual (in millions) Needs $79,800 $3,990 Revenue* $47,300 $2,365 Shortfall ($32,500) ($1,625) * Includes forecasted TIME -21 revenue As shown in Table 5, over a twenty -year period the funding shortfall to meet all current and future needs of Iowa's city, county and state roadway system is projected at $32.5 billion. On an annual basis, the funding shortfall is over $1.6 billion. The estimate of total needs of the roadway system does not take into account the fact that some of the needs have a cost that exceeds the benefits to the state. In an effort to take into consideration the economic benefits of different types of improvements on roadways with different traffic levels, the total needs were further refined to determine critical needs on the system. 11 The critical need level is the amount of funding necessary to meet the most critical pavement and bridge preservation needs that exist on Iowa's Interstate system, Commercial and Industrial Network, Farm -to- Market Network, and key city streets. In addition, the critical need level partially supports the following categories of need: • Capacity improvements on high - volume and CIN roads. • Reconstruction of high - volume roads with poor pavement. • Repair /replacement of functionally obsolete bridges on high - volume roads. • Repair /replacement of structurally deficient bridges on low- volume roads. • Resurfacing of low- volume roads. At the Iowa DOT, current and needed investments in stewardship (i.e. construction projects to extend the life and modernize existing infrastructure without adding capacity) and investments to complete currently programmed corridor completion projects cannot both be done as scheduled. At the local level, funding is not available to meet the most critical stewardship needs on the existing infrastructure. Additional revenue is needed to meet these critical needs. This is compounded when it is recognized that current stewardship investment levels are inadequate to maintain the existing highway system and current resources available for capacity and economic development are vastly inadequate to address the backlog of projects. Based on this reevaluation of needs and revenues, the updated annual shortfall in meeting Iowa's most critical public roadway needs is $215 million, in addition to TIME -21 revenues that are still phasing in, as shown in Table 6. This increased critical need is due to worsening system condition caused by continued insufficient investment, the impacts of recurring extremely severe weather and the expectation of continuing cost escalation. Table 6 — Critical Funding Shortfall * Includes forecasted TIME -21 revenue The impacts of this critical funding shortfall are an increasing number of bridges with weight restrictions and bridge closures, deteriorating conditions across the system (including high -level roads critical to the movement of goods and people), increased costs to transportation providers and users, and potential economic losses to the state of Iowa. It is important to note that, as with the 2006 RUTF study and the 2008 TIME -21 study, even with funding to cover the critical need shortfall, the system as a whole will still continue to experience deteriorating pavement and bridge conditions. By funding the critical need shortfall, improvements can be made on the roadways that will have the greatest impact on sustaining and growing Iowa's economy. 12 Twenty -Year Total (in millions) Average Annual (in millions) Needs $51,600 $2,580 Revenue* $47,300 $2,365 Shortfall ($4,300) ($215) * Includes forecasted TIME -21 revenue The impacts of this critical funding shortfall are an increasing number of bridges with weight restrictions and bridge closures, deteriorating conditions across the system (including high -level roads critical to the movement of goods and people), increased costs to transportation providers and users, and potential economic losses to the state of Iowa. It is important to note that, as with the 2006 RUTF study and the 2008 TIME -21 study, even with funding to cover the critical need shortfall, the system as a whole will still continue to experience deteriorating pavement and bridge conditions. By funding the critical need shortfall, improvements can be made on the roadways that will have the greatest impact on sustaining and growing Iowa's economy. 12 Economic Impact Addressing the critical funding shortfall by securing additional revenue to invest into the system will have significant short -term and long -term impacts on Iowa's economy. Each year vehicles in Iowa travel over 31 billion miles on Iowa's public roadway system. Nearly $390 billion worth of freight is hauled. These numbers alone demonstrate the vital role Iowa's public roadways play in our economy. Without this roadway system people could not get to work; there would be no access to healthcare, education and recreation; farmers would not be able to get their goods to market; and manufacturers would be unable to ship their products or receive supplies. In short, the economy would shutdown. Butjust having a public roadway system is not enough. The system must be well maintained, efficient, reliable, and accessible. Manufacturers rely more and more on just -in -time delivery which means much of the inventory they previously kept in their warehouses is now on trucks on the public roadway system for delivery to the plant at the time the manufacturer needs the supplies. It is critical to the economy that the roadway system supports consistent and reliable transportation so that just -in -time delivery is successful. This requires a roadway system that is in good condition, has adequate capacity and is well- maintained, even in inclement weather. Investments in the public roadway system support the economy through: 1) direct job creation through construction activities; 2) indirect and induced job support; and 3) productivity gains. A 2007 study from the Federal Highway Administration documented that every $1 billion in highway investment creates or supports 27,800 jobs. (www.fhwa. dot. gov / policy /otps /pubs /impacts /index.htm) Those jobs include the creation of full -time construction jobs (direct jobs), the support of jobs by material purchase and administrative and professional services in the construction industry (indirect jobs), and support of jobs in other industries in the economy when construction industry wages are spent on goods and services (induced jobs). Unlike other public investments to support and enhance the economy, public investments in the roadway system have an almost immediate impact in realizing associated benefits. In addition to job creation and support, productivity gains are realized by investments that reduce travel times, make travel times more consistent (critical forjust -in -time delivery), reduce crashes, and reduce vehicle operating costs. Studies show that every dollar increase in net highway capital (i.e., investments to improve the highway system) creates 30 cents of 'cost saving' producer benefits annually. (Federal Highway Administration, Frequently Asked Questions about Highways and the economy, http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /policy /12a- fag.htm) The same studies show that, on average, 25 percent of the yearly productivity growth rate in the United States is due to highway investments. Companies across Iowa attest to the importance of the roadway system in terms of location, capacity and condition to their ability to succeed because in today's economy "time is money." Many areas of the state are seeking public roadway improvements that they believe are critical to support existing and assure future economic development. Transportation costs are a major cost of doing business, which means a high - quality public roadway system is necessary to attract new businesses and support the growth of existing ones. A well- maintained, high - quality transportation system reduces transportation costs and provides consistent and reliable service. These are all factors that are critical in the evaluation companies undertake when deciding where to expand or locate new developments. The Commission heard from 13 many Iowans that additional investment in Iowa's roadway system is vital to support existing jobs and continued job creation in the state of Iowa. 14 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION PROCESS As discussed in the introduction, Governor Terry E. Branstad established the Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission in March 2011. The Commission worked for five months, holding public meetings throughout the state to gather citizen input about the state's transportation needs and potential funding options. The first meeting of the Commission was held June 16, 2011. At this meeting, Iowa DOT staff presented background material to the Commission on recent road fund studies and current roadway conditions. The remaining time was spent discussing funding solutions and the public input process and schedule. The Commission met again June 27, 2011, to discuss additional background information and to establish a public input schedule. On July 7, 2011, the Commission heard from city and county officials about the challenges they face in maintaining the local road system and from statewide stakeholders regarding their ideas on road conditions, the sufficiency of current funding to meet need, and preferred ways to raise revenues for Iowa's public roadways. The Commission then held seven public input meetings through the months of August and September. The locations and dates of the meetings were as follows: August 10, 2011— Bettendorf August 17, 2011— Mason City August 24, 2011— Des Moines August 31, 2011 — Storm Lake September 7, 2011 — Council Bluffs September 14, 2011— Waterloo September 21, 2011— Mount Pleasant Following is a map of the meeting locations held across the state. Des Moles Coueefl Nuffs 15 waterloo I O W A I9ettendorf I Pleasant Each meeting began with an introduction from a co -chair on the reasons why the governor appointed the Commission, who the members of the Commission are, and why the public was asked to participate. Following the introduction, Iowa DOT staff gave a brief presentation intended to provide the public information on the status of roads and bridges across Iowa and specific information addressing conditions on the surrounding local transportation system. This included background on previous studies and their recommendations, critical needs of the state, funding shortfalls, and options to raise revenue. The meeting was then opened up for input on the importance of Iowa's road system, the condition of the system, impact of the system from the user perspective, views on funding needs and opportunities, and how road funds should be utilized in the future. In addition to taking verbal and written input at the public input meetings, the Commission felt it was very important to provide all Iowans easy access to the material reviewed by the Commission and have an opportunity to provide input. Therefore, the Commission requested the Iowa DOT establish a Transportation 2020 website ( www. iowadot .gov /transportation2020). All of the materials reviewed by the Commission, along with their meeting agendas and minutes, were posted on this website. The website also included a link for the public to provide input which was shared with the Commission. Over 50 comments were submitted via the website. Public Input Findings Over 500 people attended the seven public meetings held across Iowa through the months of August and September, with 198 providing verbal or written comment at the meeting or through the website. Comments were received from a wide array of individuals. Following is a summary of input demographics: Unaffiliated citizens: 33 percent Private industry: 18 percent Farmers: Six percent Legislators: One percent County: 23 percent City: 12 percent Other public agencies: Seven percent It is useful to note that well over half of those that provided input were non - governmental. Among the individuals who spoke, there was overwhelming support for raising additional revenue to help repair roadways. Reasons cited for this support included meeting needs for manufacturing and agriculture, supporting economic development, preserving the valuable public road infrastructure, and creating and supporting jobs. Over 90 percent of the verbal or written comments were in support of additional funding for Iowa's roads and bridges. Almost two - thirds supported increasing the state fuel tax. Other revenue enhancement ideas supported by some presenters were a one cent tax per bushel of corn /soybeans that would be spent on local in the county from which the revenue was generated, an increase of the fee for new registration from five to six percent, raising the cost of a driver's license, a sales tax on fuel purchases, a flat fee charged on high -fuel efficiency /alternatively fueled /hybrid vehicles, and a fuel tax rate tied to an inflation index. Although most presenters identified raising the state's fuel tax as the preferred option, some discussed it as a short -term solution to meet the current needs and suggested 16 that other revenue generating methods, such as a VMT fee, should be pursued for the long -term sustainability of Iowa's roadways. Following is a summary of the input related to funding mechanisms: • Increase fuel tax: 64 percent • Apply an index to fuel tax rate: Nine percent • Create a mechanism for alternative fueled vehicles: 11 percent • Create a one cent per bushel fee: Seven percent • Implement VMT fee: Five percent • Increase fee for new registration from 5 percent to 6 percent: Three percent • Increase driver's license fee: Three percent The public meetings allowed the Commission to interact and hear from Iowans. In these interactions, the Commission sought input on how important Iowa's road system is to Iowans, their views on its condition and the conditions impact on them personally, whether additional funding is needed and preferred methods for raising that revenue, if additional revenue is not warranted what should be done differently to meet needs, and how current or future road funds should be utilized. The following summarizes these points as discussed by the public: Importance Iowa's roads are an asset to the people who use them and are essential for the development of the state, cities, and counties. Iowa produces goods in abundance and roads are vital to getting goods, which may not be produced in one region, to another region inside or outside the state. The trucking industry, often carrying heavy loads, needs good roads to travel faster and safer. They also look for fast and good service, because that will save them fuel, require fewer repairs, and reduce delays. Good roads help people travel easily to places where they can work, to support their businesses and industries, and to enjoy a high quality of life. For example, many farmers hold an additional full -time or part -time job in another town or county and good roads get them there safely and efficiently. Good roads also impact development projects and investments, creating jobs through additional opportunities. One speaker noted that rebuilding the streets in a historic district would help create over 1,000 jobs within a million square feet of building space. In rural Iowa, when people are not traveling to work or for daily services, they are traveling by tractor, combine, semi, or other large farm implements. Local secondary and farm -to- market roads serve an important purpose. In some cases roads and bridges are closed in rural Iowa, due to unsafe conditions, underscoring just how important bridges and roads are for both personal and business needs. A closed bridge can mean as much as a 60 -mile additional commute to work, school or emergency services or to deliver grain to the elevator. Conditions and Impact Whether the individuals that presented or submitted comments were representing a county, an interest group, political group, or themselves, the consensus opinion was that the condition of Iowa roads is poor to very poor. Years of flat funding and erosion of buying power led to cities and counties straining for resources and facing difficult prioritization decisions. Funding 17 shortfalls have resulted in some county engineers having to quit maintaining some gravel roads and even letting some paved roads deteriorate back to gravel. Road conditions impact the wear and tear on all vehicles, from county vehicles, public vehicles, transit vehicles, trucking company vehicles, etc. One county representative noted that the county office is receiving claims to their insurance company regarding flattened tires and bent rims due to potholes or other deteriorating road conditions. The trucking industry noted that an increase in revenue to repair roads will reduce the amount of cost they will have on their trucks and benefit the trucking industry in the long run. They state they would rather pay for better road conditions than pay for tires, u- joints, springs, and shocks due to poor road conditions. Poor roadway conditions have a broad and varied impact. Counties said they are trying to do more with less and are running out of options in order to keep up with maintenance. The insufficient amount of funding the counties have has led to some bridge and road closures. Closed roads require school systems and adjacent land owners to travel more miles to get around the closed bridge or roadway. Once a road or bridge closes, the school system and farmers with large implements and trucks must use the closest available roads, causing those roads to fail faster because of increased and heaver traffic. Mechanisms to Consider The public most frequently identified increasing the state fuel tax as the preferred method for raising more funds. Sixty -four percent (126 of 198) of the people supported an increase in the state fuel tax, although at different rates, in different ways, and for different reasons. Many noted that an increase in the state fuel tax is fair and equitable because it is usage -based and it captures revenue from out -of- state users of Iowa's roadways. They also noted the administrative costs to implement would be low compared to other mechanisms because the system is already in place. Of those supporting a state fuel tax increase, 33 percent (41 of 126) recommended raising the state fuel tax by 10 cents, six percent by eight cents, and 61 percent did not recommend a specific rate. Although 64 percent of those providing input support raising the state fuel tax, many also did not see the state or federal fuel tax as a long -term, sustainable solution. They noted that vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient and more vehicles are alternatively powered, a trend that is expected to continue and will have a negative effect on fuel tax revenue. To address this in the short -term, some recommended that the state fuel tax be indexed and /or combined with other mechanisms, such as a high fuel efficient /alternative fueled /hybrid vehicle surcharge, to finance the bridge and road system. For the long -term many suggested the state convert to a VMT fee as soon as feasible. Many of the presenters spoke to the benefits of Iowa's user fee system of registration fees and fuel taxes, all paid only if you use the system. Some spoke to a concern about lost user fees and inequity resulting from alternatively fueled /hybrid /high fuel efficiency vehicles, but there was no consensus presented on how to address this. Other ideas shared by the presenters included a one cent severance tax on corn and soybeans, a one percent increase on the fee for new vehicle registration, a VMT fee, driver's license fee increase, public /private partnerships, and more. To Be Done Differently One person did not agree that additional funding was needed for Iowa's bridges and roads. The person explained that the state needs to set priorities to receive the most transportation value out of the fuel IM taxes; shift more funds to infrastructure needs such as larger natural gas mains and electrical power structures; and educate the driving public to be more understanding. On several occasions, members of the public spoke about investing more in alternative modes of transportation in order to reduce the demand for roads. Best Ways to Utilize Funding The public's perspective on how funds are utilized in an efficient and effective manner lies in their experience as users. In regard to utilizing existing and new funding, the public expressed the funds be used for maintenance and preservation, focusing on fixing the worst first. Comment Summary The public meetings allowed the Commission to interact with and hear from Iowans and provided a general sense of which methods to pursue to raise additional revenue. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private, general contracting, school, and /or citizen perspectives. The following summarizes the results as it pertains to raising additional revenue, at each meeting location. For a rundown of each comment given to the Commission, please see Appendix A — Public Input Notes. City /County and Stakeholders —July 7, 2011 at Marriot Courtyard, Ankeny, IA The Commission traveled to Bettendorf and heard from 15 people. All 15 people expressed support for additional revenue. Mechanisms of which they are supportive of include increasing the state fuel tax, raising the fee for new vehicle registration from 5 percent to 6 percent, developing a minimum fee on alternative - fueled vehicles, and indexing the state fuel tax. There was opposition to bonding and to exploring funding sources that are not constitutionally protected for use only on roadways. In addition, one stakeholder noted their support of passenger rail service as an alternative means of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. Bettendorf —August 10, 2011 at Isle Casino Hotel On August 10, 2011, the Commission traveled to Bettendorf and heard from 21 of the 62 people in attendance. Nineteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 15 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual supported an increase of eight cents and another individual supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one percent increase on fee for new vehicle purchase registrations, a one percent sales tax on fuel purchases, a flat surcharge on all vehicle registrations, and, a public /public partnership. One person spoke against raising the diesel fuel tax rate because of the impact on diesel fuel sales at Iowa businesses resulting from the fuel tax differential with Illinois. In addition, a couple of people noted their support for investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. Mason City— August 17, 2011 at Music Man Square On August 17, 2011, the Commission traveled to Mason City and heard from 16 of the 44 people in attendance. One written comment was also submitted. Sixteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 12 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual supported an increase by eight cents and five individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Two individuals supported either an eight or ten cent increase. Additional mechanisms 19 mentioned were a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, an increase in driver's license fees, and eliminating business trade truck licenses. Des Moines —August 24, 2011 at Embassy Suites On August 24, 2011, the Commission traveled to Des Moines and heard from 18 of the 75 people in attendance. One written comment was also submitted. Fourteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue with nine identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual supported an increase by eight cents and three individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, and a one cent per bushel measure. In addition, nine people noted their support for investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. Storm Lake — August 31, 2011 at Buena Vista University On August 31, 2011, the Commission traveled to Storm Lake and heard from 27 of the 87 people in attendance. Twenty -five individuals expressed support for additional revenue with fourteen identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual did not believe that additional funding was needed and another believed funding was needed but stated that he was opposed to a state fuel tax increase. Seven individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, a one cent sales tax, an increase in driver's license fees, a tax /fee /license on farm equipment, elimination of the business trade truck license, and bonding. Council Bluffs — September 7, 2011 at Mid - America Conference Center On September 7, 2011, the Commission traveled to Council Bluffs and heard from 14 of the 42 people in attendance. One written comment was also submitted. Fourteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue and all identified an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Five individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, a one percent increase in the fee for new vehicle purchase registration, a one percent sales tax on fuel, an increase in driver's license fees, and a private /public partnership. Waterloo — September 14, 2011 at Ramada Hotel Convention Center On September 14, 2011, the Commission traveled to Waterloo and heard from 19 of the 99 people in attendance. Two written comments were also submitted. All 21 individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 18 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Eleven individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, a one percent sales tax on fuel, a tax /fee /license on large equipment, and a toll road system. In addition, two people noted their support for investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. Pic Mount Pleasant— September 21, 2011 at Iowa Wesleyan College On September 21, 2011, the Commission traveled to Mount Pleasant and heard from 23 of the 70 people in attendance. Two written comments were also submitted. Twenty -two individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 17 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Two individuals supported either an eight or ten cent increase and another two individuals supported a ten cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a mileage driven tax, a one percent increase on fee for new vehicle purchase registration fees, an increase in driver's license fees, a flat registration fee across the board, a local option gas tax, a one cent per head in confinements, and a fee for off -road vehicle fuel. Online Comments Throughout the seven weeks, people were able to submit comments through the Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission webpage on the Iowa DOT website. The Commission received comments from 51 people. Forty -four individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 26 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Three individuals mentioned supporting a ten cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a mileage driven tax, a one percent increase on fee for new vehicle purchase registration fees, a tax /fee /license on farm equipment, and elimination of the business trade truck license. In addition, eight people noted their support for investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. 21 RECOMMENDATIONS The Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission believes Iowa's public roadways are facing an annual critical funding need shortfall of $215 million. In addition, the funding shortfall to meet all the needs of Iowa's public roadway system is much greater as shown in Table 5 on page 11. The lack of adequate funding has resulted in the state and Iowa's cities and counties under investing in the system and utilizing other funding mechanisms such as property tax and bond revenues. The public we heard from overwhelmingly supports increased state funding for Iowa's roads. In addition, we heard that our recommendations should be based on the following principles: • Additional revenues are restricted for road and bridge improvements only, like 95 percent of the current state road revenue is currently. This includes the fuel tax and registration fees. • State and local governments continue to streamline and become more efficient, both individually and by looking for ways to do things collectively. • User fee concept is preserved, where those who use the roads pay for them, including non- residents. • Revenue - generating methods are fair and equitable across users. • Increase revenue generating mechanisms that are viable now but begin to implement and set the stage for longer -term solutions that bring equity and stability to road funding. • Continue Iowa's long standing tradition of state roadway financing coming from pay -as- you -go financing. Iowa must not fall into the situation that other states are currently facing where the majority of their new program dollars are utilized to pay the debt service of past bonding. Considering all of this, the Commission recommends that the Iowa DOT include the following recommendations in their 2011 report to the Iowa legislature in order to raise, at a minimum, an additional $215 million annually in road user fees to be spent by the counties, cities and state on Iowa's roads and bridges. Securing this additional revenue is vital to address deficient bridges on priority city, county and state highways; deteriorating roadway conditions that have the greatest impact on the movement of goods and people; and continued development of corridor projects Increase the state fuel tax rates across the board by eight to ten cents. The fuel tax is the only significant current source of RUTF revenue that is applied to out -of -state drivers as well as Iowans. The Iowa DOT has estimated that 35 percent of large truck travel in Iowa is from out -of -state trucks and 15 percent of passenger car /small truck travel in Iowa is from out -of -state drivers. In total, approximately 13 percent of RUTF revenue is estimated to be paid by out -of -state drivers primarily due to fuel tax payments. Estimated Annual Revenue: $184 million to $230 million 2. Increase the "Fee for New Registration" from five percent to six percent. The "fee for new registration" is the five percent fee that is imposed on the sale of new and used motor vehicles and trailers. Raising this fee to six percent will make this fee consistent with the state sales tax rate. Estimated Annual Revenue: $50 million 22 3. Iowa DOT should evaluate and recommend a funding mechanism in their report to the legislature that applies to alternatively fueled, hybrid and high fuel efficiency vehicles (including commercial vehicles). This user fee would account for the fact that those vehicles pay no or limited fuel tax. Estimated Annual Revenue: Revenue potential will vary based on the recommendation from the Iowa DOT. 4. Consistent with existing Code of Iowa requirements, new funding should go to the TIME -21 Fund up to the cap ($225 million) and remaining new funding should be distributed consistent with the Road Use Tax Fund distribution formula. Estimated Annual Revenue: No impact Current Code of Iowa language requires the Iowa DOT to "periodically review the current revenue levels of the road use tax fund and the sufficiency of those revenues for the projected construction and maintenance needs of city, county, and state governments in the future." This study is required every five years. The Commission recommends the Code of Iowa be changed to require this study be completed every two years timed to coincide with the biennial legislative budget appropriation schedule. In addition, an increased frequency of study will allow the legislature to better respond to changing conditions, changing roadway needs and new technology. Estimated Annual Revenue: No impact Iowa DOT should at least annually convene meetings with cities and counties to review the operation, maintenance and improvement of Iowa's public roadway system to identify ways to jointly increase efficiency. This would build upon past joint and individual actions that have reduced administrative costs and resulted in increased funding for improvement of Iowa's public roadway system. Efficiency actions should be quantified, measured and reported to the public on a regular basis. Estimated Annual Revenue: Depends on efficiencies and savings identified. 7. Iowa DOT should undertake a study looking at vehicles and equipment that use Iowa's public roadway system but pay no user fees or substantially lower user fees than other vehicles and equipment. This study should result in an assessment of whether fee structures should be modified and /or created so that all vehicles and equipment using Iowa's public roadways are paying equitable user fees. This study should be completed by June 30, 2012. Estimated Annual Revenue: Revenue potential will vary based on the recommendation from the Iowa DOT. 23 APPENDIX A PUBLIC INPUT NOTES The following summarizes comments from public perspectives unrelated, for, or against any measure to increase road and bridge revenue: City /County and Stakeholders On, July 7, 2011, the Commission traveled to Bettendorf and heard from 15 representatives of city, county, banking, contractors, farming organization, regional planning agency, chamber, trucking association, roads associations, and public policy officials. All 15 representatives expressed support for additional revenue. Mechanisms of which they support are increasing the state fuel tax, raising the fee for new registration from 5 percent to 6 percent, developing a minimum fee on alternative - fueled vehicles, and indexing the state fuel tax. There was some opposition to bonding and to exploring funding sources that are not constitutionally protected. In addition, one stakeholder noted their support of passenger rail service as an alternative means of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. • A League of Cities representative noted they know that there is a lot of need for infrastructure money and that they recognize successful economic development relies on good infrastructure. • A city engineer noted his city has voted to increase their half cent local option sales tax for water /sewer /street infrastructure to a full cent and for larger projects; they have to use property tax general obligation bonds. He said their Road Use Tax Funds in general are used for maintenance, equipment, and personnel rather than overlay and reconstruction projects. • A city public works director said their Road Use Tax Funds are not able to keep up with operation and maintenance activity costs and thus, they have to shift some maintenance activity costs along with capital improvement project costs to being paid with property tax general obligation bonds. • A city public works director said they are unable to maintain their street system with Road Use Tax Funds only. They are supplementing them through other sources including GO bonds and gaming revenues. • A city public works director noted they have been in a preventive maintenance mode, but would switch to doing overlays and just handling complaints if there is not a consistent RUTF. • A county engineer said recently we have been drawing value out of the system because of the lack of funding and if we continue on this course, the inadequate amount of funding for maintenance and reconstruction will undermine the support of the economy. He said county road department's have continued to make cost saving changes with technological advances and improved efficiencies, but with the current funding level, counties have been forced to make cost cutting changes as well which has reduced service and devalues our road system. • A public policy analyst said they also want to make it very clear that we also support the existing distribution formula that we now have because it is very important to counties. He said they do strongly support an increase in the Road Use Fuel Tax fee. • A county engineer representative said the counties have done a lot of things to try to avoid getting to the position of asking for more revenue. Within their own agencies, they have improved their management; have done staff reduction, increased productivity. They have better tools and have changed how they approach projects. They have developed better statewide bridge, culvert and roadway designs and specifications to help contractors be more efficient and bid better. They have also cut costs by shared purchases with other agencies. They have reduced service where 24 they could. They have accepted reduction of condition and have also realigned the system by going to class C and B roads, doing the road closures where possible and de -pave in some areas. However, this is not enough and at some point you have to admit that you can't save the day through economization. Said there is a substantial need for an increase in the fuel tax because that is the most, despite its recent weakening in terms of vehicles, it is still the most reliable and immediate way to raise revenue. An Associated General Contractors representative said the lack of action to fully fund TIME -21 has resulted in the critical needs shortfall getting bigger, an increase in our national status for structurally deficient bridges. Recommended to raise revenues to complete the TIME -21 recommendations, raise the fee for new registration from 5 percent to 6 percent, raise the gas tax at least eight cents, resist bonding, resist exploring funding sources that are not constitutionally protected, develop a minimum fee on alternative - fueled vehicles, and develop a process for the future of an administrative adjustment of gas taxes based on a periodic review of the construction price index. An Iowa Good Roads Association representative said they support raising the necessary revenue to meet the critical needs of our state, county and local systems at the $215 million level estimated by the Iowa DOT. Noted if the gas tax can be offset by additional sources of revenue such as increasing the fee for new registration from the current level of 5 percent to 6 percent then they support that option as being part of the mix. Said they have steadfastly opposed one bonding scheme after another and supports a pay -as- you -go system. Said they have opposed all diversions from the Road Use Tax Fund and do not want to return to the days of the late 80's and early 90's when the legislature was diverting $115 million annually from the RUTF to support non - road issues. Noted the gas tax, coupled with registration fees, are the best and most fair ways to have those people who use the roads pay for the roads — and a gas tax is the only method we have for collecting fees from those thousands of motorists from out of state who use our road system. Noted that not only does inflation drive up repair costs, but delayed road repairs result in more extensive repairs later and a study by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reported every dollar spent to maintain a road today reduces future repair costs from $6 -$14. An Iowa Motor Truck Association representative said companies of all sizes are going to great lengths to identify ways to maximize their efficiency and they are also investing a great deal of money to determine where they can generate a degree of efficiency, any kind of efficiency is important in the delivery of each and every load. Said because of this, the trucking industry and their membership continues to be a strong advocate for good roads. She noted a bad road can impact whether that truck makes money, loses money, delivers the load on time or doesn't deliver it on time and in their industry that is all they are selling. Said a bad road can impact the speed of a truck which, in turn, will impact the fuel efficiency of that truck and then the delays go on and on. Time delays are a very negative impact on the efficiency and the profitability of that load especially in today's just -in -time delivery mindset. Noted that good roads are critical to efficiency; critical to maintenance; and critical to safety in the trucking industry. Like trucking, good roads are essential to the state's economy as well and the truck industry recognizes that they need to pay their fair share in preserving the good roads. Said the Iowa Motor Truck Association (IMTA) opposes any diesel fuel tax increase that is not part of a comprehensive highway construction and maintenance plan. She said they are adamantly opposed to tolling and adamantly opposed to bonding for highway construction as well. They are looking at everything but their position has always been strongly for a gas tax phased in over a two or three -year period. An Iowa Farm Bureau representative noted that many of those secondary roads are in poor repair. More than one out of every five Iowa bridges is also considered structurally deficient which is 25 third worst in the nation and almost doubled the national average. The vast majority of these bridges are maintained by counties and, of course, many of them located in rural areas. They need well maintained rural roads to keep agriculture and our state's economic engine running. They have come to the conclusion that they believe increasing Iowa's fuel tax is the most equitable and sustainable way to meet our roadway funding needs. The fuel tax allows those that use our roads to pay for them and it also allows us to pay for road repairs and construction as we go. Please recommend a fuel tax increase for funding rural roads and bridges that support rural communities and drives the economic engine of our state. • An Iowa Chamber Alliance representative said Iowa's roads have significant unmet maintenance and preservation needs that restrict the ability to invest in essential expansions and improvements to our highway systems. Noted the Alliance recommends a more equitable funding formula so a larger percentage of road use tax dollars will be allocated to the primary state road system. Stated that federal public policy is encouraging less and less fuel consumption so fuel -based Road Use Tax Fund revenues will continue to face downward pressure and consideration needs to be given to alternative means of generating needed transportation infrastructure revenue. Noted, in addition, the Iowa Chamber Alliance also supports passenger rail service as an alternative means of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. • An Iowa Bankers Association representative said the Association's Board of Directors took a formal position to support increased funding for Iowa's road system in 2007 after reviewing a December 2006 report prepared by the Iowa DOT and has maintained a pro- funding position each year since the report was published. Noted the Association believes an increase to the gas tax is an essential funding source. Noted that Iowa bankers also believe our state is uniquely situated for growth and development which presents a huge advantage in attracting new business and manufacturers, which also comes new jobs, new workers, new homes, etc. Said in addition to job support and creation, productivity gains are realized by investments that reduce travel times, reduce crashes, reduce vehicle operating costs and make travel times more consistent (just in time delivery). . An Iowa Association of Regional Councils representative said they support TIME -21 findings and they support revenue increases for maintenance and development of their transportation infrastructure. Noted they support this within a strong planning framework that they have extensive experience at the regional level. Bettendorf On August 10, 2011, the Commission traveled to Bettendorf and heard from 21 of the 62 people in attendance. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private, contractor, school, and citizen perspectives. Nineteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 15 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual supported an increase by eight cents and another individual supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one percent increase on fee for new registrations, a one percent sales tax on fuel purchases, a flat fee on all vehicle registrations, and, a public /public partnership. In addition, a couple of people noted their support of investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. FIE • A city administrator said he would have the Commission consider a public /private partnership for those cities /counties that might be interested in projects to share with the Iowa DOT. • A town fire department official said the county has targeted 275t' Street as a road that needs to be paved. He hoped that the project stays in the program and the project is completed. • A farmer noted that he farms on 275t' Street and that most of his concerns were with that road. He also noted a concern that the gas tax has not increased since 1989 and how it is time to do something because we know our costs are all going to keep increasing. • A chamber of commerce representative noted the current system was underfunded to meet the needs and noted an investment in passenger rail would lessen congestion and the wear and tear on roads and bridges. Noted that an investment in and an examination of other modes of transportation to be a critical component of any transportation plan the state creates. Stated the chamber of commerce supports full funding of TIME -21 and an examination of the current road use tax fund formula to mirror the TIME -21 formula which would create an equitable funding situation. • A county supervisor noted that problems have been worse since TIME -21 because the percentage of income that they get from the road use tax fund dropped from 32.5 percent to 20 percent and counties have more roadways than anybody else. He noted the road use tax was the fairest tax and that they need money now in counties; cities need money; and the state needs the money but we need a fair distribution of that money. • An independent farming organization representative said the farm -to- market roads are his concern because roads are getting more potholes and bridges are being embargoed. He noted his organization supports a modest tax increase on fuel (competitive with surrounding states) so that the farm -to- market system stays viable. He noted that maybe counties and the state could save money by not clearing roads in the winter. He noted wanting to shift money out of Des Moines area to rural areas. • A city administrator noted the short -term challenge is the need to do something now and he thought the thing that makes the most sense there is a gasoline tax increase. He noted electric cars are becoming more and more popular and he personally likes the idea of the miles driven tax. He noted not liking the idea of a tax on those economical vehicles or electric cars because we are encouraging them. He noted that if it is necessary to raise taxes, then that is the choice he has to make. • A town mayor said she supports the paving of 275t' Street between Long Grove and Donahue. She noted the road use tax fund is the first fund that they tap into at the beginning of their fiscal year, and it is the only one that runs out before the end of the fiscal year. She said she wasn't prepared right now to give the Commission ideas on how to raise additional funding. • A town mayor said he supports the hard surfacing of 275`" Street. Said he could support raising the fuel tax to a certain degree but at some point in time, he thought we may have to look at some alternative funding, whether it is a one cent sales tax or other. He said he has a difficult time going with a use tax where you are going by mileage because he tends to believe that there is a little bit of "big brother" in that. • A county supervisor said fuel tax is the answer and the Commission has to look at high- efficiency cars with some kind of tax or use. Noted the need to get away from the fuel tax and find an alternative. . A town fire department official said he is interested in paving 275`" Street. He also noted it appears that the gas tax generates a lot of money quickly and he is not too opposed because of wanting to encourage new development. He noted the mileage driven tax on new types of vehicles. 27 • A school superintendent said he is interested in paving 275" Street too. He personally noted to raise his road use tax because it seemed to make the most sense. • A county engineer noted 13 years ago, the county passed a local option sales tax that went to the road system and will be looking at another property tax increase. Noted they are trying to keep up with hard winters and summer flooding. Noted he generally supports a fuel tax increase but thought it was a short -term solution because a 10 cent increase barely takes care of all the needs. Noted it would be nice if over the decades that the tax had been a percentage tax or indexed to construction costs. • A regional planning commission representative feels fairly safe with a board member present already having said that there is certainly a need for a user fee and in the short -term that user fee that already exists probably needs to be increased. She believes fuel tax in the initial short term is probably our best option. • A truck stop representative noted that the state's fuel tax collections have increased over the years compared to other states and noted Iowa has four of the largest truck stops in the world. Would like to see Iowa remain competitive and would like to see the state lobby for a federal fuel tax increase. Noted that gasoline is one cent lower than diesel fuel right now on your tax rate so she sees no reason for that differential; that should be increased. • An independent farming organization representative noted there is an issue with embargoes. Noted his organization stands by a gas tax and trying to increase the tax (competitive increase). Noted that he agrees a gas tax increase is a short -term answer but we need to get something going right now. • An engineering firm representative said a "do nothing" approach is not an option because it is going to cost you more in the end run. Noted we have to rely on all modes of transportation include freight, rail, and passenger rail and all modes. Noted that a $200 flat fee on vehicle registration per vehicle per year is a fair and equitable solution and would generate, in his estimation, about $600 million. Noted that a gas tax is not politically popular but is the right thing to do. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) said jobs are so important and we need the transportation infrastructure. Expressed his idea is to add one percent a year onto the sales tax, the fuel as you buy it, one percent one year, two percent, etc., until we get it up to the five or six. The other option is to scrap the fuel tax and put ten percent sales tax on it and be done with it. • A trucking transportation corporation representative noted well maintained roads and bridges are critical to their operating efficiencies, equipment maintenance, and the safety of their fleet. Noted they support the Iowa Motor Truck Association position on an increase of the state fuel tax (eight cents). Noted an increase in the gas and fuel taxes should be phased in over a period of time (five cents immediately and then another one cent the following year, etc.) and must be solely used in the construction and maintenance of the roads and bridges in the state of Iowa. • A U.S. 30 Coalition of Iowa representative stated that many of these roads need upgrading and will support the Commission in your decision to increase funding into the system. Asked that new revenues be constitutionally protected. Noted that an increased fuel tax is a quick fix for a short - term success. Noted that as miles per gallon increase, less money will be coming into the system. Encouraged the Commission to explore other opportunities for increased revenue and will support your decision in the next legislative session. • A county administrator noted her county board had to look at a property tax increase that would be on everyone's bill this fall of 11 cents, to be able to maintain the road system that we have today. Noted everyone needs cash; we all need more money; we all need our infrastructure to be improved or maintained in a lot of ways so please don't change who gets what. Wanted the Commission to tell the legislature to not be stymied by the future but help us today and that probably means using some traditional methods in terms of raising revenue. Mason City On August 17, 2011, the Commission traveled to Mason City and heard from 16 of the 44 people in attendance. One written comment was also submitted. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private contractor, school, and citizen perspectives. Sixteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 12 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual supported an increase by eight cents and five individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Two individuals supported either an eight or ten cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, an increase in drivers' license fees, and eliminating business trade truck license. A county supervisor said revenues generated by a one cent per bushel measure (and he stressed that he remains neutral on this) should be dedicated to the road system in the county where the revenue originated, both state and county roads. Mentioned that 22 counties in the ISAC's second district are all in favor of a ten cent a gallon tax increase. A council of governments' representative noted they had created urban renewal area around wind turbines and had virtually dedicated 100 percent of the revenues, the increment from those urban renewal areas, to road projects. Noted he would certainly recommend raising the fuel tax by eight cents, doubling the driver's fee, and eliminating the business trade truck license. Agreed that assessing a few cents for every bushel of crop delivered to the elevator, feed mill, or ethanol facility makes sense. • A farmer noted being in favor of raising the state fuel tax eight or ten cents and being tied to inflation index so as to not get into the situations where construction costs are going one way and revenue remains the same. Noted as vehicles are used, the miles could be registered and have a fixed fee for each mile driven. Noted a toll road could also be a system and would like to see more gravel roads closed on a county basis. • A trucking company owner said he supports the Iowa Motor Truck Association in increasing the gas and fuel taxes as long as those funds are solely used for construction and maintenance on roads and bridges in Iowa. He has heard an eight to ten cent increase mentioned and he would support either. This "pay as you go" system is the most effective method to fund and maintain our system of roads in Iowa. Something needs to be done so owners of alternate fuel /high efficiency vehicles pay their fair share of using the roads. • A county engineer noted the county has reclassified roads to reduce our maintenance costs, cut staff, grading hard surfaced roads and putting them back to gravel, and are closing bridges. Noted she is in support of an increase in the fuel tax (ten cents) because it generates that out -of -state revenue. Noted that something needs to be considered for the electric cars and the alternate fuel vehicles. • A county engineer noted that local roads are important to the local economy but are also important to the state of Iowa and any additional revenue that would be generated on the county /local level would be used wisely. Said a fuel tax is about as favorable as anything. • A county engineer noted that anyone that has lived in a rural area knows what it means to have kids running to school, sporting events, community activities, church, recreation, and work. We P drive to them all. Noted his family depends on the road for safe, reliable, all- weather travel for work, school, shopping, mail, medical visits, fire response, and sometimes even fun. • A county engineer noted that every county engineer and supervisor he has spoken to is definitely in favor of any kind of increase to our road revenue by any kind of combination of the methods. Noted that he would be requesting that the funding be put back to the old road use taxfund split with the 47.5 percent to the DOT, 32.5 percent to counties, and 20 percent to the cities as opposed to the 60/20/20 split in TIME -21. Noted he would also like to have some sort of increase in place to go along with increase construction costs as we go along each year for inflation. • A county supervisor thought the state fuel tax (if it is 10 cents, it is 10 cents) is starting point but would like the Commission to increase the fuel tax a half a cent or a cent every year instead of at once. Noted needing some kind of a tax or registration fee on electric vehicles. Noted, in regard to a tax on grain, starting only with corn and that cent goes back to that county or origin. • An asphalt company believes in "pay as you go" and is not in favor of bonding. Is supportive of a ten cent gas tax that is also indexed to inflation so it isn't 21 years until we revisit the gas tax. Noted with the gas tax you are tapping into the out -of -state traffic and it just makes sense. • A county economic development corporation wanted to encourage the Commission to consider looking at U.S. Highway 18 to Okoboji. • A county supervisor supports a state fuel tax increase by ten cents. Noted hearing the recommendation of one cent per bushel tax on corn but is fearful that if we go that way, you are going to reduce the amount of money we get from the road use tax. Would appreciate it if the split would go back to the old formula before TIME -21 of 42.5 percent to the DOT, 32.5 percent to the counties, and 20 percent for the cities. • A small trucking business owner disagreed with the support of a state fuel tax increase on diesel but is okay with an increase on gasoline. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) said serious consideration should be given to selling the rest areas in the state since they do not produce revenue. Noted that there is a need to also address alternative fuels because Ruan is converting some of their trucks to natural gas. • A labor union representative noted that jobs are needed in this county and in Iowa. Said an increase in the state fuel tax will create good jobs for people working on our highways and bridges. Noted being pleased to hear there is support for this. • A city councilman stated the state fuel tax is the only way you can pull out -of -state money into Iowa. • (Written Comment) A city councilman requested to have a county road placed on the five year scheduled plan for blacktopping. Des Moines On August 24, 2011, the Commission traveled to Des Moines and heard from 18 of the 75 people in attendance. One written comment was also submitted. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private contractor, student, and citizen perspectives. Fourteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue with nine identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual supported an increase by eight cents and three individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, and a one cent per bushel measure. In addition, nine people noted their support of investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. 30 A trucking company owner expressed support for a gas tax increase, stating that the trucking industry understands the value of the roads and is more than willing to pay their fair share to support good roads. Believes it is instrumental to the success and growth in this state that we maintain the infrastructure system so we can create jobs. Noted support for a greater percentage of tax increase and they are willing to support the construction and maintenance of the roads. A county engineer noted in the last ten years they added 26,000 to their population but the last time they were able to put a gravel -to- pavement farm -to- market project together was 29 years ago. Noted he stands with the DOT and our cities in expressing the need for more funding. Several of the suggestions are viable. A county engineer noted all of their problems have gone from bad to embarrassing. Believed the funding shortfall has been so large for so long that even a funding increase today will not bring back the bridges and deterioration that has already occurred throughout the county but gets everyone motivated to ask the Governor and the Commission to advocate for a gas tax increase. Said a per bushel revenue source for the rural counties would help balance what the current road use tax fund, he believes, doesn't do for rural Iowa. • A Midwest environmental advocacy organization representative said a good strategy would be to have a good rail network around the state. Noted it would include primarily freight rail because that is what we have most of in this state but there is an opportunity to lessen congestion by having a healthy rail network that also includes passenger rail. Said that will lessen congestion, increase efficiency, and will benefit a growing economy. • A county supervisor said his county is at the point that they can't wait for state funding; they are going to offer their citizens the opportunity to decide the fate of their roads. We just want to know what they want to do. Noted it is vital that we do something. He said he is a use person and would be happy to have somebody read his odometer twice a year because if he uses it, he will pay for it. • A university student noted the need to take a holistic approach to looking at this issue. Noted the roads need repairing but maybe part of the solution is looking at alternative ways of transportation, and he strongly believes that lies in high -speed rail systems. • A university student said he also supports high -speed rail. • A county engineer thought all the county engineers are on record as strongly supporting a state fuel tax increase. Noted that a ten cent fuel tax has been discussed or bounced out as an idea but it isn't going to be enough for them to maintain their current system so they are looking at reducing services, even if something like that goes through. • A farmer noted that additional funding is needed and that the state fuel tax has not been raised since 1989. Noted not liking to pay more tax but feels a fuel tax increase would be the most equitable and fair way. Noted that an increase in the state fuel tax would just take care of the hole we have now. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, the state fuel tax stream is going to keep decreasing so there has to be other ways. Regarding the cent a bushel on delivered commodities, it was noted that there might be a battle involved with that. • An advocate for rail passengers stated the federal government has said "we'll pay 80 percent but the state has to pay 20 percent" to re- establish passenger service and said if the Commission has any clout with the Governor and could get him to sign this in, there are millions of dollars at stake. • A representative of a non - profit organization in downtown Des Moines said Iowa's transportation system fails in the medium distance trips category. Noted the U.S. is going from metropolitan areas that are competitive to mega- regions and those mega- regions use passenger rail and high- speed rail to make that connection. Noted Iowa is not spending enough money on the road system. Noted Iowa needs to continue to maintain and improve the little roads that connect to the big roads but we can't manage our transportation future with two modes (air and road). 31 • A representative from a commerce and economic development organization is a strong believer that investment in a safe and efficient multi -modal transportation system is a critical component to economic development. Noted the organization has been a strong supporter of the TIME -21 funding formula, which was a successful move in the right direction, and they are very open to looking at new potential sources of surface transportation infrastructure funding provided the cap on the TIME -21 formula is removed. Noted to being very supportive of the passenger rail line initiative. • A farmer agreed that Iowa needs more funding for roads and bridges. Expressed support for an increase in the state fuel tax because it is the fairest way of spreading the costs to Iowans and to motorists who travel through Iowa, and building TIME -21 funds by increasing state fuel tax by five cents will help maintain our roads and bridges for years to come, attract industries and create jobs and improve our economy. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) stated the Commission should keep in mind other big issues that occur, such as increasing fuel costs, because people's driving habits will change. Noted also that high -speed rail and greenhouse gas production needs to be kept in mind. Wanted bicycles and buses to be part of the overall equation. Proposed a fee based on tying the weight and miles together for fuel efficient vehicles and for vehicles going across the state, maybe a special toll for heavy vehicles might make sense. • A city councilman suggested to prioritize county roads, restrict weight on non - essential roads, purchase permits for overweight loads if needed, set a fee at the elevator based on weight of the commodity dedicated to priority roads, issue stiff fines for violators on roads and dedicate those to maintenance of the priority roads, increase state fuel (diesel as well as gasoline) tax equal to surrounding states, and put into place a permanent pavement management plan to annually assess the roads. Noted supporting passenger rail and believes it is important that this state support all modes of transportation that are critical to economic development. • A county engineer acknowledged that the penny per bushel idea was interesting and would support a 10 cent increase in the state fuel tax. • A citizen proclaimed that the recommendation from the Commission could not be more than three cents a gallon increase or the Tea Party would petition. • A trucking company representative said that the Iowa Motor Truck Association is in favor of a state fuel tax increase. Mentioned the state fuel tax is probably not the sole source long term and there are going to have to be other mechanisms. • (Written Comment) An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) noted funding for road improvements is needed and important. Noted a fee for use of all other vehicles is an option as well. Noted high speed rail is also of the utmost importance, as well as all other alternative transportation options. Storm Lake On August 31, 2011, the Commission traveled to Storm Lake and heard from 27 of the 87 people in attendance. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private, asphalt, and citizen perspectives. Twenty -five individuals expressed support for additional revenue with fourteen identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. One individual did not believe that additional funding was needed. Another individual did believe funding was needed but stated that he was opposed to a state fuel tax increase. Seven individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, a one cent sales tax, an 32 increase in drivers' license fees, a tax /fee /license on farm equipment, elimination of the business trade truck license, and bonding. • A town mayor noted that the State has to do something to get a little bit more money and has to do it on a fair basis in order to continue to make our state viable. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) stated that there is no need to increase the state fuel tax at this time but does need to set priorities so we can get the most transportation value out of the fuel taxes that are now collected. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) said he would support a ten cent increase in the fuel tax. • A citizen expressed opposition to the state fuel tax increase. However, does fully support a surcharge for fuel efficient vehicles. Noted the fuel efficiency and economy was mandated by the federal government without thinking that it was going to cost us in fuel taxes. The more fuel efficient vehicles on the road, the more tax revenue is going to go down. • Another citizen said the State needs to address the vehicles that are causing damage to the roads because those vehicles do not have a license fee, registration, or sales tax. Noted that anything using hard surface roads needs to be paying license fees, registration fees, sales tax, and state fuel tax. • A city engineer noted that TIME -21 money has not made a significant impact on their abilities to work on additional projects. Noted the additional TIME -21 has been pretty minimal and the city is using the additional money on maintenance, concrete and asphalt patching, but the money just is not enough, through TIME -21, for reconstruction projects. • A citizen noted that if the grandfather clause with pickups was eliminated, it would help raise revenue but a regular fee applied to all pickups would be better. Noted wanting the legislative transportation committees to do the right thing by adjusting the state fuel tax for inflation. Noted as far as taxes in our neighboring states, Iowa can easily afford a ten cent per gallon increase and let's pay at the pump; none of this mileage stuff. • A highway coalition representative urged the Commission to not shrink away from the need to increase the road use tax and to not wait for the perfect application method for increasing revenues. • A construction company representative wanted any recommended funding measures to also be constitutionally protected. • A farming organization representative said they are willing to pay their fair share to keep our roads in good shape; that is why we support raising the gas and the fuel prices. Noted ten cents on a gallon of gas sounds like a lot but when he figured out what it is actually costing him extra per year, it is really peanuts. • A city manager stated that a state fuel tax increase by itself is counterproductive because the federal government is trying to make the nation less oil dependent and requiring manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. An increase in the road use tax is a limited benefit. Noted Iowa's commodities are traditionally corn and soybeans but if there was an export tax as it leaves the state that would be paid by an end user that could come back to the state and help. • A farming organization representative said his organization supports a fuel tax increase. Noted they want it so all people will pay for these things especially the out -of -state people. Noted needing to come up with some way to get a fair share from alternate fuel vehicles. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) pointed out that in 2004, the legislature passed a clause stating that if a community had a population of more than 800, the counties were no longer responsible to maintain the farm -to- market roads within the city limits. Stated the clause needs reevaluated to see how those farm -to- market roads need to be maintained in smaller communities. Noted she thought taxing the farm equipment is a valid way to get some of that money recouped. 33 • A county supervisor noted being in support of a state fuel tax increase because it looks like a fair tax for everybody to pay and the State can even get some out -of -state money. Stated an annual fee for alternative fueled vehicles sounds like a good idea. • A public works director acknowledged support of TIME -21 and appreciates what that did for the city. Interested in continuing a program that would look for more road use tax funds. • A farming organization representative said the lack of investment by Iowa in underfunding its rural roads and bridge infrastructure is felt by all Iowans but especially by farmers. Noted the need to address the deteriorating roads and bridges and increasing Iowa's fuel tax may be the best way to meet our roadway funding needs. • A county engineer said the main challenge they face in the secondary roads department is a lot of their secondary road system was designed for the mid -20`" century and today's agricultural commercial loads are much heavier and larger which adds to the problem. • A tax watchdog group representative noted being in support of a state fuel tax (10 cent) but not an increase on the sales tax. Noted that road money needs to be earmarked toward transportation. Thought an ethanol tax increase made sense to be brought in line with the other fuel sources. Also thought a tax increase needs some type of an annual adjustment. Stated the per -mile tax makes sense when talking about fuel- efficient vehicles. Stated being in favor of bonding for highway improvements since there are record low interest rates now. Thought design -build could be another alternative. • A State Senator thought everyone should be aware that if we were to find a new revenue source, there would be a battle as to where that money ought to go — the large metropolitan areas or rural areas, and legislators are not going anywhere without support from the executive branch. • A grocery store chain representative said roads are very important to his company and noted if fuel taxes (10 cent) and fees are increased, he suggests that the money stay with the road fund. • A county engineer noted that counties make a lot of things work with a whole lot less money than most other agencies do, and he thought the counties should get credit for that because it is a difficult thing to do. If we are going to demand more of our system, we have to pay more for it. • An asphalt company representative said the State needs to raise the gas tax by ten cents and also needs to index it to inflation. Noted not being in favor of bonding and believes in a "pay as you go" system. • A county supervisor noted that the state fuel tax may not be the perfect answer but it seems to be the most fair. Noted the vast majority of the central Iowans he talks to are willing to pay a little more at the pump for new and existing well maintained roads. • A county engineer said the paved farm -to- market roads are deteriorating at an accelerated rate. He said he wanted everyone to remember that patches are holding the roads together. • A farming organization representative said he didn't know about road use tax on farm equipment, but if that is done, it needs to stay in the counties so that dollars can be spent by the counties to keep the rural infrastructure going. Said he is in favor of a fuel tax; it is the fairest thing out there. In regard to the one cent bushel tax on the grains, he didn't know how that could be implemented and make it fair as there are livestock feeders that are using grain that would never be taxed. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) said the state fuel tax is the way to go and likes the idea of increasing state fuel tax by 10 cents this year and then increasing tax so much every year until we finally get to the rate needed to take care of our roads and bridges. • A county engineer said in regard to funding, the counties are becoming more efficient and using more imaginative ways in utilizing the money. Noted that Minnesota collects around $600,000 a year per county for those heavy loads that come into the county to build and maintain those wind farms. In Iowa, we are limited to $10 per load and it is typical that we might collect a few hundred 34 dollars in permit fees for the same loads and then pay $30,000 per mile to replace those roads. That permit system should be changed. Council Bluffs On September 7, 2011, the Commission traveled to Council Bluffs and heard from 14 of the 42 people in attendance. One written comment was also submitted. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private contractor, and citizen perspectives. Fourteen individuals expressed support for additional revenue and all identified an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Five individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, a mileage driven tax, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, a one percent sales tax increase, a one percent sales tax on fuel, an increase in drivers' license fees, and a private /public partnership. • A national railroad company representative said railroads provide an important private infrastructure protection for the roads. Said if ten percent of the freight that passes through Iowa on trucks were diverted to rail, it could take more than a million trucks off Iowa's highway system each year. Noted that limited resources for infrastructure can be enhanced when public and private entities who are both already investing in the state can identify mutual benefits and the rail industry hopes the Commission will keep in mind its private investment in the state and look for ways we can cooperate so we can both maximize our investment in the infrastructure. • A city public works director said the city receives $5.6 million a year from the road use tax fund and 100 percent of it goes to operation and maintenance, but maintaining them is not at their ideal life cycle. Noted an increase in the state fuel tax is going to have to carry the load and it may be a combination of some others but, gas tax is going to have to be the bulk of it. Said he would encourage allowing jurisdictions flexibility because every jurisdiction is somewhat unique so if there is any way each jurisdiction can be allowed to determine its priorities on in its road system, he would strongly support that. • A regional planning agency representative mentioned they had to cut about a third of the projects they had identified in their 2030 long -range transportation plan because of not enough funds. Noted in the short term, the State will probably need to look at a gas tax increase and in the long term, there are a number of different areas we need to look at whether it be a vehicle miles tax or a sales tax on fuel. • An asphalt paving representative said that the state is in dire need of any kind of a road user increase and /or a gas tax increase (10 cent). Noted that the state, counties, and cities have been working with about the same amount of money or even less for the last 20 years, since the last gas tax increase in 1989. Said he also thought any increase should go back to the normal gas tax distribution and not TIME -21. • A county supervisor said the Iowa State Association of County (ISAC) supervisors and engineers will support and have promoted a ten cent state fuel tax increase. Noted it is going to be a combination of increased funding with state fuel tax and any other measures the legislature is willing to pass. Said any county supervisor or elected county official will agree that money should go into the existing road use tax formula and not TIME -21. • A rural economic development organization representative said the primary area of interest for this group has been the importance of maintaining and enhancing the region's transportation 35 system. Said the state fuel tax or user fee needs to be raised to carry the bulk of the load. Mentioned not being in favor of bonding and urged the full funding of TIME -21. • A citizen mentioned being in favor of raising the fuel tax for several years and is something that needs to be done to maintain our roads and bridges, especially the rural roads. Said he would like to see a tax increase on the petroleum portion. Noted paying the full six percent sales tax on a new car seems reasonable. Suggested an increase in driver's license fees could help increase the revenue. • A chamber of commerce representative noted TIME -21 has been important and they would ask that the Commission continue to fund any state fuel tax increase in that formula. Mentioned the interstate is more important than ever and wants to make sure that economic development piece is considered. • A civil engineer (citizen) said the fuel tax is the fairest tax we have but thought it should be indexed to the fuel price and operate with a ceiling or floor. Noted fuel efficient vehicles could pay registration fees based on gross vehicle or charge them some kind of BTU charge through their natural gas or electricity. • A citizen agreed that railroads could help alleviate a lot of the wear and tear on our road systems, particularly with regard to moving multiple heavy loads. Supports an increase in state fuel tax of ten cents per gallon, but would support a 20 cent a gallon tax increase if the road projects funded by the increase were built as complete streets. Noted that public charging stations for electric vehicles are already equipped to collect a use tax or sales tax, but would also tack something on to that vehicle's registration. • A county engineer is supportive of the ten cent increase and going back to the original road use tax formula as it was prior to TIME -21. Thought a penny per bushel may have some merit since there is going to be more and more product. Something has to be done one way or another because the equipment are not generating one dollar of revenue for roads, but are taking a considerable amount of life out of these roads and bridges. • A county engineer said there should be options that give a greater value to the number of roads a county has to maintain versus their population and he would rather see it on the old road use tax formula versus the TIME -21 formula. • A citizen regarded a ten cent increase of the state fuel tax as really the only way to fix the revenue problem. Believed the State did not need to raise fees again (i.e., registrations, titles, new car purchases). • A county supervisor noted an interest in the statistics regarding truck travel and the proportion they are paying. Noted their proportion is a little less than what should be considered to be their fair share. Noted needing some way to generate more income from those trucks. • (Written Comment) A county supervisor asked the Commission to consider a fuel surcharge. Said another idea would be a one cent charge per bushel of grain sold with funds being returned to the originating county. Waterloo On September 14, 2011, the Commission traveled to Waterloo and heard from 19 of the 99 people in attendance. Two written comments were also submitted. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private contractor, and citizen perspectives. All 21 individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 18 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Eleven individuals supported a 10 cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, an effort to look at alternative i fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a one cent per bushel measure, a one percent sales tax on fuel, a look at placing a tax /fee /license on large equipment, and a toll road system. In addition, a couple people noted their support for investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. • A county engineer noted that money is getting tighter and tighter, and rules are getting tougher and tougher. Noted they have to find ways to cut the cost because they can't just keep closing bridges, which does not work and does not save any money. • A distribution business representative said the trucking industry is looking for fast, good service with no delays because that is going to save us fuel, less repairs, and less delays. Noted he thought raising fuel taxes is a great option and raising the license fee on high- efficiency vehicles is also a good idea because everybody is going to participate. Noted if a one percent sales tax on gasoline was applied, an average two -car family at $3.50 gallon gas is going to pay about $70 a year. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) said he would like more than one choice of transportation options. Noted he would encourage things that are user -based and while toll roads are probably a dirty word in Iowa, it is one that should be considered. Said if the rural roads are breaking down because of large farm equipment, perhaps there needs to be a funding mechanism that captures some of those farm revenues; perhaps there needs to be some sort of tax based on commodities that would generate revenue for the repair of those roads. • A county engineer noted that infrastructure is deteriorating and we truly need an increase in funding. Noted Iowa roads and bridges can be improved in a timely and efficient manner and she looks forward to the challenges this new revenue will bring, and she believes we can meet the needs and expectations of the citizens of Iowa for a high - quality transportation system with a revenue increase. • A county engineer said they have a constant decline in the infrastructure. Said he would encourage consideration of a gas tax increase as a start and then any other means and in regard to TIME -21, he said 20 percent for the counties is not right; it should be the way the regular road use tax fund is currently being distributed. • A county supervisor said they have maxed out their rural fund levy, did some debt service for the road department, and are looking at using some money from their general fund to try to get more dollars to accomplish what is needed. Noted they advocate raising the fuel tax by ten cents and are definitely in favor of using the old formula of 32.5 cents. • A regional planning agency representative noted the board supports a minimum increase of ten cents for the fuel tax, recognizing that is a short -term fix. Noted that fuel efficiency issues require that we look at other mechanisms to fund roadways but he didn't know if that is a vehicle miles tax. Stated that he was not sure toll roads is the answer due to the nature of Iowa's system. • A county engineer reiterated the points of raising the gas tax and believes it is not the long -term solution but is a solution that needs to be implemented. Noted a lot of the fuel efficient vehicles are lighter weight and are not damaging the roads as much as the heavy vehicles but obviously, if it is an electric car, they are not paying a dime in fuel tax and they are still putting the rubber on our roads. Questioned if there would be an option to replace some of the county federal -aid funds with local state funds so the counties could have a little more freedom with their limited staff to get projects done quicker and easier. • A county engineer said he supports an increase in fuel tax and supports those funds going through the road use tax formula for distribution. Noted that TIME -21 is additional money for us and they welcome that money and as long as TIME -21 stays exactly like it. 37 • A city manager said he supports the position that the fuel tax should be increased by ten cents. Said he thought Illinois has an interesting system where they charge sales tax on the sale of the fuel to the retailer so the retailer then decides how the 5'/< percent sales tax is going to be passed on to the consumer; that gives the retailer the choice of how that is done but the state still gets the revenue. • An unaffiliated speaker (citizen) said no matter what happens as far as the amount that the gas tax or user fee is raised, he thought it has to be tied to inflation so we aren't in the same boat 20 years from now. Noted he thought ten cents is certainly a starting point but maybe we need to go higher because there is no question the roads are deteriorating everywhere you go. We also want to make sure that the alternative fuel cars pay their fair share and the easiest way is vehicle registration since the system is already set up. • A town mayor said he knows we need an increase in gas tax and that ten cents would be nice. Noted it is something we definitely need to look at for tourism and safety. • A farming organization representative noted supporting an increase in the state fuel tax by 10 cents and has been advocating for that for some time. They feel it is a user fee and it is equitable, not to mention the vehicles that come out of state would help fix our roads rather than just the residents. • A county engineer said he supports the ten cents per gallon and that needs to be tied to some kind of consumer price index. Noted he also would support a large equipment fee on agriculture. • A county supervisor said they are in support of a gas tax user fee increase that would utilize and provide funding for road repair and development. Noted he thought we should go for 14 cents and maybe they will settle at ten cents. Said he thought a user fee for electric and propane when they license their vehicles would be one help and maybe it is a cent per bushel on some commodities that are sold and that be set aside strictly for farm -to- market roads. • A farmer said he is a firm believer that we need increased funds and would support the ten cent gastaxtoo. • A farmer said rural roads and bridges are important and we need a proper and adequate transportation system. • A rock materials company representative said they support the AGC on a ten cent increase and do not agree with bonding. • A city mayor said with the fuel efficient vehicles, we have to look at additional ways to garner revenue to make it fair. Noted we need to look at all those mixes because then the burden of funding our roads is spread over all the population. Said he will go one better and say we are fools if we go any less than a 15 cent gallon gas tax and hopes the Governor will sign a gas tax one more time. • (Written Comment) A chamber of commerce representative noted their support for an increase in the state fuel tax that would be utilized to provide funding for road repair and development. • (Written Comment) A county supervisor noted they support an increase in the fuel tax and any other innovative way of raising the needed revenue to maintain our road system to move our goods and services within our county and our state. Mount Pleasant On September 21, 2011, the Commission traveled to Mount Pleasant and heard from 23 of the 70 people in attendance. Two written comments were also submitted. Generally, speakers represented county, city, farming, trucking, economic development, private, contractor, and citizen perspectives. m Twenty -two individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 17 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Two individuals supported either an eight or ten cent increase and another two individuals supported a ten cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a mileage driven tax, a one percent sales tax increase on car registration, an increase in drivers' license fees, a flat registration fee across the board, a local option gas tax, a one cent per head in confinements, and a fee for off -road vehicle fuel. • A county engineer said they are desperately in need of some help with financing and believes a state fuel tax increase would be an appropriate way to do that. Noted they need the latitude to use the money as efficiently as they can because each county has its own particular needs. They desperately need some help with being able to fund maintenance and operations of the road system. • A county engineer said the gas tax seems to be the most appropriate, as the more you drive, the more you pay. Noted when compared to surrounding states, Iowa's tax is still low. Noted also that TIME -21 legislation did increase funding somewhat, but the bulk of that revenue went to the DOT. • A county supervisor urged the Commission to look at all funding, especially the state fuel tax, when looking for solutions. Noted that trucks and farm equipment are getting larger and heavier and our current road system is having a tough time handling it. • A county engineer said with the current system the state has, the user fee is the best way to increase revenue. He said it seems like every funding source that comes along anymore has strings attached. We are going to have to count on the engineers and boards of supervisors at the local level to use that as efficiently as possible. • A greater partnership (chamber, economic development, businesses, etc.) representative noted that roads are expensive to build and maintain but the costs of not having the needed roads and /or having roads in poor condition is greater. He urged the Commission to identify a method of enhanced revenue for roads. Their view is that there is no fairer way to increase revenue for roads than to tax the roadway users in proportion to their use. • A development group representative said they are a proponent of finding ways to increase the revenue and finish Highway 61. Noted they believe every funding alternative should be considered and whatever is the fairest. Noted he thought everyone can agree that something needs to be done and they advocate looking at whatever is the fairest way to raise that revenue. • A highway corridor representative (Kirksville, MO) said they hope to four lane from Jefferson City to Des Moines. Noted they know money is not available now but planning is important and they hope that Iowa will at least start to plan. Said they raised a half cent sales tax in order to four lane between Macon and Kirksville and then they voted themselves another half -cent economic development sales tax to help with the alternate route so they have been helping to finance their own projects. • A Missouri DOT representative noted that many of the flat revenue, increased costs challenges that the Iowa DOT is facing, Missouri is also facing. Said they are implementing their five year direction to reduce staff, facilities and equipment. Noted they are concentrating on maintaining their system and not a lot of expansion but getting projects ready for when the opportunities come because they want to be able to move quickly if additional funds are available for expansion. • An asphalt paving representative said we need to raise the revenues to complete the TIME -21 recommendations based on the DOT's updated critical needs study at the level of $215 million additional funds annually. Noted it is equivalent to a ten cent gas tax increase or could be done through an eight cent increase and an additional one percent on new vehicle purchases. Noted a need to develop a minimum user fee for alternative fuel vehicles that are not currently taxed and 39 develop a process for a future administrative adjustment on the fuel tax whether it is based on a periodic review of construction price indexes so that it takes any future tax increases or fee increases out of the realm of legislative approval. • A county economic development representative said it seems a fuel tax is an obvious quick way to get money but he would index it to the fuel cost so as the price of gas goes up, we are able to generate more revenue. He also suggested a flat fee across the board on all vehicles. • A county engineer said he became a lot more creative in finding ways to deal with county roads, bridges, and staffing, regarding the fact the road use tax has not appreciably increased. Suggested the only fair way is to increase the road use tax. • A pork and grain producer representative said he understands some sacrifices and cuts have been made in order to minimize those effects, but he would strongly urge everyone to take a look at what bureaucratic rules and regulations, through both the state and federal level, have done to affect the difference of dollars between 1997 and today. • A highway corridor representative said in regard to the fuel tax, don't call it a tax, call it a user fee. Noted people understand user fees because they can understand using the road. Suggested tying it to the cost of living because the ability to pay for the road tax is in the cost of living and if they don't have a raise in the cost of living, you keep it the same. • A county engineer noted he would rather see the state raise the gas tax rather than the feds because when it goes through the feds, he believes Iowa only gets back about 92 percent and there are always strings attached with the fed funding. Noted Iowa has a local sales tax, and he asked about having a local gas tax where a city or county could impose a one cent tax and maybe raise some money themselves. • A town mayor said they don't know where they are going to get the funding. Noted they have applied for grants the last two years and haven't been successful and will apply again next year but all they can do is patch; he can't generate that much money so they need help. Questioned the DOT if "would you be willing to buy the road back for $68,000 plus interest" which would be an extra $2 at the current interest rates. • A city planner said he could potentially support some user fees; although, he thought it is a dilemma as far as the cost of fuel as they have a high concentration of lower income folks in Southeast Iowa so he thought it is a challenge to increase fees a lot. A fuel tax fee might be one source. • A county engineer said they have been doing everything they can locally and above and beyond what they could in terms of raising the additional funds through bonding. Noted he definitely supports an increase in some type of funding; a gas tax increase is useful. Suggested a penny per head on something like confinement buildings with the revenue going to secondary roads. Suggested a tax on the off -road fuel that went toward secondary roads. • A state senator said we pretty much all agree that more money needs to be put into the system. Said ten years ago we should have taken the index of what we were charging for fuel taxes and fees and put them toward inflation and if we had done that, our problems would be much lower than they are now. Noted whatever solution we find in the future he hopes it will be tied to some type of index whether it is cost of living or inflation. He said he does not support tax increases but this is a critical function of government so it is something we should be dealing with. • A highway corridor representative said her coalition supports an increase in taxes to fund Iowa's infrastructure needs, provided the funds are constitutionally mandated to be spent exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of Iowa roadways. Noted two years ago the discussion was eight cents and it has gone up to ten cents. She thought the members would support what the public is going to come up with. 40 • A regional planning association representative said he doesn't have specific ideas, but would encourage the Commission to look at long -term positioning for the state revenue sources. Brought up the research that the University of Iowa has been doing on mileage fees versus a fuel tax. Noted looking at a flexible funding source that we can index not only to the price of maintenance and construction, but also to the amount of impact that vehicles do to a roadway may be a valuable way to look at sustaining revenues in the future for what our needs are as identified in various long -range and five -year plans. Noted with a true user fee, the vehicles travel is really the truest user fee that one could have and there are various ways to index that through impacts to the road, maintenance costs, etc.; that may be the most flexible thing we could look at. He agrees it is a long way from implementation but it may not be needed for a couple decades as the fuel tax is sufficient but it should be ready if it is needed in the future. • An engineering firm representative thought the fuel tax is probably the fairest way. Noted that ten cents per gallon has been mentioned and he understands that with alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles we are going to have to change to a different form but right now he thought it is really anti - progressive to not base it on fuel. Suggested if it would be going to a mileage tax then we might look at a ton -mile tax so it would encourage smaller vehicles as well, and put that tax on the heavier vehicles that are doing more damage to the roads. Said like a local option sales tax, if there was a local fuel tax that they could apply, the local people are very efficient when using their funds. • A county engineer said they have maxed out their taxes, cut their staff, and cut their equipment. Noted there is not much more they can do; and yes, the price of gravel is going way up. Said he thought a gas tax is a good way to go. • A highway corridor representative said he can't give you anything in addition to what has already been said tonight, but if we go according to needs, the more critical needs should be served first. • (Written Comment) A county supervisor said it is obvious additional funding is needed and increasing the fuel tax seems to be the best alternative. Noted an increase in drivers' licenses would also help make up the funding gap. . (Written Comment) A county supervisor said that consensus shows that a ten cent increase in state fuel tax is apparent and that it should be done. Online Comments Throughout the seven weeks, anyone was able to submit comments through the Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission webpage on the Iowa DOT website. The Commission received comments from 51 people. Forty -four individuals expressed support for additional revenue with 26 identifying an increase in state fuel tax as a mechanism to produce additional revenue. Three individuals mentioned supporting a ten cent increase. Additional mechanisms mentioned were tying state fuel tax to an index, an effort to look at alternative fuel or high efficiency vehicles, a mileage driven tax, a one percent sales tax increase on car registration, a tax /fee /license on farm equipment, and elimination of the business trade truck license. In addition, eight people noted their support of investing in alternative modes of transportation that could help reduce motor vehicle traffic on Iowa's roads. • A citizen stated she is FOR an increase in the gasoline tax to support better roads in the state. • A citizen noted that blacktop surfaces might save money in the long run and some control over grain cars on primary and secondary roads is needed because of weight and size. 41 • A citizen said buying gas is a fair approach method and another idea is a RETURN to NORMAL truck load weights at HARVEST so these overweight trucks QUIT ruining the roads that are not meant for overweight trucks. • A citizen said raising the fuel tax is fine and monies collected should be used for bridges and roads. Suggested to put a tax on grain wagons. • A citizen said it is their view that a certain amount of gas tax is needed. • A citizen asked the Commission to do what is possible to continue funding at current levels for rural roads and bridges. • A citizen said he is concerned about the desires of some to shift dollars to the more populous cities while leaving the rural transportation system inadequately funded. • A citizen noted that lower weight limits in the fall and spring embargos on county hard surfaced roads really does hamper production efficiency. Asked to not let Iowa slip to transportation inadequacy by not maintaining and improving our roads. • A citizen noted if we are to maintain our position as the leading farming state, we need to not only maintain our current level of funding, but provide additional money as well to keep our infrastructure from deteriorating any further. Suggested an increase in the state fuel tax would be the best remedy to solve our funding needs. • A director of public works discussed improved methods of pavement construction and bridge design that would stretch available dollars and decrease the amount of maintenance and repair that would occur in the future. • A farmer encouraged the Commission to prioritize Iowa's rural roads and bridges. • A citizen noted a ten cent fuel tax increase does not even restore the purchasing power of our revenue back to 1989 amounts. Said any consideration for a solution for generating more revenue that does not account for inflation is a mistake. • A transportation coalition representative noted that an investment is needed and would like to be associated with the Commission. • A citizen noted that raising the gas tax would be the fair way to increase state revenue for the roads. • A citizen said he would like to see money from the gas tax spent for his snowmobile allotted toward trails in the rural areas. • A citizen said now is the right time to raise the states fuel tax. • A citizen said it is imperative to find funding for our roads and bridges and the best way to raise the funds is through a fuel tax. • A farmer stressed the importance of maintaining the rural roads and bridges and if revenues need to be raised, an increase in the fuel tax is the fairest way to go. • A citizen said she supports additional road use taxes in order to maintain roads and is supportive of limiting corporate trucking and farm diesel tax breaks, whether it is in licensing or otherwise. • A citizen encouraged the Commission to work to get an increase in the fuel tax that we all pay when we buy gasoline. • A farmer noted we need to raise the fuel tax and use that revenue to replace bridges and upgrade the secondary road system. • A farmer said it is time to raise the fuel tax since many of the main roads have outlived their lifetime and need to be replaced. • A citizen said the time is right for a gas tax increase after viewing the flood destruction in western Iowa. • A citizen said Iowa needs a balanced and integrated transportation system and passenger rail service is one component. Noted history shows that public /private investments in transportation are reasonable and afford good returns. 42 • A farmer said Iowa's rural roads and bridges need more funding and increasing Iowa's fuel tax is the best way to meet our roadway funding needs. • A citizen said it is important to fund alternative transportation modes, rail and other public transit, trails and bicycle routes, and pedestrian friendly cities. • A citizen hopes that the money for rural roads and bridges continue to be a high priority in this state and that the roadways be kept in the best condition as possible. • A citizen said she was in favor of bringing in the passenger rail service to Des Moines. Noted also that she would support a gas tax or energy tax increase. Noted as electric cars are becoming more and more of a reality, any tax on fuel should also include the "electric fuel." • A citizen said it is vital to our emergency responders that counties be given the resources to maintain the roads so they are passable in all weather conditions. • A citizen said he believed the only way that we are going to be able to service our roads and bridges into the future are by an increase in the gas tax. • A citizen said she is not one to advocate for increasing taxes, but it seems like if rural roads and bridges have any chance of getting anymore support, we need to increase the gas tax. • A farmer said Iowa's rural roads and bridges need more funding and as much as I hate tax increases, perhaps now is the best time to increase the fuel tax. • A citizen said she would be willing to pay higher property taxes but also would like to see the companies who use the roads most heavily pay their share. • A citizen said Iowa's roads are in bad shape and that a 10 cent gas tax and user fee increase would certainly help with funding road improvements. • A citizen said he feels we need to increase taxes on sales of gasoline to maintain the states, counties, and cities roads. Noted that he feels that by raising fuel taxes, those who use the roads will help to maintain those roads. • A county supervisor noted that while generating additional revenue is important, he believes it is equally important to focus on cost containment as well. • A grocery store chain warehouse director thought all untaxed fuel should be eliminated. • A citizen said if the gas tax were to be raised and these funds committed to rural road and bridge repair, progress can be made toward improving the farm to market road system. Encouraged the Commission to consider all revenue means available to accomplish this goal. • A citizen noted that additional funding streams must be looked at for support of the infrastructure repair and replacement. Noted whether it is additional sales tax on fuel, tolling, and etc. the situation must be addressed. • A citizen said that he thinks it is time to update the fuel tax since costs have greatly increased since 1989. • A citizen said the study by the University of Iowa is the only sensible way to charge motorists for using the road system in the country. • A citizen urged the Commission to increase funding for our rural roads and bridges. Noted an increase in gas tax would help to rebuild the roads in my county and a ten cent increase would add about $1 million to our road use fund. • A citizen commented on the need for more funding for our road system. Noted none of us like tax increases but it is apparently time to look at an increase in Iowa's fuel tax. • A transit association director said any discussion should include transit systems and the services they provide. Noted transit has been subject to the same cost increases and lack of funding as the highway funds. • A citizen noted any discussion must include public transportation and any increase in funding should include public transit. 43 • A citizen commented that any consideration for raising revenue for highways and transportation should include a portion for the transit systems. • A citizen noted that the Commission should give considerable attention to the public transit systems throughout the state and any discussion of increased revenue MUST include public transit. • A citizen said public transit is an integral component of Iowa's overall transportation network that provides economic development and access to jobs for millions of Iowans. Requested that the Commission include a solution for this sector. • A citizen asked the Commission to remember that public transit fills a very important niche in providing transportation to the transportation disadvantaged citizens of our state. Noted any new revenue for transportation in Iowa should include a portion for public transit. • A citizen said he would be in favor of increasing the fuel tax and a diesel fuel tax increase would be okay if you could find away to exempt shipping costs for products we use everyday. Noted the tax on commodities has problems and that if a tax was started, the funds should stay in the area that they were collected as the roads traveled on were in those counties. Noted that a registration fee on larger farm equipment is not right. • A citizen noted that additional funding is needed and realistically we are too far away from a vehicle mileage tax. Noted to increase the fuel tax rates to the average of the surrounding states and then index the tax. Noted to increase the pro -rated registration fees and index the fees. Noted to increase the fees for new registrations and base it on the weight of the vehicles rather than the cost. • A county engineer said he was definitely in favor of increasing the funding for Iowa's RUTF by using methods that generate an immediate infusion of funds, but also keep up with the future needs of our road system by growing 4 -5% per year. Noted the counties need more funding to keep the system from falling apart and it should be distributed by the formula in place before TIME -21. • A citizen noted being in distress to learn that one of the recommendations is to increase the fees for hybrid vehicles. Asked the Commission to please find a way to treat all vehicles equally according to their road use. 44 APPENDIX B MOTOR FUEL TAX RATES BY STATE 241: 1 Motor Fuel • Total State Taxes Sorted by Total GasoHrte Tax ITOtal state taxes Includes per gallon fmt lax and other taxes apirl led to Fuel such a sales tax] SoOV2011 Renk oV TOW T sleek : Gakeme C Case S Seeena, c cline Prim P Per 5e11v Totai 9tae. R Rant t tow sine R Fenl, 6 RvaraW Ranh 1i Gcfirut 5 51 q 3 396 1 11 5 1 1 1 14 01 2 N Nar, Ymk 5 50.7 4 49.1 4 4 5 50 7 2 2 3 33 66 6 6 3 , ,nme sae rnpi 5 566 7 71.5 ] ]6 5 5D.5 3 3 1 14.03 7 7 4 " "a,ftina 5 50.S 6 60.6 1 1 S SO 5 4 4 3 33 W 7 7 6 ^ ^f"1 4 49.4 5 50 S S 4 494 5 5 3 34.01 3 3 8 • •' chigim, 4 43.7 4 40.4 5 5 4 43 7 6 6 3 33 90 5 5 7 ' ',fie 4 43.6 5 521 2 2 d d3 4; 7 7 $ $3451 1 13 es en 3 37.5 3 37.9 6 6 1 17 5 a a $ $3 69 9 9 9 = =.l 3 34.1 1 1 4 4 6 63 3 36 1c - -.e +eke 3 3411 2 25,6 1 141 1 14 1 1 10 t to 72 2 2$ 'rcmr Wand 3 330 3 33.0 9 9 3 330 1 11 $ $3.64 r r1 • acPMln 3 37,9 1 1 37,9 1 10 3 32.9 1 12 4 41"4141 1 14 '•Dnh Carolim 3 32.8 3 32.9 1 11 3 325 1 13 3 33.51 3 39 'a = =.nne en:e 3 32.3 3 39.2 7 7 3 32 3 1 14 3 33 73 2 23 :. e11 Yr Inia 3 32..1 3 37.1 1 13 1 17.2 1 15 3 33 79 2 20 15 • • •4ne 3 31 3 32.2 1 12 3 310 1 16 3 3 75 2 22 16 { {. nn ] ]10 ] ]O.a 1 16 ] ]10 1 1$ 3 3753 1 10 16 - --margm A Al., 1 14 2 29.2 1 16 5 56 4 41 19 " "n10 2 25Q 2 26.0 2 20 2 2a0 1 17 J 2e 20 • ••Dn1aa 2 27.8 2 26.6 1 16 2 270 2 20 1 18 21 • •. -ianke 1 1.73 7 76,7 2 23 7 775 3 3r 1 16 •,ilewta 2 27.2 2 27.6 2 21 2 27.2 2 22 3 33 33 . .nnwrt 2 25 7 2 29.0 1 17 2 25 7 2 23 n n 2 �eh0 2 25 2 24 2 25 o y y4. 2 JU78 2 28 24 c caneae 3 35.0 2 27.0 2 22 2 250 i i4 3 38 26 u uuh 2 24.5 2 24.5 2 23 2 24 5 2 26 3 3 27 o ou1R pal 2 24.0 2 24.0 2 27 2 22.0 3 33 1 18 241 i imi of CO tyiii 2 23.5 2 27.5 2 2a 2 23.5 2 27 5 5 26 2 23.5 2 24.3 2 26 2 23.5 2 27 2 23 21 l lneatlwe 2 23.1 2 23.6 2 20 2 23 5 2 27 3 33 76 1 16 31 M M 2 23.6 2 22.6 3 34 2 23.Q m m $ $3"66 2 26 31 h h p1a 2 23 0 2 23.0 3 31 E 410 1 11 7 1 15 33 e en 2 225 1 195 4 42 32 3 3163 3 33 34 C CHNS 0 2 22A 2 20.5 3 37 33 3 3x.67 3 31 34 a a 7 77,0 7 73,3 2 26 3e 3 331" 2 28 98 2 218 2 22.8 3 32 35 5 5353 4 47 3 3T . .ennnaee 2 2141 1 16.4 4 45 E22. 4 36 5 5349 4 49 3 38 a a6am1 1 10 9 2 21.9 3 3S 37 S S3 51 s s6 as I Inia M M 2 2 20.3 ] ]a 341 $ $a 58 4 41 40 O O ii , 2 20.0 2 20.0 3 39 39 3 3] 57 4 45 4 a a %el 2 20 3 39 4 41 42 x x+1a.n 1 19.6 1 19.5 4 41 42 3 33.76 2 20 43 1 19.0 1 19.0 4 441 1 190 4 43 5 5160 4 40 44 r r 1 1 16.8 1 16.9 4 44 1 18.6 J J.] 5 53.49 4 49 44 w weleeco 1 1641 2 22a 3 32 1 1 a a 4 44 L L4. fit 3 37 46 l lgac o 1 17.3 1 17.3 4 47 1 17.3 4 45 5 5].54 a a 47 I IerlOrPi 1 17.0 1 14. 4 49 1 17.9 4 47 S S9 4 41 44 m mcerO 1 15a 1 15a 4 4a 1 165 4 46 S S143 $ $1 44 1 14.3 1 17.5 4 46 1 14 5 4 49 S S3 39 2 27 SC 1 14.0 1 14.0 4 49 1 140 5 50 3 33 67 5 51 51 o o& 4 410 a a0 3 31 8 8.0 5 5' z z 1 1 276 27.2 27 5 33 71 Scum: - Fwl W dace trim 4meflCem Panme rmpWa ae at r,rar : 2011 • Fall pme date [ra<Hg" peeerMl fl7m AM I ee of dune 12" 2011 NOM:. b Vm let ri lmei]Oee 1 ant pm pellam an0ergrs ei7raga lank he umcw 7 home. are m bw red fcH Fecierel "I fo Is net In91t10ed n am1y111 e,s a 15 4 come per pnan br pu911r*jvW r One N 4 W%Pef i;W011 6r 41WW P6pe 4%W ueN b 64N 0as C4lcobfiva In 1asWS h*6" tor lnery rot correspond to plie drW srx- om t7q shoe] • Whelk tar 101r mm 1x cilew die nice Incude sane ee4 Oaeeula elere in • 1814141 his aeefnpllen Our 611 m Vmw bmdw" 45 e 12 201, Motor Fuel - State Excise Taxes Sorted by State Gasoline Excise Tax lUoes not Include other miscellaneous fees and taxes such as sales lax, local sax. etc.) 510212011 Ronk by Total Ga dme Tax Slate .aaso ine Star. Ekp Taxes I[entf• ali L, 1111 e ine i[. ar State Eai" Taeas {n nts I Rank store ErNsr Tara% 1cenes' I Rank Awsg9 Prim &•12'201T Rank a 37.5 17.5 2 alrfpnra 353 180 33 35.9 2 53.94 7 rtri rGlina 1 4 ode lalan 4 4 7 isCo R9rn 5 ro 30(l 30.0 7 304 6 53.85 10 7 !.ee.ne 29.5 30.7 6 29.5 7 53.75 22 6 hio =80 280 8 1 :64 8 53.68 28 9 Inneseea 27.1 27.5 10 27.1 S.fifi 11 10 Icneana 270 27. 9 2 . 3. 7 }a 11 ehraska 26.4 26.4 12 25.4 11 53.76 t6 12 nneclicW 25.0 39.6 1 25.0 12 $4.01 3 12 Idaho 25.9 25.0 14 25.0 12 5312 25 14 h 245 24.5 16 24.5 14 53.62 37 16 24.0 NO 1 1 16 iktria vT Calurci6la 235 23.5 18 23.5 16 $3.90 5 f 6 nd 23. 24.3 17 23.5 16 S3.73 23 16 Ir on 230 220 22 23.0 18 $1.66 2a is vada Z3 0 270 11 23,0 18 53.72 25 18 r6r 6akvu ? 0 230 19 23.0 18 S179 TS 21 lorado 22.0 26. 1 .8 31 21 oath alrots 22 0 22.0 ---2F-- 20. 26 3.77 B 23 s 21.5 22.5 20 21.5 .53 47 24 ernrre 211 16.1 32 21.1 23 53.66 33 25 29.0 22.3 20 194 30 53.66 26 Wem 1 1. 1, 4 t 651 VI 28 ouiwne 20.0 Z0.0 29 204 26 53.57 45 28 ennessee 20.6 1&0 33 20.0 26 53.x9 49 28 exaa 20.0 Z04 29 20.0 26 53.56 St 31 Ililnois 1941 . 21.5 24 19.0 30 $4.03 2 c 1 t temront 7 14 1 50 t1 34 ¢one 18.0 18.0 33 18.0 34 3.60 40 34 Indrarn 18.6 16.0 41 18.0 34 $3.81 13 34 ii,og 18.0 $8.0 33 18.0 34 53.49 49 34 w'FW ire 186 18.0 33 18.0 34 $3.78 20 71 tore t T 41 Ma�•.'w• 1 1 17.0 1 39 NIy70ri rl 17.0 17.0 09 17.0 39 $3.54 46 34 ra•.. rlexico 176 21.0 26 17.0 39 s3.62 37 42 avvna 160 $9.0 31 16.0 42 53.51 48 42 klahoma 160 t3.0 45 184 42 S8 41 4c oueh ard.na 45 t3.O 45 13.0 45 31 48 Donn] Ivan.o 120 12.0 47 12 46 S3.73 23 47 Ha•.. J.ra• 10.5 115 44 10.5 47 $3.69 27 48 rk 8.T S.0 48 8.1 1 48 1 S3.. 5 6 4a aska 80 60 48 a4 I 46 I 51.24 t e 41 51 Fearjde d 0 413 1 51 4.0 51 53.63 36 Averse 2043 . 21.2 20.9 53.71 Sara: - Fue4 tax data from Amulcul Peuoleun IM1stldlts as of ktay 2. 2011 - Fuel price dots filar reguiv gasoline From AAA (v fp91gauger9por400m i as of June 12, 2011 Note$: - 1i tax roo ndYdae 7 storm sw 9wkin ulydwrgr d storage tart }aa - Oader wutea are in !told Fed foni- - Federal Tlgl lox y not irrpyded in enalyye hue is 10 -4 v" per gallon for gaedna. gawplgl and 24.4 rem per gallon for dowel • Prim dtuel used for bet tax calcuabo m alatas rMh Sales tax may not coffeaPOrld t0 price of fuel sha -,non m,s vnaat LL V X W a a Q W U O W_ z W W c� z X W Y R O O N O co a O ° O O O U • a O T a p x w O a u c v m m v m w 'O O . 'O v 0 n E j '� m w 17i m � m E m E r m m o _ v o en m 'v u N en a'_ v w -- m m v o w o �: E r w n n u v ° �° v E 'p w vw m °- v Ew v yr w E m `v m - 'r" - v u s m w' m -o w v w -o w 3 � o o m= w o> u v a 2E n v T w m my o v o o w ° r E w m n` w T o 2 v v v w n n 'y0 o .m`. _ - o v w- '° v v v n m pp p. o E w L a m y 0 y a 0 h Vl N O h m v 0 « E Y ° v « v ` v r> v m¢ 3 v .°n .O1i� :n :n 2 w o w v E w_ w m m m m m v w o w m n ' i o-o v v v v v v i o - O L _ w v v o '-' - `n `n o e c v « n :, ' m> m o 0 0 o ti N m w o « E o. o i m .- 2 a �n E E u n U' U' 'O n vTi Q- O K m m 7 'O m• ♦••♦ O N m N Q • • • • • • • • • • • w� ` w N L C m �n T n C ti v v �n O y i w v m i w , i N E a i E a v w a n w m w y m `a n u_ - c `v u o 'y v 2 « m e ° m o. -_ E n m m n m a = u m m E E u m E u ° `o `v `o - m w = �= u a- - �' _ w¢ 3 E w ¢ E > n3 E `o w, - u ti w ` �° w m m 3 '- " y v a m o v n v > o o E v m C m v o N v K `v ono m w 3 u rr_ m u O V ° m v m° F m w O v O E v —° - ° o v Y E o « m u- u N o -O- v n c n • o m m'ov ` m 2 a vo. -v `m O m a A v r v v m n= 3 o m > a n � v m- V i v« o w m$ c v m o n v o` v «> o % 17 w e m w o w s w ti V °- « E n E v c= v m° vi u m v ti «« m m e m O N m a E v v y r x u > w> m m N uai 9 +m' Y' m m y 0 E O w O rrvi N° m- v w a y m a w > c O e v lu o F m, tb N -p E N C c v v -O °mom° w n v o E E E o v E m o m 4 o' E n m° w m m o n m m m a o o m o m `o w m `v '� 3 0 si+ a 'o ` E m �+ a a a„ =" m a m m v u u..m m p o v. i r «0 « °.v e G GOr mea¢ o E w s m `0 5 a w m n m r R r LL a ry LL ? n It 7 y `a E °. m a 5 43 M v` z z O o> .2, n :' o 3 O 0 0 E u E E I o `O u m o v v `O O O ? 'J ary c m v w o m o m 0 v o N > m N y 'Y 't c m m n u v m n E E `w — n m r o> n� > v O n� E o w C> n� r `O o `v «° C s O — s„ s„ p z> 2E E u u z° z x v w 0 `° ° N E w v _ — O o m _ w v O o O W $ > m w r w a m o r E m" m c v o e e m m v m m .o a vv v vv'- = vv v_ m v `o_ ° `O- `O x m O t v v w c v v -x v v j o. 0 0 0 0 v m 0 0 o— 0 0 U O. a` a` m � u n 0 u u O. C O O vl N C `y O E a ? w ? w a m v > v > a c E o E o E ° o ° o C ¢ 'E > `o s E v w w 3 � v s v r „ � v � v = ? s a m o v m en v� w ` v � v > r m v n n m m m m 3 c a c `a 7 W U no X W Q Z LU Z W W LU a a a Q H Z W H O CL 7 v w°vx m n > m m rn c M m 'y0 r v v u v E m v v w v I 0 m v 0 v 0 v ° v - 3 E v E E n o E _ v o ° u w y 0 o v n U m m c 0 0 a 0 w m 0 m m v w m m '°' v >' > m o e`_n o q `v - u m o c E m o 'per- —m v en ° v v en w —m en o —m E en «° —m en v c c m -° w c c o c m -° m a c c m -° o v c c m -° a o a " a m a v v en a o a m v v a o a m m C v v« v� m C `0 m C m w y v v v 'o - v v w_ a` v 2? m v_ m ° v m v m _ v E E a m m o c v v E a w m E E a « Cr T z¢$ m o m z¢$ a u v z¢$ a r z¢° n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v v E E o v n `O N n or, o v-° > o v'N 3 m m - C v v v C« v m v T� N .� - w E i C w w ymx m> E> r m n a m 0 - -O O m T N m m v v O v v— 3 m 3� — �.° « m m u v m 2 m` E r m o o v o v v "° o > m > m v m, v Q r n v m c o > r o 0 m v n m `v w mv r i m w m Y v �.° v E v a w v° E °- q w m ° O m yvmi m- " m v m `- O 00 0 N +' _ r m m m v m m V m E Z 'v^ Z m v -° w E' o v m 'v m° r z o v m u v en v u O x w v m m a n ., U n n n 3 �n w • • • • • • • • • • v v o v +m- v 2 > 0 o o m E m :E > c m 0 v ._ v m m y r r¢ m m w .. E v- >> o a n E> m E w x w ° m o '" w m w .y S m -° V 0 N u E r v o �.° m o 0 > v m o .� N m v m 6 a 2 'O N N m> `v o N a a C m m'S x v u r - _ C v s m y > O y m C E '« m v '- m o x O v !^ —° v 3 e v 3 o v '? '., v m E r 0 v o« E c n n v o v @ « o m> r m o— v m n v« o. v m m r v — E v E m v 13 v v> v w o m v o v v a > o m y > m v a m i T a 'O 0 vvi v w ? E O 'O O ° a m O N r C a V m a� a a O v m m '^ U y > v Oa• a v m E o w E u G m> m w o v v r n ,.vim v E u E o `v E m m> m m m x v m -O m E -O v x m— o v ¢ ¢� ¢ `o r « «a a na v n mgr ma a L7 0 z x EO w e m r x a p u o H 7 F E r A r „ o w u o a m = D 'mn imn r 7 f!7 _ \0a m a \ \ MM \\ \\ \ \ }� \\ \0 \u \ \ / \m m , / \\ m M \ { {))) }) \) {�#i \k) §()" 0 = u c w \ }. \\} \§ \ \\ [ \! w >,m.) § �\ }\ \�xm 0 .! w _» \� \ \u / c E E '4 o E'C ° v o E c 0 v m n. v 5 v v=� v -O -O o w v r v .n v -O -O o w O 'o 'o 00 o E E a o 3 m .: v 0- E E a o 3 m .: v z u m v s r o w - en o. w „ m > o o - Y o' '° o en N «° 12 0 `o v v v E w '0 o « w o C 'o en v '• v o EA w a` v o n n w o `o v v E o o Y y- v w o w 'y N n `o E -C 'y = Y" N o c N -" o o E en > t N -m t o o 0 m v w m o `o m> h w . e '° a s c> v en S` r E w Z' m 0 c m 10 v v w m E o. v G v E X10-, $' v- E a —�'r v E o. a m .� �' v ��' Y p .�'E « .� 3 « w r -O .� .� > Y v o z z� w 2E o. n z¢ w z 2 m' a r z ,—.v > o. z 2E o. a n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • w v = v v v ` o `o 0 00 0 a `o 0 v w v v v .� > o n n - m o v v 0 a o m `o m -o w n u m o v m E m° �3 2 v 4. . o w e « — a' a v? Z' v « o v« v« 3 o= n m . E a Y12 w> v E `o_ 3 v .n « 0 a w o m c .� o m `- 'S o v 0 v Z,v v o ° v v E v w c y w� c c w X o v' 0 r v ` °V Q 0 6 n = N �-n - K u • • • • • • • • • • O O v v py v m Ta m -o n o m a o w o a `o m o v w w s w C- � 'ma .n 1 v0v v.. .? N aov o v v c n 'v E� � ,.m '� o 3 o o m m m 'Y o `o_ o y`2 `o 0 `w a v G `v v o m E a E- o 3« o « v a en w c v v m$ E� c `r ` n G u v w m '0 m n= ? m ` v - r m E w E o'0 e`nw� `m y y a..v my m Y m w v o m m o ` o f w� s 2 m v v w v` Y 'o '- w v v > m -- v a > a w a° 0 3 m 3 c m n n E v m v y y 0 m w u o > `o _> v v v> «,� ; _ c m - v o _°- «o a o v S w w o Z: `o v m G" `m 0 o m E n E >> `- 0- E --° n> v° E N G 0 va v'E `o m >49 v m w¢ a 'E a _ ma > 3 13 m w $ `p w � m w 'm' `o w m 4b m v— a > o o w a 'a > a 'p n> w v o n n v u nv o�.nv z > N G r z w m G Da n E ry 4S o y C 6 LL y a 6 N V1 O y°i a n `o. o o O 0 0 > > > z z z u 2 a v L^ G v s v ? o 0 3 v w E w O ° E v o v o v v v u m v v m w o x v v w > — v v — v .0 - — o en « v — v 'en v? 'en .. 'ens E` 'en m r v - v O v a > > 'en v pen °a M` y v >' v w v o« en m en 3 `> v'oa m` c 'ou v v 0 v m c `v a v oa U— v 3 v v m v Y v v v v?> c v v o- `� w c v— o v o v v E v =` v Y n v 2 v v v s .Y" 'Q v m W 0 v n 'O v 'Q o> a v '� v u v o o U_ '" o m v 'Q >> E a v v_ v z p 0 E@ z U v o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • w O v w v= v o v o m m m `v v o > w n ° E 2 ny v G v ° O v E P m O a v« v N v y v m v - a M m °n w v �' m u o 3 w a w c '^ �: « v en E v a 0 > > >r v S v > « m v o u a v ° E � n G` E �' w v v« ` r m n n w E v> v v 3 m ° n w v `v_ v Y E v m v 3 « o E v E 3 uw w o > v v v E «o ? v« r 3 c w v E N w `v v v v O `o_ w v m v_ — v m v v a '" my o v n N a y 6 O S N a 2 a N v m a O r N a N en - « v en m v .� `o_ ._ E v v o v v a m r v o v o o > C $ ° -O v ° w E v -O w ° _ O v w o U v v .- m n v v °o o m p C a 3 I « v '�a G a e°oo o.x v w$ v —_ w v E ? r w Er v o f .O .�,v, - ` o° ` r v« ` o v ° v .y o v > 6° v >> a n > w `m w 10 N 2 v `o — o E o — �, v —— v n v E w a° v o a -° w v E n— O" w O E w a m w o v m v 2 w y r « ° E ti v u a m m a env a m r z v v ti v en w m v o °o y .� w E@ ' w U 0 v w '2' ° v v o m 'Y n r o '° o0 en v. — x> v x u v x v U o o —a,-i ° o— x M�E .v, v 2 v :n 'o v o 'O ��� p c O a LL m K �a A a `a c n K mrr y a r o min ¢m N V1 Iowa League of Cities MFPRSI City Summit December 15, 2011 Municipal Fire & Police Retirement System of Iowa J -'- Summary of Cities' Contribution Rates Using Alternative EAN Actuarial Cost Method October 26, 2011 SilverStone Group 3 129 Actuarial Cost Method Alternative Allemative Alternative Entry Age Normal Entry Age Normal Entry Age Normal Valuabxon Date Current 30 -Year UAL 25 -Year UAL 22 -Year UAL July 1, Aggregate Amortization Amortization Amortization 2011 28.08% 25.14% 26.12% 27.00% 2012 30.90% 27.85% 28.97% 29.97% 2013 31.73% 29.00% 30.12% 31.10% 2014 28.49% 26.79% 27.68% 28.45% 2015 25.62% 24.8801'0 25.55% 26.12% 2016 24.58% 24.41% 24.98% 25.45% 2017 23.78% 24.09% 24.57% 24.96% 2018 23.06% 23.78% 24.19% 24.50% 2019 22.39% 23.49% 23.82% 24.08% 2020 21.77% 23.22% 23.48% 23.6+8% 2021 21.20% 22.95% 23.16% 23.30% 2022 20.66% 22.69% 22.84% 22.94% 2023 20.16% 22.44% 22.54% 22.59% 2024 19.69% 22.20% 22.26% 22.27% 2025 19.25% 21.97% 21.98% 21.95% 2026 18.84% 21.74% 21.71% 21.65% 2027 18.45% 21.52% 21.45% 21.36% 2028 18.08% 21.30% 21.20% 21.08% 2029 17.73% 21.09% 20.95% 20.81% 2030 17.40% 20.87% 20.71% 20.54% 2031 17.09% 20.66% 20.47% 20.28% October 26, 2011 SilverStone Group 3 129 Municipal Fire & Police Retirement System of Iowa � Summary of Cities' Cootriibutioo Rates Using Alternative E:AN Actuarial Cost Method 32.00% 3000% 28.00% a W C 0 26.W% c 0 v 24.00% A I Will"TIO. 20.00"% 1 8.00% 16.009E �4% �N� wry ,y� 1 °,y� •y� '► �,yIb •,� °moo �� --*--Aggregate EAN (30 Year) - -- EAN (25 Yew) -a- EAN (22 Year) � Aber 26. 201 1 Silvers ne GMI 110 MFPRSI MEMBERS AVERAGE YEARS OF SERVICE AT RETIREMENT Job Related Non -job Related Serv*ce Disability Disability Totals FY Count Avg Years Count Avg Year's Count Aw Yes rs Count Avg Years 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 89 31.4 31 30.1 97 30.7 79 30.9 77 30.6 77 31.1 _ 63 31 58 31 38 22.5 37 21.6 4 17.5 9 17.9 131 28.4 77 24.5 51 22.9 8 22.6 12 22.5 155 27.7 130 28.5 119 27.3 39 25.5 38 21.6 8 19.3 36 22.5 28 21.6 33 21.5 35 23.9 7 15.6 120, 27.6 98 27.7 100 26.8 115 28.4 97 28.8 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 _ 7 22.9 9 19.1 8 24.6 72 31 64 31.2 59 30.1 _ 29 24.9 32 20.2 4 19.8 7 24.1 96 26.4 2010 75 32.3 64 31.1 20 23 2 10.5 97 29.9 2011 29 21.7 S 19 101 27.4 Total 1 905 31.0 1 1 443 22.6 1 J 91 20.4 1439 27.7 J -3 5: \A BOARD \AGENDAS \2011 Board Agendas \11 - 9 November Board AgendasV - 3 Retirees Avg Years Service 131 FY 2012 Investment Performance i i i Y1MMEAL&�ti`'I��f.MMI — Portfolio Return — Target Actuarial Rate Date 6 7% 5% 3% 1% -1% -3% -5% -7% -9% -11% FY 2012 Investment Performance i i i Y1MMEAL&�ti`'I��f.MMI — Portfolio Return — Target Actuarial Rate Date 6 Executive Director Retirement Dennis Jacobs retires January 31, 2012 New Executive Director Terry Slattery will begin on January 3, 2012 E:3 New Executive director Terry Slattery - Brief Bio: 34 years of work experience, the past 25 years with public pension funds New Mexico Public Retirement Association, Executive Director 2001 - October 2011 San Bernadino County Employees Retirement Association, Retirement Administrator 1996 - 2001 Orange County Employees Retirement System, Investment Officer, then Retirement Admin. 1993 - 1996 Missouri State Employees Retirement System, various positions 1986 - 1993 State of Missouri - Office of Administration, Accounting Analyst and Payroll Supervisor 1977 - 1985 B.A., Political Science, University of Missouri - St. Louis Certified Employees Benefits Specialist (IFEP and Wharton) 01 Current Status Mary Bilden Citizen Member -Boone Current Term Expires April, 2014 Board Action Undertook rulemaking to establish more parameters on appointment of Citizen Member. Prior to this, no guidelines for selection or reappointment in place IN 1 .1 1 Appointment of the Citizen Member. Pursuant to section 41 1.36(d), the citizen member of the Board shall be appointed by the other members of the Board. Upon the existence of a vacancy in the position of citizen member or at the expiration of the incumbent's term, the Board shall make said appointment followin consultation with the governing bodies of t e Iowa Association of Professional Firefighters, the Iowa State Police Association and the Iowa League of Cities, and posting of the vacancy on the System's website. The Board may, in its discretion, use additional means to provide notice of such a vacancy to interested individuals. An incumbent citizen member may be reappointed by the Board. IN Board Action This may have effects in future for Board and outcome of votes Allows more input from League Sets up structured approach to choosing member 14 V C r 0 p[n[an Seeking new avenue for change Potential positive interpretation Status quo —no loss Rep. Baltimore has agreed to ask Letter in your packet ffol At Issue How to interpret key provisions on city and employee contribution rates When do cities have to pay for additional benefits versus employees? 17 Key Provision Iowa Code Section 41 1.80)(f)(8) contains the provision for calculating the members' contribution rate for fiscal years after.July 1, 1996. As a general rule under this subsection, the members' contribution rate is capped at 9.4% as of July 1, 2009. However, the subsection provides for increases in the members' contribution rate above 9.4% under certain circumstances I:3 Key Provision However, the system shall increase the member's contribution rate as necessary to cover any increase in cost to the system resulting from statutory changes which are enacted by any session of the general assembly meeting after January 1, 1991, if the increase cannot be absorbed within the contribution rates otherwise established pursuant to this paragraph, but subject to a maximum employee contribution rate of eleven and three - tenths ercent or beginning .July 1, 2009, eleven and thirty -five undredths percent.... After the employee contribution reaches ... eleven and thirty -five hundredths percent, as applicable, sixty percent of the additional cost of such statutory changes shall be paid by employers under aragraph it and forty percent of the additional cost shall e paid by employees under this paragraph. ID] Current Interpretation If new benefits are granted by legislative action, and if the cost of those new benefits can be covered by the employee contribution rate combined with the cities' minimum contribution rate of 17% in the first year in which the additional benefits take effect, then the provision in Iowa Code Section 41 1.8(l)(f)(8) is not applied during that year or in any future year. EI] Current Interpretation Interpretation has been applied even in subsequent years in which the cities' minimum contribution rate of 17% plus the members' contribution rate would not be sufficient to cover the additional benefits. Current interpretation has caused the cities to bear the full cost of the additional benefits, even in years in which the cities' otherwise "normal contribution" greatly exceeded the 17% minimum contribution. 21 Alternative Interpretation Could and should be properly interpreted to require the cost of any statutory changes be calculated as a part of the annual actuarial valuation and resultant cities' and members' contribution rates. This interpretation would permit the costs of the statutory changes to be allocated on a more equitable basis from year to year, as opposed to the MFPRSI interpretation. Would be consistent with the statutory language of Iowa Code Section 411.80)(f)(8), which definitively does not provide that the additional cost resulting from statutory changes should be allocated permanently on the basis of a single year's calculations. 22 league's Holistic Approach to Reform Board Level Work with and assist city board members Legislative Level Work toward legislative solutions Attorney General Approach Request clarification on key provisions affecting city rate s 24 Board Action: Legislative Groundwork Actuarial "Switch" history In 2009, League brokered legislative "deal" Omnibus pension bill HF251 8 contained provisions directing the existing MFPRSI Board to do a comprehensive examination of the MFPRSI system benefits and finances and male recommendations to the legislature by January 10, 2011. Also must review every two years and male recommendations. 25 Board Action Pursuant to new legislative directive, gave board members more discretion to wear "city hats" rather than simply fiduciaries Prior to 2011 session, city board members brought forward several recommendations at board level for report. Ultimately voted down, but one was to switch actuarial method to Entry Age Normal with a 25 year amortization period. 26 Board Action Board Adopted in November 2011: Entry Age Normal with 25 year amortization period. 26.12% rate for FYI instead of 28.08 Changes can happen, may take time! Shows legislation can layer with Board Action. 27 Session begins January 9 Should be a shorter session this year (election year) Pension year, but one issue among many: Property Taxes Education Reform Mental Health Reform Infrastructure Funding Discussion? TIF 28 Interim Committee Met November 9 and 10 (MFPRSl on Stn) Senate Members • John P. Oack) Kibbie (D, District ), Co -Chair • Jeff Danielson (D, District 10) • Steve Kettering (R, District 26) • Matthew McCov (D, District 31) • Brad Zaun (R, District ) Ll House Members • Dawn rz. wettengill (R, District 39), Co -Chair • Jack Drake (R, District 57) • Vicki S. Lensinq (D, District 78) • Mark Lofgren (R, District 80) • NAnry KAnrzrhar (n nictrirt 77) 29 Interim Committee League met prior with City Trustees 60/40 for new members approach Does not affect benefits for existing More equitable City presenters for League Duane Pitcher, Ames Gerald Clausen, Carroll Jim Patrick, Storm Lake 91111 Governor's Office League met with Todd Schultz, Governor's legislative liaison Discussed issues surrounding 411 Talked about addressing in legislation likely in conjunction with property tax reform Looks less likely —wants to keep property tax discussion separate CIE Latest Info Difficult to get consensus Possible solutions discussed with legislators include state appropriation (Recall state $will be fully phased out by 2013) Difficulty will be getting separate appropriation Compromise may not be politically possible between chambers Senate maybe $, no major systemic changes House more likely to discuss reforms such as 60/40 for new employees, but less likely to infuse state $ Currently exploring options in discussions with legislators No firm word from Governor's office on will to address CYA Research 33 MFPRSI Survey Informatior 29 cities responded to all or most of the survey questions All information on this slide is limited to those cities responding Retention - related: The MFPRSI system was structured order to retain trained and talented that retention rates for both MFPRS appear very high. D provide attractive benefits in membership. The survey shows us police officers and firefighters Of those responding, the average number of qualified applicants for open police officer positions was 70, and for open firefighter positions was 62. The average number of MFPRSI police officers retiring per year was 1 .1 (*based on a recent 5 -year average), and for MFPRSI firefighters was 1.09. The number of officers that leave MFPRSI- coverage for reasons not related to retirement, per year (recent 5 -year average) was 1.3 and for firefighters was 0.5. Survev Information Cont. City Budgeting 10 of 26 cities responding to this question stated that they have had to cut or not fill open police officer and /or open firefighter positions in recent years. Many others commented that they may expect to have to do the same in future budget years. 35 Additional Information At last month's Public Pension Interim Committee meeting, the League and some city representatives testified on the topic of rising MFPRSI costs. Additional information was requested of the League, including: Updated graph including entire history and projections on contribution rates Number of cities with a reserve fund dedicated to MFRPSI funding Comparison of IPERS plus social security costs to MFPRSI contribution costs (*some pay both MFPRSI contributions and social security) Refer to LSA's compilation on this topic MFPRSI costs compared as a ratio to a key budget indicator (such as property taxes collected) A d d'�-bi o n a I R, e sL� r L Iq The chart below shows MFPRSI city contribution rates over the entire history of the system, as well as projected out 20 years into the future. Data source is the MFPRSI system. The contribution rates assume the aggregate actuarial method to current, and incorporates the change to entry age normal actuarial method in projected years, which are indicated by an asterisk MFPRSI City Contribution Rate (FY93- FY32*) 2 C 0% Additional Research The League polled MFPRSI cities asking how many cities had a "reserve" fund at the time the system began. 19 of 26 cities who responded had reserve funds when the system began 6 of those 19 cities have some amount of reserve funds remaining as of FYI 1 Ratio: Contributions to Property Taxes Collected A key comparison to a consistent budget factor (cities may pay for MFPRSI contributions in a variety of ways, but a comparison to property taxes collected is consistent and may show relative levels of fiscal stress on cities' daily operations) Sample city calculations: City MFRPSI Contributions Property Taxes Collected (Budgeted FY11) Ratio Ames $1,253,346 $23,064,211 5.4% Camanche $122,725 $1,675,418 7.3% Clive* $288,660 $10,528,159 2.7% Creston $139,031 $2,149,887 6.5% Des Moines $8,771,140 $109,893,040 8.0% Fort Madison $319,863 $3,423,060 9.3% Marshalltown $736,173 $10,308,433 7.1% Iowa City $1,653,588 $48,611,273 3.4% Storm Lake $176,410 $3,396,744 5.2% Waterloo $2,690,470 $38,940,739 6.9% Clive is Police Department only Some cities (Clive and others) pay both MFPRSI contributions and social security contributions OtIqer City MFPRSI Contributions Research Note Shows anticipated increases (in dollars) for city MFPRSI contributions over the next several years. All figures are based of the assumptions made by the MFPRSI system actuary Reflects Entry Age Normal projections Shows increase over prior year CID] Action 40 What can you do? Continue talking with your legislators about the problem! Show cost increases and what that really means for your city budget. Be ready to explain, if mentioned by legislator, that switch to Entry Age Normal does not solve the systemic problem which creates high city contribution rates. It only blunts the highs by stretching city payment of costs over a longer time period. Remind them that the state is phasing out its contribution. State used to contribute 3.79 percent to cover benefits it granted. Later froze the amount. Phasing out to zero by 2013. ME What can you do? Use the research the League has provided as tools when discussing with legislators Work to create own information, based on your city budget to show impacts 42 What Can You Do? Sign up for Legislative Link email CV@iowcLieaguK--.org to sign up or go to League website Respond to any action alerts from the League With a smaller number -only 49 cities — tales all of you working together to make an impact! U93 I A Legal Review of More Than Forty Years of Home Rule Jurisprudence In Iowa: The Path Travelled and the Road Ahead By Terry Timmins, General Counsel Part I of this report examines why and how Home Rule came to be in Iowa as an Iowa League of Cities amendment to the Iowa Constitution, how it has been implemented by the Iowa 317 Sixth Avenue, Suite 800 Legislature, and the inconsistent manner in which our courts interpreted and applied Des Moines, IA 50309 Home Rule in the 30 year period after its approval by the voters of Iowa. Part II will Phone (515) 244 -7282 examine more recent court decisions interpreting and applying Home Rule, which Fax (515) 244 -0740 chart a more encouraging road ahead for Iowa's cities. www.lowaleague.org Part One: The Path Travelled — 1968 to 1998 2 Bryan v. City of Des Moines 3 City of Council Bluffs v. Cain 3 Goodell v. Humboldt County 3 Part II: The Road Ahead 5 Beerite Tire Disposal /Recvling v. City of Rhodes 5 G City of Davenport v. Seymour 5 Express Exemption 5 x III III I I Field Preemption 6 Preemption 6 IOV A The Application of Preemption in Seymour 6 Conclusion 7 LEAGUE Acknowledgement 7 Of CITIES '10 April Part I: The Path Travelled —1968 to 1998 In 1968, the voters of Iowa, by an overwhelming majority, approved an amendment to the Iowa Constitution giving cities "Home Rule power and authority." That amendment was proposed and adopted as a means of repudiating and overturning a long- standing principle of jurisprudence in Iowa known as " Dillon's Rule," named for Supreme Court Justice John Dillon, who established the rule in a series of cases dating back to 1868. Under the Dillon Rule, municipal corporations were deemed to owe their origin to, and to derive their powers and rights wholly In sum, Dillon's Rule created a straightjacket of sorts, restricting the power of city governments in local affairs. Dillon's Rule was followed not only in Iowa, but was widely cited and applied by courts in other states. Early in the twentieth century, a nationwide movement arose to give cities the power to determine their form government and the authority to exercise their municipal powers as they determined to be in the best interests of their citizenry. This concept became known as "Home Rule." Given that Home Rule was adopted in Iowa by constitutional amendment, it is now a constitutional right enjoyed by cities and their residents. Iowa's Home Rule from, the state Legislature. Without express authority from amendment provides that every city, large and small, the Legislature to act in any given manner, cities were has the right to exercise Home Rule. The Home Rulc powerless to act in that manner. amendment provides as follows: The disadvantages of Dillon's Rule were that: (a) a city needed state legislation to make sure that it had the necessary express power to carry out its functions of governing; (b) the Legislature spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with essentially local matters; (c) the Legislature either would fail to grant the power or would hamstring the exercise of the power; and (d) city attorneys were frequently unable to ascertain whether their cities had the necessary authority to act in given circumstances. In It Together ... After 1981 While Home Rule for cities was adopted in 1968, counties were not included until the adoption of a county Home Rule amendment to the Iowa Constituti in 1978, and with enactment of comprehensive county Home Rule legislation in 1981. City and county Home Rule amendments and implementing legislation are for all intents identical, and court decisions as to the exercise of city Home Ru e power apply with equal weight to the exercise of county Home Rule power, and vice - versa. Consequently, any analysis herein of the exercise of municipal Home Rule power, and of court cases affecting the exercise of that power, applies equally to the exercise of Home Rule power by cities or counties. M Municipal Corporations are granted Home Rule power and authority not inconsistent with the laws of the General Assembly to determine their local affairs and government, except that they shall not have power to levy any tax unless expressly authorized by the General Assembly. The rule or proposition oflaw that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not a part of the law of this State. (Iowa Constitution, Article III, Sec. 38A) Iowa's Home Rule amendment limits the exercise of Home Rule power in several ways: Home Rule power cannot be exercised inconsistently with the laws of the General Assembly; it is limited to "local affairs and government;" and it does not include the power to levy any tax unless expressly authorized by the General Assembly. Four years after the Home Rule amendment was adopted, the Legislature enacted a comprehensive piece of legislation (Acts of the 64' General Assembly, Chapter 1088, 1972) which repealed old laws authorizing municipal action in narrow and minute detail, enacted new laws authorizing municipal action in broad, sweeping and unfettered strokes, and outlined the relationship between laws enacted by the Legislature and the exercise of Home Rule power by cities. The Home Rule amendment directed that Home Rule power could only be exercised "in a manner not inconsistent with the laws that the General Assembly." In the comprehensive legislation which it passed in 1972, the Legislature provided the following guidance and rules of construction as to when and in what circumstances the Legislature would consider an exercise of Home Rule power to be inconsistent with the laws of the General Assembly: (1) "A city may exercise its general powers subject only to limitations expressly imposed by a state or city law. " (2) An exercise of a city power is not inconsistent with a state law unless it is irreconcilable with state law. " and (3) "A city may not set standards and requirements which are lower or less stringent than those imposed by state law, but may set standards and requirements which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by state law, unless a state law provides otherwise. " (Sections 364.2 and 364.3, Iowa Code.) The genius of this Home Rule formulation is that it allows concurrent and harmonious exercise of power by both the state and cities in areas of mutual concern. On one hand, the Legislature can regulate in areas of statewide concern with laws that of necessity must employ a one - size - fits -all approach, with remedies suited to state enforcement capabilities and procedures. Home Rule, on the other hand, allows cities to regulate in those same areas and to fine tune and tailor similar regulations to fit local conditions, needs and concerns, with remedies suited to their enforcement capabilities. Cities cannot use their Home Rule power to water -down state standards and requirements, but they can use that power to set more stringent local standards and requirements, and to establish local procedures to enforce those standards and requirements. It must of course be realized that no matter how broadly or plainly a Constitutional or statutory provision is written, there will always be those who will test its limits, requiring the intervention of courts to settle disputes. Thus, although the municipal Home Rule amendment was much utilized by cities in the first decade after its adoption in 1968, it was tested in the courts, and was there both recognized and accepted. In Bryan v. City of Des Moines. a 1978 decision, city police officers challenged the city's adoption of a one year of college education requirement for promotion to police sergeant, contending that the authority to impose promotional requirements was vested exclusively in the civil service commission pursuant to Chapter 400 of the Iowa Code. The Supreme Court determined that it was appropriate for a city council to establish promotional requirements, holding that "Home Rule empowers a city to set standards `more stringent than those imposed by state law, unless a state law provides otherwise.' Sec 364.3(3), The Code. Any limitation on a city's powers by state law must be expressly imposed. Sec 364.2(2), The Code...." City of Council Bluffs v. Cain, decided in 1983, involved a challenge to a city ordinance requiring a city license for the keeping of farm animals in the city under additional and more stringent requirements than was provided in applicable provisions of the Iowa Code. While the Supreme Court recognized that Council Bluffs had Home Rule power to adopt an ordinance establishing more stringent requirements for the keeping of farm animals, it nonetheless began something of a retreat from the Home Rule position it staked out in the Bryan case, stating that it was "a well established principle that municipal governments may not undertake to legislate those matters which the legislative branch of state government has preserved to itself. There are alternative ways for a state Legislature to show such a preservation. One is of course by specific expression in a statute. Another is, as defendant suggests, by covering a subject by statutes in such a manner as to demonstrate a legislative intention that the field is preempted by state law. (Citations omitted). Cities are not necessarily precluded from enacting ordinances on matters which have been the subject of state statute. The traditional test has been whether an ordinance prohibits an act permitted by a statute, or permits an act prohibited by a statute." (Emphasis supplied). This is one of the first instances in which the Supreme Court began to consider and give weight to the concept of "preemption" in Home Rule cases. Preemption is a judicial doctrine, which in application to state law, holds that a state law displaces a local law or regulation that is in the same field and is in conflict or inconsistent with the state law. Later cases further added to the confusion regarding the true nature and extent of municipal Home Rule power, and the application of preemption doctrine. Goodell v. Humboldt County (Goodell), decided in 1998, involved the right of county government to adopt ordinances regulating livestock confinement operations pursuant to the county Home Rule amendment, when the state already regulated such operations. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there was no Iowa statute expressly preempting a county from regulating livestock confinement, nor did the Court find "any statement that uniformity or statewide regulation is the goal of the general assembly." However, instead of following the precedent set in Council Bluffs v. Cain, the Goodell Court went on to fashion and apply a rule of "implied preemption," determining that the county ordinances in question were impliedly preempted by virtue of the Legislature's adoption of House File 519, a bill regulating animal feeding operations that had recently been enacted by the general assembly. The Court's implied preemption analysis rested on the proposition that the livestock confinement requirements in the county's ordinances were inconsistent with — irreconcilably in conflict with - state law, because the application of county requirements would necessarily prohibit that activity by persons who complied with the lesser requirements found in state law — House File 519. Which is to say that the county ordinances would prohibit that which was permitted under state law. Further, while state law placed limitations on nuisance suits brought against animal feeding operations based on odors produced by those operations, the County ordinance restricting offsite emissions of hydrogen sulfides provided that in the event of a violation, the County could seek an order of abatement through a civil action in district court. The Supreme Court determined this to be an irreconcilable conflict between the state's regulatory scheme and the county ordinance. In a long and articulate dissent from the majority opinion in Goodell, Justice Snell conducted an exhaustive review of Home Rule jurisprudence since inception of the Home Rule amendment and Home Rule implementing legislation. Citing the Bryan case and other prior Home Rule decisions of the Supreme Court, Justice Snell stated that "The clear import of these cases applying Home Rule constitutional and statutory law is that only a high degree of inconsistency will invalidate a local ordinance. Moreover, before a subject area may be deemed to be preempted, the Legislature must expressly declare it to be preempted by unambiguous statutory language. I believe that the Legislature in enacting House File 519 did not include unambiguous language of subject -wide preemption that invalidates the Humboldt County ordinances. All of these ordinances fit within the sphere of Home Rule as authorized by our constitution and statutes." (Emphasis supplied). Citing the provision of the county Home Rule implementing legislation that allows counties, like cities, to "set standards and requirements which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by state law," Justice Snell offered the following concluding observations: "These laws (allowing cities to set higher standards and requirements) are given only passing recognition and are in fact ignored by the majority in its analysis that embraces the idea that "any attempt by a local government to add to [state] requirements would conflict with state law." In deciding this case through this analysis, the majority has failed to follow the precedents set by our cases and has, as Justice Harris decries, returned to the Dillon rule that was rejected by the Home Rule constitutional amendment. Whether the Dillon rule has been excavated from the grave or preemption has re- emerged under the new name of inconsistency, or inconsistency has swallowed the law permitting higher and more stringent standards, the majority has drained the vitality from Home Rule. Little is left to local government that could withstand the avarice of an inconsistency meaning so pervasive...." "If the Legislature believes the subject matter of the Humboldt County ordinances should be preempted by state statutes, the law provides the clear means. An express preemption statement of unambiguous language would determine the issue, if that is the will ..frl- T h...,r- f; ... � ;­ ..f.,..l:..., A,. 1A Part II: The Road Ahead Since the Supreme Court's decision in Goodell v. Humboldt County, the Iowa Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have on two occasions interpreted and applied the provision of the Home Rule implementing legislation which allows cities to "set standards and requirements which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by state law, unless a state law provides otherwise." In Beerite Tire Disposal/Recyling v. City of Rhodes, a 2002 decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals was called upon to review the validity of a city ordinance which imposed more stringent requirements on a tire storage facility than did a state law that also regulated the storage of tires. In applying the implied preemption analysis from Goodell, the Court first outlined the essential elements of the Humboldt County animal confinement ordinances that resulted in them being held invalid. "The contradictory ordinances in those cases bypassed statutorily- mandated routes to relief, authorized rights of action or created violations which were disallowed by statute (not just merely unmentioned by statute), and /or they regulated action in areas where regulation had been expressly delegated to another entity. "In contrast the City of Rhodes's ordinances further restrict the already- enforceable restrictions under Iowa Code Section 455D.11, thereby further promoting the underlying policy of that statute, but with greater force: they require a permit for storing a minimum of 100 plus tires, rather than a minimum of 500 plus tires; they limit the storage space to 45,648 cubic feet rather than 50,000 cubic feet; (etc)...." The Court then concluded that "We find no statutory scheme which would be either bypassed, contradicted, or overridden by the City of Rhodes's tire disposal regulations in the manner that the local livestock confinement regulations contradicted the legislative scheme in Goodell." On that basis, the Court of Appeals upheld the City of Rhodes ordinance. In City of Davenport v. Sew (Seymour), decided in 2008, the Iowa Supreme Court was called upon to review the City of Davenport's "Automated Traffic Enforcement" (ATE) ordinance, which authorized the installation of video cameras and vehicle sensors at various locations to make images of vehicles that ran red lights or that were speeding. The images recorded by the cameras included the license number of each offending vehicle, and resulted in the issuance of a notice of violation to the vehicle's registered owner, advising that the owner's vehicle had been involved in a violation of traffic regulation, and requiring the owner to pay a civil fine. If the owner disputed the violation, a municipal infraction citation would be issued, thereby entitling the owner to a trial before a judge or magistrate. The ATE enforcement scheme is in contrast to the more traditional traffic law enforcement scheme under Chapter 321 of the Iowa Code, where the driver of a vehicle involved in red light or speeding violation receives a criminal citation (traffic ticket) from a police officer who observes the violation. If the driver pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial, he or she is then required to pay a criminal fine established by state law, and the violation is reported to the IDOT where it becomes a blemish on the violator's driving record. Defendant Seymour received notice of a speeding violation under the ATE ordinance, and the violation was eventually tried in a civil proceeding in magistrate's court, where he alleged that the ordinance was invalid because it was preempted by Chapter 321 of the Iowa Code. Seymour's claims were rejected in the lower courts, resulting in his appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. In its opinion in Seymour, the Supreme Court first engaged in an analysis of preemption principles found in its prior cases, outlining the three types of preemption that it recognizes. Express Preemption The first and most obvious type of preemption recognized by the Court was express preemption. Express preemption is the easiest kind of preemption to recognize, as when for instance the Legislature amended the new statewide plumbing code to provide that after January 1 of 2009, all plumbing and mechanical licensing provisions adopted by governmental subdivisions would be null and void. The Seymour Court then went on to identify two types of implied preemption that it had recognized — field preemption and conflict preemption. Field Preemption The Seymour Court outlined the attributes and theory of "field preemption," stating that field preemption "occurs when the Legislature has so covered a subject by statute as to demonstrate a legislative intent that regulation in the field is preempted by state law. Like implied preemption based on conflict, the test for field preemption is stringent. Extensive regulation of an area alone is not sufficient.... In order to invoke the doctrine of field preemption, there must be some clear expression of legislative intent to preempt a field from regulation by local authorities, or a statement of the Legislature's desire to have uniform regulations statewide.... The notion behind field preemption is that the Legislature need not employ "magic words" to close the door on municipal authority. Yet, courts are not to speculate on legislative intent, even in a highly regulated field. There must be persuasive concrete evidence of an intent to preempt the field in the language that the Legislature actually chose to employ.... Field preemption is a narrow doctrine that cannot be enlarged by judicial policy preferences. In determining the applicability of field preemption, this court does not entertain arguments that statewide regulation is preferable to local regulation or vice versa, but focuses solely on legislative intent as demonstrated through the language and structure of a statute." Conflict Preemption According to the Court, under the conflict preemption branch of implied preemption, the theory "is that even though an ordinance may not be expressly preempted by the Legislature, the ordinance cannot exist harmoniously with a state statute because the ordinance is diametrically in opposition to it." The Court further observed that the legal standard for its application is demanding. "In order to qualify for this branch of implied preemption, a local law must be `irreconcilable' with state law.... (0)ur cases teach that, if possible, we are to "interpret the state law in such a manner as to render implied preemption analysis, we presume that the municipal ordinance is valid. The cumulative result of these principles is that for implied preemption to occur based on conflict with state law, the conflict must be obvious, unavoidable, and not a matter of reasonable debate." The Application of Preemption in Seymour In Seymour, the Supreme Court was first asked to declare the Davenport ATE ordinance preempted under field preemption. The argument was that the State has a comprehensive system of traffic enforcement which is found in Chapter 321 of the Iowa Code, and that Section 321.235 declares that all traffic laws in the State have to be uniform. This provision invites the conclusion that in adopting Chapter 321, it was the Legislature's intention to preempt the field of traffic regulation. However, Section 321.235 also provides that "(L)ocal authorities may... adopt additional traffic regulations... not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter." The Supreme Court concluded that given the provision allowing additional local traffic regulations, it could not conclude there was a legislative intent to preempt the field of traffic regulation. The Davenport ordinance was also challenged under the conflict preemption theory of implied preemption because the ordinance enforced speeding and red light violations in a manner allegedly inconsistent with the state's enforcement scheme. The Davenport ordinance enforced such violations by issuance of a civil citation to the owner of the vehicle, requiring the payment of a civil penalty, whereas the state enforced such violations by issuance of a criminal citation, resulting in the assessment of a fine. Addressing this argument, the Court stated that "In order to be `irreconcilable', the conflict must be unresolvable short of choosing one enactment over the other. No such bitter choice is presented in this case. The Davenport ATE ordinance simply cannot be said to authorize what the Legislature has expressly prohibited, or to prohibit what the Legislature has authorized. Nothing in (the Iowa Code) addresses it harmonious with the ordinance.... In applying the question of whether a municipality may impose ..dwmw� civil penalties on owners of vehicles through an ATE regime. Whether such penalties may be imposed by a municipality can only be characterized as a question which the Legislature did not address." The Supreme Court concluded that the nub of the preemption issue is whether an old rule of statutory construction applies in Home Rule cases. construction ( "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ") translates literally to "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of other things." Applied in the context of a statutory requirement, it would mean that if a statute provides that a statutory mandate be carried out in one way, it implies a prohibition against doing it another way. So if state law says that speeders and red light violators are to get a criminal citation and pay a criminal fine, does this statutory rule of construction mean that cities are prohibited from doing it another way — are they prohibited from charging the owner of the vehicle with a civil infraction violation and levying a civil penalty? The Supreme Court concluded that this rule of statutory construction should not be applied to invalidate an exercise of Home Rule power, stating that "Unless the long- deceased Dillon Rule is resurrected, the notion that the mere failure of the Legislature to it means that on occasion a city or county prohibits something that the state permits. The power of cities and counties to set more stringent standards and requirements should be recognized and upheld, even if it results in the prohibition of something that the state permits, because the Legislature ceded that power to cities and counties unless a state law provides otherwise. Under the Legislature's own proscription, a state law providing otherwise is a limitation that must be "expressly stated." Finally and most importantly, cities must continue to freely exercise and zealously preserve the powers granted to them by Iowa's electorate under the Home Rule amendment to the Iowa Constitution. Not only must cities resist challenges to their Home Rule powers under an overreaching preemption doctrine, but they must also resist the urge to seek explicit authority from the Legislature authorize invalidates municipal action is without merit. to act when the Home Rule amendment provides Under our case law, the state statute and the municipal them all the authority they need. action must be irreconcilable. The fact that state law does not authorize the state to enforce its statute through certain remedial options does not mean that it forbids municipalities from the same course of action. In the context of state -local preemption, the silence of the Legislature is not prohibitory but permissive." Conclusion. In the Seymour case, it is clear that a majority of the Supreme Court is uncomfortable with the analysis of implied preemption put forth in the Goodell decision. Afive- justice majority of the Court has recognized and imposed upon itself significant constraints on its use of the implied preemption doctrine, and now recognizes that just because the Legislature has authorized something to be done one way, it doesn't necessarily preclude cities from doing it another way. While Seymour charts a more encouraging course forward in Home Rule jurisprudence, it remains to be seen if the Court's self imposed constraints on the use of implied preemption will prevent further unwarranted intrusions into municipal Home Rule power. This more favorable analysis of implied preemption in Seymour still falls short of the import of Justice Snell's dissent in Goodell, where he urged the rejection of the doctrine of implied preemption as a reincarnation of the Dillon Rule, and a return to the Bryan Court's recognition that cities and counties do indeed have Home Rule power to "set standards and requirements which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by state law," even if Acknowledgements: I want to acknowledge the assistance received from Mr. William F. Sueppel, Meardon, Sueppel & Downer, PLC, Iowa City, in developing this report, including portions of this report drawn from Mr. Sueppel's report to the 2009 Iowa League of Cities Conference in Davenport, "The Power of Cities: Home Rule Applications." I also want to acknowledge as a resource the scholarly analysis of Iowa Home Rule jurisprudence found in Mr. Jay P. Syverson's Fall 2008 Drake Law Review article, "The Inconsistent State of Municipal Home Rule in Iowa." Terry Timmins, General Counsel, Iowa League of Cities Iowa League of Cities Quick Concept: What "Home Rule" means to cities In its purest form, Home Rule provides local government with the authority and autonomy to make decisions concerning local policies without interference from state government. In 1968, Iowans adopted a form of Home Rule governance when they approved the Home Rule Amendment to the Iowa Constitution. The amendment reads as follows: Municipal corporations are granted home rule power and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to determine their local affairs and govemment, except that they shall not have the power to levy any tax unless expressly authorized by the general assembly. The rule or proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not a part of the law of this state. In simple terms, Iowa's Home Rule Amendment allows local government to institute policies concerning local issues as long as the policies do not conflict with state law, except in the area of taxation, which the state retains full authority to set policy. After passage of the amendment, there was a call for an extensive statutory review of all provisions that affected cities. The Home Rule Act of 1972 repealed 62 chapters of law and retained only limited restraints on cities' Home Rule authority. Following the Home Rule Amendment, cities have exercised their power responsibly and the General Assembly has generally exercised its limiting power wisely and sparingly. Iowa does not have and never has had pure Home Rule authority, allowing local government to operate autonomously from state government. The primary reason for this is because local government has no authority to set local taxation policy. Levy limits on property taxes are determined by the state, as well as the types of taxes local government may utilize and the method of determining how much value of property is subject to taxation. The second major exception within the Home Rule Amendment that usurps local authority is the provision that allows state government to preempt local policy. Under the Home Rule Amendment, local government is given the power to enact policies as long as they are not inconsistent with state law. The courts will also have an impact on Home Rule authority. Several court cases challenging Home Rule tenets have progressed to the Iowa Supreme Court. In more recent years, the court's decisions have City officials themselves are also a factor in the erosion of local autonomy. With decision - making comes much responsibility. Local officials occasionally ask the state legislature to take difficult decision - making out of their hands and enact a law to address a particular issue. ry} m low. We war se+Yes as ui. uwftd w �1 I IOWA3 or ay, p.n 9,a wary.rxi,wy agvw ceM LEAGUE (515) `2a bus aMMe at www.bwakap e.dy QfCMES Revision Date: 2010 -05 -21 The first step to restore Home Rule authority is to recognize the will of the people, as illustrated by the passage of the amendment, and allow local government to manage its affairs. The amendment passed because people believe that local government is in the best position to handle local issues. The state legislature should be the avenue of last resort for setting local policy. Both lawmakers and city officials must adhere to this. Finally, there should be some recognition that because of the uniqueness of each community, self - governance is essential for each to thrive. Case Law Impacting Home Rule Beyond the Home Rule Amendment and the Home Rule Act of 1972, the following court decisions helped to further define what Home Rule means to cities in Iowa today. • Bryan v. Citv of Des Moines, 1978 • City of Council Bluffs v. Cain, 1983 • Goodell v. Humboldt County, 1998 • Beerite Tire Disposal /Recvlina v. Citv of Rhodes, 2002 • City of Davenport v. Seymour, 2008 Want more information on Home Rule? Try the League's Special Report on the topic, which provides an in -depth legal review of Home Rule in Iowa. Chip Baltimore STATE REPRESENTATIVE Forty- Eighth District Statehouse: (515) 281 -3221 e -mail — hip.baltimore @legis.state.ia.us HOME ADDRESS 521 S. Delaware St. Boone, IA 50036 Home: (515) 709 -0325 December 12, 2011 House of Representatives State of Iowa Eighty- Fourth General Assembly STATEHOUSE Des Moines, Iowa 50319 The Honorable Thomas J. Miller Attorney General of Iowa Hoover State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Dear Attorney General Miller, Commerce, Vice Chair Economic Growth/Rebuild Iowa Judiciary Local Government Government Oversight As a member of the Iowa General Assembly and in accordance with Iowa Code Section 13.2(1)(e), I hereby request a formal Attorney General Opinion on the interpretation of law surrounding city and employee contribution rates to the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI). Iowa Code Chapter 411 governs MFPRSI. Iowa Code Section 411.8 provides the means for determining the comparative contribution rates to be paid by the members and the participating cities. Iowa Code Section 411.8(1)(a) requires the cities' to pay into the system a "normal contribution" each year, and further provides that the contribution rate for cities shall be determined through an annual actuarial valuation of the liabilities of the system. The cities' "normal contribution" is calculated pursuant to Iowa Code Section 411.8(1)(b), which reads as follows: Except as otherwise provided in this lettered paragraph, the "normal contribution rate" shall be the rate percent of the earnable compensation of all members equal to the rate required by the system to discharge its liabilities, stated as a percentage of the eamable compensation of all members, and reduced by the employee contribution rate provided in paragraph "f' of this subsection and the contribution rate representing any state appropriation made. However, the normal contribution rate shall not be less than seventeen percent. The result of this provision is that even in years in which the cities' actuarial allocation of the liabilities of the system is less than seventeen percent, the cities are required by the statute to contribute the minimum seventeen percent. I See attached exhibit for historical contribution rates of city participants. Chip Baltimore STATE REPRESENTATIVE Forty- Eighth District Statehouse: (515) 281 -3221 e-mail �hip.baltimote@legis.state.ia.us HOME ADDRESS 521 S. Delaware St. Boone, IA 50036 Home: (515) 709 -0325 House of Representatives State of Iowa Eighty- Fourth General Assembly STATEHOUSE Des Moines, Iowa 50319 COMMITTEES Commerce, Vice Chair Economic Growth/Rebuild Iowa Judiciary Local Government Government Oversight Iowa Code Section 411.8(1)(f)(8) contains the provision for calculating the members' contribution rate for fiscal years after July 1, 1996. As a general rule under this subsection, the members' contribution rate is capped at 9.4% as of July 1, 2009. However, the subsection provides for increases in the members' contribution rate above 9.4% under certain circumstances: However, the system shall increase the member's contribution rate as necessary to cover any increase in cost to the system resulting from statutory changes which are enacted by any session of the general assembly meeting after January 1, 1991, if the increase cannot be absorbed within the contribution rates otherwise established pursuant to this paragraph, but subject to a maximum employee contribution rate of eleven and three - tenths percent or beginning July 1, 2009, eleven and thirty -five hundredths percent.... After the employee contribution reaches ... eleven and thirty-five hundredths percent, as applicable, sixty percent of the additional cost of such statutory changes shall be paid by employers under paragraph "c" and forty percent of the additional cost shall be paid by employees under this paragraph. These are the pertinent provisions about which I am requesting your interpretation as it pertains to the proper allocation of the costs associated with new benefits created by statutory changes made by the Iowa Legislature. I have been informed that the MFPRSI Board of Trustees and administration have interpreted these provisions to mean that if new benefits are granted by legislative action, and if in the first year in which the additional benefits take effect the cost of those new benefits can be covered by the employee contribution rate combined with the cities' minimum contribution rate of 17% as specified in Iowa Code Section 411.8(1)(b)(1), then the provision in Iowa Code Section 411.8(1)(f)(8) increasing the members' contribution rate above 9.4% is not applied during that year or more importantly in any future year. This interpretation has been applied even in subsequent years in which the cities' minimum contribution rate of 17% plus the members' contribution rate would not be sufficient to cover the additional benefits. Thus, the current interpretation has caused the cities to bear the full cost of the additional benefits in subsequent years, even when the cities' otherwise "normal contribution" greatly exceeded the 17% minimum contribution. It has been suggested that the relevant language of Iowa Code Section 411.8(1)(f)(8) could and should be properly interpreted so as to require the cost of any statutory changes be calculated as Chip Baltimore STATE REPRESENTATIVE Forty- Eighth District Statehouse: (515) 281 -3221 e -mail �hip.baltimote@legis.state.ia.us HOME ADDRESS 521 S. Delaware St. Boone, IA 50036 Home: (515) 709 -0325 House of Representatives State of Iowa Eighty- Fourth General Assembly STATEHOUSE Des Moines, Iowa 50319 COMMITTEES Commerce, Vice Chair Economic GrowdVRebuild Iowa Judiciary Local Government Government Oversight a part of the annual actuarial valuation and resultant cities' and members' contribution rates. This interpretation would permit the costs of the statutory changes to be allocated on a more equitable basis from year to year, as opposed to the MFPRSI interpretation. This interpretation would be consistent with the statutory language of Iowa Code Section 411.8(1)(f)(8), which definitively does not provide that the additional cost resulting from statutory changes should be allocated permanently on the basis of the initial year's calculations. This alternative interpretation also prevents unduly or unfairly timing the statutory changes to the system through the implementation of additional benefits in years in which the cities' contribution rate is at the minimum 17 %, yet may be of dramatic future increases of costs allocated solely to the cities during years in which the cities' normal contribution rate would already exceed seventeen percent without the additional benefits. Clarifying the proper interpretation of these provisions would alleviate past and future practical issues surrounding the application of these code sections, and ensure the legislative intent of the statutory provisions surrounding this important issue is being carried out by the MFPRSI administration. Your interpretation is sought so as to provide guidance to legislators as to whether additional legislation is required to clarify the statutory language at issue. Due to the short period of time remaining before the commencement of the next legislative session, I respectfully request that you expedite this request so that we may address this issue during the 2012 session if necessary and desired. Finally, to my knowledge, there is no pending or imminent legal case, which would interfere with the rendering of the requested opinion. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, 4 f 16� —" Representative Chip Baltimore MFPRSI Historical Normal Contribution Rates Valuation Date 7/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 7/1/94 7/1/95 7/1/96 7/1/97 7/1/98 7/1/99 7/1/00 7/1/01 7/1/02 7/1/03 7/1/04 7/1/05 7/1/06 7/1/07 7/1/08 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 Time Period 1/1/92 - 6/30/93 7/1/93 - 6/30/94 7/1/94 - 6/30/95 7/1/95 - 6/30/96 7/1/96 - 6/30/97 7/1/97 - 6/30/98 7/1/98 - 6/30/99 7/1/99 - 6/30/00 7/1/00 - 6/30/01 7/1/01 - 6/30/02 7/1/02 - 6/30/03 7/1/03 - 6/30/04 7/1/04 - 6/30/05 7/1/05 - 6/30/06 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 7/1/07 - 6/30/08 7/1/08 - 6/30/09 7/1/09 - 6/30/10 7/1/10 - 6/30/11 7/1/11 - 6/30/12 7/1/12 - 6/30/13 Cities' Normal Contribution Rate Before Minimum N/A 19.66% 18.71% 17.66% 16.99% 15.94% 13.62% 13.60% 11.12% 15.36% 16.74% 20.48% 24.92% 28.21% 27.75% 25.48% 18.75% 16.49% 19.90% 24.76% 26.12% Cities' Normal Contribution Rate After Minimum 17.00% 19.66% 18.71% 17.66% 17.00% 17.00% 17.00% 17.00% 17.00% 17.00% 17.00% 20.48% 24.92% 28.21% 27.75% 25.48% 18.75% 17.00% 19.90% 24.76% 26.12% September 16, 2011 SilverStone Group SII,v�S�nor� G R O U P October 24, 2011 Mr. Dennis Jacobs Executive Director Municipal Fire & Police Retirement System of Iowa 7155 Lake Drive, Suite 201 West Des Moines, IA 50266 Business and Personal Resource Management RE: 20 -Year Cost Projections Using Alternative Cost Methods Dear Dennis: As requested, we have prepared 20 -year cost projections for the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa ( "System ") reflecting the current Aggregate actuarial cost method and also the Entry Age Normal actuarial cost method. Enclosed are the results of the projections reflecting three alternative amortization periods for the unfunded actuarial accrued liability of 30, 25 and 22 years under the Entry Age Normal actuarial cost method. Assumptions The projections assume that no changes in benefit provisions would occur from those currently in place for the System members. The projections also reflect the same assumptions and census data as those used in the recently completed July 1, 2011 actuarial valuation except for the addition of three modifications necessary for a long -term projection. First, the assumed investment return on the market value of assets was 7.5% for each year during the projection period. Secondly, the number of active members participating in the System is expected to slightly increase by 0.5% per year during the projection period. Thirdly, the non - investment expenses of the System are assumed to grow by 5.0% per year during the projection. Please note the cost projections enclosed are based on the stated investment return, other actuarial assumptions used in the annual actuarial valuation and additional assumptions described above. Actual experience may differ from that assumed which may result in actual contribution rates materially different than forecasted. Please call me if you have any questions or if we can be of additional assistance. Sincerely, Michael JS . Ehmke, ASA, EA, MAAA Principal MSE/rb Enclosures 11518 Miracle Hills Drive, Omahs, NE 88154 phone 403.964.5400 toll free 000288.5501 fax 402.984.5454 www.silversto negroWarn J Q 7 sCC L 3� O � Y E� ms N >0 07 maw mE� G LL D F CD � C Q C gJ 0 Fp ? W Eo m U IL O CL .V E C8 �m> 9 E e e �Ti N n r m p�^dOE m n n � m O N N n n � LQ ri ri � 88 e r n ^ m N N N n m N N o . m $ a m N Q ¢ m 2 Z m S N 0 O O b O N V O Q NO1O� "p� mm �i mm 10 0 0 N O O !O m °1OI v a FI O O ID m n a s q y y N m O m N CN C N G b b Y m m Q N N Cj Np �- O O qN n m N N m p m p O O O O m {7 N N yNm ymN ,9g, N m qQq ggQ i Oc g F m m m N N N a W ry ry' m m m n :i w O tNm� n ya N m m m m m N N N {mV n n n r a p m o 0 of d r ai m o of v e m N N m N N � m � (mil m tNp YN ON N Oi C (7 N IA N Q Cl [7 m m w n [q N [V N [V N m g 0. m m m m N m O m N (V N N N N 0 N N m N N N N N p p '�` Nn m mori app N N O n p^ m I% ID foie e os om n m N ^ N N ^ I in mn m mr m m m m wm m m m mog Ie m m e m fyyV ^p ^ (V ^ o^ 1(1 V N p p O Y V N m mm �°i ci o n gO mm rz N •- ^ N ^ ^ � a < o 0 0 n a m E d g 11 „sa a- �a a , > U �586 N N O N tV m m68m N O1 p [NO � p p N Q O by N O1 O t0 de a a o{my N °i O Cl -�8m N m O l0 N m p t�l a �gtm N N O t�� m m O yN N O1 O Cl m q O b N m 8g0� N m O 0 m O O N N m o n P O m 0 N N O d N N npp � 4.J C L D m ° E8 ¢ m 9 IS E o m a Z U v P m M a N �2 t i m N N 8 O 7 O �a @j L O 21 O 0 Em g ng mar� E A ' F Er 6L a O ab m LL aE E c$ >m 9 n e o N 41 T 2 N 0 8 goi og n m mm m of riO $ ^m pp ybyb[[ ma NN m� ,�4 m o0 b0 N Q m N 1� n • C; Y Y � Oi O N (pmt ty O m 0 0 \Y N O f0 Cl C] Q Q m m n n 1NO pm 1Op � Op n m m - T O N N p m m O cYa O O N m m O 10 Ol m m m m N N m O O n n n rho o m m me N e of ci a ci of ae ae m N Bm? ` ame A ni n an e a° m !1ame8 ; "m 1 3 m cm � 6ae ca"i r e of vi a ni vi `So ge m m O n O O N O b n O O gae m C m {V opf opf (7 t7 G Gp Yj m N yv� O d ae BR pp pp lCp�l ^ N N pp ��aa¢¢bb�pp �pV }'y n n �lyq f0 O O 10 V O Ol OI O m N b n^ Y 0 0 N 16 O C e m of m O O vi of N m 4 S81 j rri \\� a '2 'N` F4 n mm �oiom d m m of of ci o �nmde m N Q C O N O N L awgR > qmm sLL m m m > a ma @ �� m ��� - m� m w Q c > 15 tJi W y O Ny Z U o m '3 c n c m 5 Q a E m c a c m ¢ c U t d > U 0 a aE m m > > > m c y f¢ c V g y F Q U N YI npp N L m U i Z m 'o � m 2 m � mm N 0 8 Q m C Q Q a C Q Z U. n Q O LO m o N m N I N O N 0 m O O Y 0 10 m m Y 6 N n n O < N m m WCI ci W O d N m O 1WO VNI W N N W O m n V N N N _ p3e m mm a de mm of j��° deo i S N N W� O m 6R e n n n m n W N N n n W O N m 0 m (7 (7 n n m W O N N m 6 N N W b ^ t0 v N 5( O 3 3? yq N 6 n m A W W N N {eryy o N `n m m W 6W W d O m � m m m.6 6.6 {V Cl J Q N [V t7 Cq ci ��N n 0 o o Jq b p 0 y p O O ��QQ F) m ,Y1 Vn l, N N N V O O W N n y Cl 1N y� 1yN � TT N W ci N ' m {N q N W O Cl l� n n m N N C6 N NN E j n ��QJ yp p ftVO n n n ��CJ ��E] 1Np 1Np pp ��YJ 0 4 Q m Q N N n n N v O n Q N Oi C O T Oi ci t�l N W W °r °r f(y0 ee ��Qj 6 (IJ q (n Z C I(1 m n n m (6 O pN C6 ci 1p [q O N W O N Cl l� {my W (Wy [� [� g Q W 01 O< N Cl 'O m N N N N N c E E W O 1m6 OGy p p <� yp� cm W 1Iq Iq W€ pCD n W mqN CO H ai O m N Tm d r fh n N CJ m N N NN 0 N N N Q m g � e �E rgNN 01 O W O 8 2 W O a Z N N O O N m n [i [V N N N N LL o m aem n o It '$ 4e a�a'�}'j g g_ � W M;z m N ,�pp yypp iu oN S {d 4 G C n 6 N + o m cz n ai d �'+ < m in $"$ o m o w o ai a of m m .0 Nq giv m m m m w m �N r m c d� fo m�bm C mm n fV N W gg }? C N 01 0 0 N W O m CJ 0 0 H W O aI W n N N m '3 c n c m 5 Q a E m c a c m ¢ c U t d > U 0 a aE m m > > > m c y f¢ c V g y F Q U N YI npp N L m U i Z m 'o � m 2 m � mm N 0 8 Q m C Q Q a C Q Z U. n Q O LO m o N m N I N O J a 7 2 0 3� 03 O � m EN m � O Z m$ � 6 c mo WR a F m � c m U co 02� a33E oy m IL o G f m n 'm m o CV 0 T m 2 h a m e m C D m m y O yu �i Y ym ym m Cl °e mm go� m m ^! o o o ul m n a dim ^a o^ Ri r vi m a v, a m ri (� mm n n Oi O O O t'l O Oi C O C N OI t9 Cl N vj T O Ooi (V Cl a m m e m m a Cd a m m j��f N m m 6 3 O N m yp pp Q Q N m O O Cl r 'e woi v mm n w np Iq n y� o a�i o o q n^ m nan n q N N m m G N g A 7 a m N m O m n 4 of of d of m m m mm `a ggam�, �3N m N a vi .n d° N N N O N N N m r e of ri v ci m w N N m y N m C m a N$ n N N mg go •�4i, omi o n nn � v ^' minim RS � 00 Nma m 16 vi Cof� 6f G ¢� {C6y kepi p p y p p vj 9j O �O �O b O O N O O O m O O X �pOm (V N m O m n Y C) N m O O Cl Ol 2 d° n m J m N ca O' 6 N a ^O L m m? m O UI C N Q> r > > Q ¢ m 6 m E2 S la a > m C m C W m > m? C 0 0 W O 6 g m O 7> C N m N m E a w og0 omi- ��am ciSam� m €m zaaa t �¢ Z U > V 0 0 ym C O o� O } E� m U) Z E &: qq E CD F W F C O CL and m LL s a8 'r, E 'c f >m 9 N 0 m � m > m m `m S � E � o Q - U = P m e T a a � ` o m o° m600 nn m � Noio� g iy mm R g d � mm ¢ U V N N C N N G N C] v 0 0 �i m n n m V m N N n n N m O m O m m N n n m N N [� ci y�?1 Ol O n {N m4 ym� pN yy� m O m 1cb N fG f0 m N N W N N O O ri n "vS� m O m N n m N N Cl N N m m mm a9ye,, ggam,, yp mm mg nn m m a v N of c� � 22 m N N td N N N m m N N am�bF � aE m O N. Ih IA �bNp N Q O N Oi G tj GyO V m O ty! ty! C ONi CJ t7 W N N N N N v m N m T n m pm N VO Cl m N N m O N m Iq m N N C1 N CI [V N o b ppN p m A m N m p O Y O Q! O O m bm on g m^ N N O N m n C4 O m N N N N N ,p Sim o - Iq r' m aio m �o N ,o O. M. m < m o m aP a4 m m mn eE �¢a4�° m mn m .'om ri ci N m N � �• N .- QQ �Y a mpm d° �bpa ae m fOm Z m m Y N O V N n V Yp N m N Oi C m m Nm m m N 0 m � m > m m `m S � E � o Q - U = P e T a a � ` o 5 m � Ui 0 o E R g d � U i m F ffi a ¢ U N m O tN�l N m O m N m O W 0, 9 9 a m o N aym N m �bO^ [m7f N m O t0 6 4 g g N m ° tm9 de de a aE <S8m moior N m 668.1 ai mio a N m 091 N O O o 0 T a � m m3�a- O c > Zm U n 0 f7 r c m N N r fq N N O W a 0 m O N m 2 ? m 2 0 @ 0� ¢ >> t o 4L^ m E 0 m m E m 2 $ m m OI OI E m �! Q Q U= Q Z U n 2 0 m 00 o N N N lS °_ n Qi'v �u% a a HST a nn $ g m n poi a 1 of vniw Raie� J I N m m a m m ¢ n m o n a N N 2 3Q �p �b Ci N m NN a $a m n° loo_ Q N N n n N m Q m O N N N N pmo Y m O N C G N {� pY n 6 m m v m ri $ o m m N€p Amy m o fnZ y, c� nn m m o a m 13 3oi 3oi Noio m� y c d of vi v ¢ m Ng 6 MW A n n ON N n pm� N N 6 m m O N g Y S N Ei C G t� q m � n m v ci ci v pj pj m O1. F3 °' g °o oi, A m ee m� o a .9s nn 3 m N� moi o m N m -� mom N m F pd� � 1�(S e N N vi ni O v l7 l7 mm CD U- �� 9 a n umi umi o o S° 5N moi om N om 9 aio� N m i •V E � •C V N v vi m m vi N N ri w �p 2 N N m � y ti w ri m vi m m 0 n n H O m C OI N N y N m O ti moi ri rivi O W a 0 m O N m 2 ? m 2 0 @ 0� ¢ >> t o 4L^ m E 0 m m E m 2 $ m m OI OI E m �! Q Q U= Q Z U n 2 0 m 00 o N N N lS � C O T H � a `o °e O W a 0 m O N m 2 ? m 2 0 @ 0� ¢ >> t o 4L^ m E 0 m m E m 2 $ m m OI OI E m �! Q Q U= Q Z U n 2 0 m 00 o N N N lS N O i 7 r7 O O - J c r c N \ \° \ \° \° \° \° \ \° \ \° \° \ \° \ \° \° \° \ \° \ o � O C` O LO N O CO O co co O W h iA (n CO CO r� 00 O O) r t r V 0) to O CO M O) to N 0) M M O 00 1n N (n C c C( f� 0; r C6 Cfl In 4 4 qj M M N N N r r r r O CJ C,7 N G ) Q} N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a E 05 0 C N Q U w m -0-0 0 �r ? O N N rl N 00 Ln CO I� m N CO CO 't V' O 0-0 O � in O 'R 7 , I,- � ` N r 0) r (O Lo O N r CO 7 r CO u7 N Cn C` V N 0) C` 7 CCi (O 00 O h (n 7 4 4 C7 Ch C7 N N N r r r r 0 6 O OC Z L Q ) 0 N N CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y LLI �a CNQ +' N d N W N ++ U O r O c m C N 4 �; cm ; E o < c o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 e 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Z` j N, O W C C Q O Q N co co 7 O n V N CA CO 7 N O Lo M O M (O d c " 0 C6 (n h (A (O 7 7 4 M M M N N N N r r r r r 0 0 y+ Q O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C , Q M M Q y W V N O +O' CL otj a) o ��������e�e�e�e����� 0 0 0 0 C.O O CO m C C N CO 00 C CO C n 0 O 0 O CO 0 CA 0' N V 0 Cn a CO C M 0 O 0 O ` Q p� O m h� O In h Cl M M n N CO r O N W� O I- � O � co �� jCn C M N N N N N N N N N N .- U rn CL �+ 'V C O c U U) d r V ) Q c r r N Cr) 7 In CO CO O O r N CO 'qt Lf) ll� O r O T r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CM w, 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m f6 � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r � (0 r 0 C G > N (D N U 0 O U 0 N �i 'fl d h O U .y 3E o d w 8W a> > aeQi i Gi Y d on a.5 U n y O W p R � d V FJ O oU U 0 Lc I Z. 7 O ti 0 Co M m N N N N N 1 co elea uognqu;uoo ,sailio !e O2 OF 01- s2ol� 9e Or `eO 9e oz se o2 a2 02 e2 02 2e0 tz oe, oe Z sz oe, BZ oe ��O 1910e -P ol� 6z oe, eZ oz �le oz t' 02 i N w IeW I �I M, �i w w h A } m Z W f m m rn d rn la T 6 Uf0 CO o N O N N 0 I-. H Z W W W Q W U d' W V) LL O U) Q W W cI) W a U) w W Cm G W 2 N Q' CL W 2 Lv1 Y O F- _0 .O. (0 T ID- Co =' O ._ C O Z N .T� N N N 0 Q O N U N ca N 7 in h M Cl (0 Il OO ll;� 00 '": O) V r 00 4 h 00 f, h r 0 M 00 0 0 r� Q Y C 70 Q r M ^ r to r O M r O r r O N r C:, m O r r r m m 0 r 0 r N l0 O) O l0 M CO O) r O 00 r In } m 1-� r--: r r N N N N r r N O) N r N O) r V N O r O) r Q Y U c N % a tl7 l0 N r N N O) N N In N CO N l0 N N t0 l0 r N N O) M N O 4 N N O N M N r r N Q C 7 W Il r O1 O CO OD M N 0 N O M O M M U') M M M N M M N M N N U E2 Q C 7 r O) h I� M 00 1- 0 00 00 M 0 O) f, h � (O l0 h (O M 0 I� rl CO 0 � rn 00 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL rn 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N N N N N N N N N N N N d' O N O O N N M le le O Co 4 m 0 H r M r Iowa + Fiscal Partnership P EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tax Increment Financing: A Case Study of Johnson County By Peter S. Fisher Tax Increment Financing, or TIF, is poorly understood, yet hotly debated. Cities tout it as an important tool to promote local economic development, yet often its principal effect is to shift taxes from business to residential taxpayers, or from one city's taxpayers to residents of neighboring towns and rural areas. In other cases, TIF has been used to entice businesses to move from one city to another with no economic benefit to the region. Some cities use it very selectively, while other cities have placed most of the city in a TIF area, or are well on their way to doing so. TIF is a financing mechanism whereby cities establish an "urban renewal area' (URA) and are then allowed to divert taxes on the increased value in the URA (the tax increment) from school districts and counties to the city's TIF fund. These diverted taxes are spent on development projects within the URA. These diversions, in fact, can be direct payments back to those who do the development within the URA, in effect rebating the developer's property taxes. This report illuminates how TIF has changed from a tool for redeveloping blighted areas to a means of subsidizing development projects of all kinds, often with little or no public benefit, and a device for shifting the costs of city infrastructure to taxpayers in rural areas and neighboring cities. The report focuses on the experience with TIF in Johnson County. Key Findings • Countywide, $759 million worth of taxable property, representing nearly 15 percent of the county urban tax base, is now part of a city TIF increment. • Four cities now have over a third of their tax base in a TIF increment: Coralville (39.7 percent), Oxford (50.7 percent), Shueyville (55.4 percent) and Tiffin (56.7 percent). • The City of Coralville accounts for 68.4 percent of the TIF valuation in the county, followed by North Liberty with 14.6 percent. Iowa City, with 56 percent of the total urban value in the county, accounts for only 3.3 percent of the TIF value. • The City of Coralville's Merged Highway 6 /Coral Ridge Mall Urban Renewal Area (the Mall /6 URA) is by far the largest in the county (54 percent of the county total TIF valuation) generating $12.8 million in property taxes diverted to the city's TIF fund this year: $5 million comes from the Clear Creek Amana (CCA) and Iowa City Community school districts, $2.7 million from Johnson County, and $4.7 million from the city's own general fund • Of the $5 million in school property taxes diverted because of the Mall /6 URA, 44 percent is offset by increased state funds through the school aid formula. The remaining 56 percent is recovered through higher school property taxes. The Iowa City district levy is higher by $0.56 per $1,000 of taxable value because of the Mall /6 TIF, while the CCA levy is $2.83 higher. • Through higher school and county tax rates, Iowa City residents and businesses are effectively being taxed by Coralville to build facilities that compete with Iowa City's hotels and to lure Iowa City businesses, such as Von Maur, to Coralville. The average single - family residence in Iowa City pays an extra $80 per year because of the Mall /6 TIF. A small business with $300,000 in taxable property pays an extra $254 per year. The Iowa Policy Project Child & Family Policy Center www.iowapoIicyproject.org www.cfpciowa.org • Clear Creek Amana school district residents forgo most property taxes from the Mall area, and these tax dollars are being used to redevelop the Iowa River Landing, entirely within the Iowa City Community School District. The average homeowner in CCA pays an extra $319 per year in property taxes because of the Mall /6 URA. • In five cities, TIF revenue now exceeds regular property tax revenue. TIF revenue accounts for 83.8 percent of Shueyille's property taxes, 78.0 percent of Tiffin's, 75.4 percent of Oxford's, and 59 percent of Swisher's and Coralville's. • TIF revenue diverted from the county and school district forces higher property taxes on county and district taxpayers residing outside the city, and higher state taxes through the higher school aid payments. Among the eight heavy TIF -using cities in Johnson County, Shueyville leads the pack with 62 percent of its property taxes exported to non -city taxpayers, followed by Tiffin at 49 percent, Oxford at 48 percent, Swisher at 42 percent and Coralville and Lone Tree at 31 percent. • Five small towns (Swisher, Shueyville, Oxford, Tiffin and Lone Tree) are using TIF revenues primarily or exclusively to retire debt for water, sewer and street projects that otherwise could be retired entirely from a city debt service levy or from water charges. • All of the growth in the number of school children in the county over the past 10 years has been in the eight communities that have placed much of their new tax base off limits to the school districts through the heavy use of TIF. • The average residence in Johnson County, with a market value of $200,000 and a taxable value of about $94,000, pays an extra $373 a year because of all TIFs in the county if it is located in a rural portion of Clear Creek Amana. A small business with $250,000 in taxable real property would pay an extra $991, and an average 1,000 -acre farm would pay an additional $2,489. In the rural part of the Iowa City school district, the corresponding effects of TIF are an extra $140 for the average residence, $371 for the small business, and $1,038 for the farm. Conclusions TIF promotes local government spending by lowering its perceived cost. When 50 percent of TIF revenues are exported, the effect is a half -price sale on public projects and TIF incentives. In the process, spending priorities are skewed in favor of incentives, buildings, and infrastructure, and away from services such as mental health, recreation, police protection, library acquisitions, and others. TIF has been allowed to degenerate to the point that many cities view a TIF area as a perpetual cash cow to finance a wide range of city operations that have nothing to do with economic development. It is used to build hotels that lose money and compete with unsubsidized hotels in the same area, to entice retail stores to relocate from neighboring communities, and simply to get other people to pay for a community center or street improvements. Without serious reform, we can look forward to a future in which increasing numbers of cities TIF all or most of their city for the primary purpose of shifting taxes to non - residents, and more and more cities join the incentive wars in retaliation for the piracy of retail and other businesses by their neighbors. The end result will be a local property tax system that is increasingly unfair, and an erosion of revenues that threatens the ability of cities and counties to finance important public services, many of which are part of the foundation for future economic growth. Ironically, this result will have been arrived at in the name of promoting "economic development" Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project, part of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership (IFP). IFP is a joint public policy research and analysis initiative of /PP in Iowa City and another nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, the Child & Family Policy Center in Des Moines. Reports from IFP are at www.iowariscal.org. Iowa Fiscal Partnership Tax Increment Financing: A Case Study of Johnson County By Peter S. Fisher Tax Increment Financing, or TIF, is poorly understood, yet hotly debated. Cities tout it as an important tool to promote local economic development, yet often its principal effect is to shift taxes from business to residential taxpayers, or from one city's taxpayers to residents of neighboring towns and rural areas. In other cases, TIF has been used to entice businesses to move from one city to another with no economic benefit to the region. Some cities use it very selectively, while other cities have placed most of the city in a TIF area, or are well on their way to doing so. This report illuminates how TIF has changed from a tool for redeveloping blighted areas to a means of subsidizing development projects of all kinds, often with little or no public benefit, and a device for shifting the costs of city infrastructure to taxpayers in rural areas and neighboring cities. The report focuses on the experience with TIF in Johnson County. How Does TIF Work? Under Iowa's TIF law, cities are allowed to designate portions of the city as "urban renewal areas" and then to divert future increases in taxes within that area to the city's TIF fund.' This is an extraordinary power, for it allows the city to claim part of the tax base from new development exclusively for a designated TIF project as the city sees fit. Tax revenues are diverted that would normally flow to all local governments to help pay for their share of the additional costs associated with development: to the school district Figure 1. How a TIF Increment Is Established and Grows to help pay for public schooling, to the county for TIF Created in 2006 for $2 Million Private Investment health and social services, and to the city general $3,000.000 fund for police and fire protection, streets, parks AIMO and recreation, libraries, and a host of other $1.500.000 services. To make up for the lost revenue, counties • and school districts must raise their own property tax rates. TIF thus provides a mechanism to shift $l.000,000 costs to county and school taxpayers outside the city — and to state taxpayers, through state aid to :1.00,000 t.5ogo00 - local schools. This feature, combined with the looseness of Iowa's TIF law, creates strong incentives for cities to overuse and abuse TIF. When an Urban Renewal Area (URA) is first $500.000 �� established, the assessed value in the URA as of the 0 preceding January becomes the base value. All M increases in value after that represent the am LM 3w MM no 30" increment in value, as illustrated in Figure 1 for a hypothetical TIF created in 2006 for a $2 million private project 1 In future years, total taxes on properties in the URA are the same as they would be outside the URA, but where those taxes flow is altered The Iowa PollcyProject Child & Family Policy Center www.iowapoIicyproject.org www.cfpciowa.org dramatically. The schools and the county collect their full tax rate only on the base value, and get to collect only debt levies (to pay off bonds) on the increment. All other taxes on the increment flow to the city's TIF fund, as illustrated in Figure 2. The flows in Figure 2 are based on typical FY2012 Johnson County tax levies on the 2010 valuation shown in Figure 1, ignoring the much smaller tax flows to Kirkwood and other jurisdictions for simplicity. Figure 2. How TIF Diverts Property Taxes to a City TIF Fund City Tax $40,000 County Tax 520,000 $10,000_. $30,000 $ 5,00_ 0 . $15,000 $15,0 It is important to understand that TIF is not School Tax � E synonymous with economic development $45,000 $30,000 incentives. TIF is merely a financing mechanism. Cities can and do promote economic redevelopment and job creation in a variety of ways; cities can build facilities to accommodate private projects, they can provide tax abatements for both residential and non - residential property, and they can issue bonds to finance infrastructure, all without TIF. But TIF has become the mechanism of choice to finance economic development incentives in part because TIF creates the illusion that such incentives are costless, and in part because TIF in actuality shifts costs to other taxpayers. Furthermore, much (perhaps the majority) of TIF revenue is not used to incentivize development at all, but rather to finance routine city infrastructure spending that otherwise could be financed with city bonds, retired entirely by city taxpayers, or charged to developers. It is often asserted that TIF is costless to taxpayers because the increment in revenue would never have happened without TIF. The taxes that are diverted are taxes that would not have existed but for TIF, so goes the argument, so no taxpayer is the worse off. This is the TIF illusion. It might be true that the development project would not have occurred without some city investment; most projects of any scale require city investments in streets, sidewalks, water and sewer extensions and the like. And it is probably the case that some private investment projects would not have happened without tax rebates or other incentives (though this surely occurs much less often than public officials commonly believe). But none of that requires TIF — which, remember, is just a way of financing such things, an alternative to city bonds or ordinary tax abatements. Thus it is rarely true that TIF is costless to non -city taxpayers; it is the financing mechanism of choice for many cities precisely because it does spread costs to others. Some might counter -argue that without TIF the city wouldn't have chosen to finance the project at all, depriving the schools and the county of future tax base. Would the City of Coralville have forgone the opportunity to have the Coral Ridge Mall if the city investment in roads and other improvements had to come from city bonds instead of TIF revenues? Of course not. The Mall would have generated sufficient new property taxes to repay such bonds in a short period of time, and it was a very viable project needing no incentives. Would a city provide incentives to a private project that can't obtain private financing and is not viable without city subsidy, if the city couldn't use TIF? Perhaps it would, but if not, that would be for the best. In such cases, the financial market has determined that the project is not viable, and taxpayers would be saved from paying for a losing deal. Perhaps most importantly, much TIF revenue is used not to incentivize development in the first place, but simply as a cheap way to finance city infrastructure such as streets and community centers How is TIF Used in Johnson County? Practices with regard to the use of TIF vary widely among cities and towns in Johnson County. The largest users are Tiffin, Oxford, Shueyville and Coralville, all of which have about 40 percent of the city tax base or 2 more within a TIF increment. (The increment, remember, is the portion of the taxable value in the URA that represents the increase in value since the base year.) Figure 3. Three Cities in Johnson County Have Over Half of City Tax Base within a TIF Increment , FY2012 Tiffin Shueyville Oxford Coralville Swisher 27.4% Lone Tree 24,0% North Liberty 16.6% Solon 16.5 %d Iowa City 0_9% 0% 10% 20% 31% 330.6/° 39.7% 56.7% 55.4% 41% 50°/. 60% Countywide, there is $759 million worth of taxable property that is within a TIF increment in FY2012, representing nearly 15 percent of the urban property tax base in the county. Although Iowa City contains 56 percent of the total urban property value in the county, it accounts for only 3.3 percent of the TIF valuation. Both North Liberty and Tiffin, much smaller cities, have more value under TIF than Iowa City. On the other hand, Coralville, with 26 percent of the county's urban property value, Figure 4. Over Two - Thirds of Johnson County accounts for over two- thirds of the TIF TIF Value is In Coralville value in the county. Percent of Johnson County TIF Increment Valuation by City, FY2012 When a city establishes an urban renewal area, all of the future increase in taxes from that area (except for debt service and the school PPEL taxes) are available for diversion to the city TIF fund? But a city does not Tiffin necessarily claim all of the taxes that it could. For example, once the Iowa City TIF for Plaza Towers had repaid the city costs of that North Liberty project, the city allowed all potential TIF revenue to flow instead to the county and the school district, just as it would if there had been no TIF. The increments referred to in Figures 3 and 4 reflect the increments actually drawn on by the city, not the total available increment. The graph below shows, for each city, the percentage of the available incremental revenue from the TIF areas that is being diverted by the city. The figures range from a low of 12 percent in Iowa City, to a high of 100 percent in Coralville, Oxford, Shuevyille, Swisher and Tiffin. Coralville, for example, has continued to divert all available incremental revenues from the Coral Ridge Mall long after the original city expenses associated with the Mall were recovered; the Mall TIF now finances projects in the Iowa River Landing area. Iowa City Other 5 Cities Figure 5. The Drive to Keep Diverting TIF Revenue in Johnson County Percent of Available TIF Revenue Diverted, FY2012 Tiffin Swisher Shueyville Oxford Coralville Lone Tree North Liberty Solon Iowa City 9% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% How Does TIF Shift Taxes? The tax shifting effects of TIF are best illustrated by examining in more detail what is by far the largest TIF district in the county, in terms of both land area and property value: the City of Coralville's Merged Highway 6 / Coral Ridge Mall Urban Renewal Area, which we call the Mall /6 URA for short. This area extends from the eastern city limits with Iowa City at the Iowa River, to the western city limits with Tiffin at 1 -380 (see Figure 6, next page). The expanded URA resulted from the joining of the older Highway 6 URA (now the site of the Marriott hotel and the Iowa River Landing project) with the Coral Ridge Mall URA in 2002 by including the 1 -80 right -of -way between the two distrtcts.4 The combined URA includes $411 million in TIF valuation, 54 percent of all the TIF valuation in the county. The combination allowed the city to use the enormous TIF revenue from the Mall ($10.5 million in FY2012) to finance projects in the Iowa River Landing area. Of the $19.7 million in property taxes collected within the Mall /6 URA this fiscal year, more than $12.8 million (the increment) are diverted to the City of Coralville TIF fund. Table 1 shows where these diverted taxes come from — that is, where they would otherwise have gone, were it not for TIF. Almost two - fifths comes from the two school districts represented in the URA: Clear Creek Amana, and Iowa City. Note that 36 percent comes from the City of Coralville's own general fund. Thus $4.7 million that could otherwise fund police, fire, roads and other city functions is diverted to the TIF fund for spending on economic development projects. Of course, to the extent that some of this economic development spending is for streets and other infrastructure within the URA Table 1. Property Taxes Diverted to Coralville TIF Fund by the Mall/6 URA that would have come out of the city's general fund, this is Property Taxes Percent not a loss to city taxpayers. Diverted of Total From Johnson County $2,674,268 21% From School Districts 4,988,624 39% From Kirkwood Community College 327,808 3% From Other Governments" 188.661 1 % Total from Other Governments $8,179,361 64% From City of Coralville General Fund 4,681,329 36% Total TIF taxes diverted $12,860,690 100% Figure 6. Coralville's Mall /Highway 6 Urban Renewal Area is Largest TIF District in Johnson County memo am sw■ • mass "• poem swap S■sw■. ANN ■ ■ ti • • Iowa City School District 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 1� Map Key ....a • � •, Municipal Boundary School District Boundary — Roads Coral Ridge -HWY 6 TIF District �✓/lj Other TIF Districts Data sources: Iowa GIS Repository (www iowagisdata.org) and Johnson Co. Planning & Zoning • • ■ m e m o i ■ • y ■ ■ ■ Clear -Creek Annana ,. School District • �i e 4. e Iowa City School District 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 1� Map Key ....a • � •, Municipal Boundary School District Boundary — Roads Coral Ridge -HWY 6 TIF District �✓/lj Other TIF Districts Data sources: Iowa GIS Repository (www iowagisdata.org) and Johnson Co. Planning & Zoning Figure 7 shows how the property taxes collected within the Mall /6 URA would be distributed if there were no TIF diversion, and how they are in actuality distributed .5 The City's share of total taxes collected (taxes going to the city general fund, the TIF fund, and other city Figure 7. Property Taxes from the Mall16 URA With and Without TIF funds) rises from 34 percent to 75 percent. The Mall /6 URA diverts $4.99 million in property taxes from schools this fiscal year, nearly evenly divided between the two school districts: Clear • Kirkwood 8 Other Creek Amana and Iowa City . School Districts Community. The existence of ■ City of Coralville TIF does not directly affect Johnson County how much either school district spends, however. The Iowa school financing formula dictates allowable per pupil $4,963,320 spending each year for every $2,289,052 school district. Furthermore, Without Tlf With TIF through the aid formula, the lower tax base per pupil resulting from the use of TIF produces greater state aid. However, this higher state aid offsets only about 44 percent of the lost revenue in these two districts; in order to maintain allowable spending, the districts must raise their tax rates. Table 2 shows that the Iowa City district rate must be $0.56 higher because of the Mall /6 TIF, while CCA must levy an additional $2.83. The Mall /6 URA also diverts $2.67 million in property taxes from the county. Unlike schools, however, the effects are not so straightforward. If all of the property now part of a TIF increment were fully available to Johnson County, it would enable the county to finance exactly the same level of services it does now with a lower tax rate. However, the larger tax base would also allow some increase in services. Table 2 shows that the county tax rate is $0.45 higher because of the Mall /6 TIF; however, this is the maximum effect on the rate. Some of the TIF diversion may have reduced county services instead. Thus the dollar impacts of TIF on the average property owner in the county can be interpreted as services forgone or higher taxes, or some combination of the two. The Mall /6 TIF also reduces the tax base available to Kirkwood Community College, Agricultural Extension. and the County Assessor. The overall effect of the Mall /6 URA is a tax rate that is $1.07 higher in Iowa City, $3.40 higher in the CCA school district. For an average home worth about $200,000 on the market, this translates into an annual cost of $80 in Iowa City, $319 in CCA. Residents of Iowa City are paying that much extra per year for Table 2. Coralville Mall/6 URA Affects School and County Tax Rates, FY2012 School District Iowa City Clear Creek Amana Increase in levy rate ($ per thousand) School district tax 0.33505 2.83494 County tax Other countywide taxes' Total 0.45124 0.45124 0.06106 0.10950 0.84735 3.39567 Additional Property Taxes on an average ($200,000) home $80 $319 'Kirkwood Community College, Ag Extension, and (outside Iowa City only) the County Assessor Note: Figures for Iowa City Community School District are for property located within the City of Iowa City; the tax rate and average taxes would be slightly higher for residents of the school district outside the city because of the higher county assessor levy. Coralville to develop the Iowa River Landing, including spending about $18 million to lure Von Maur to Iowa River Landing (IRL). Also included in the $80 are the payments on Coralville's debt for the Marriott Hotel. Iowa City residents and businesses are therefore being taxed by Coralville to build facilities that compete with Iowa City's hotels and to lure Iowa City businesses to Coralville. Clear Creek Amana district residents are paying much more for the Mall /6 URA because the Coral Ridge Mall area properties within CCA represent a very large share of the district's tax base. Those residents are now foregoing taxes from the mall, which no doubt has stimulated growth to the west of Coralville within CCA and added to school population, and these tax dollars are being used to redevelop IRL, which is entirely within the Iowa City Community School District. It is important to remember that tax base enhancement is the rationale for allowing a city to divert a school district's property taxes. Yet any development in the IRL that ends up generating significant tax revenue in the future will provide no benefit whatever to CCA. What are the Overall Effects of TIF in Johnson County? Revenues flowing into city TIF funds have become a very large share of the total property taxes received by many cities in the county. In fact, in five cities TIF revenue now exceeds regular property tax revenue flowing into the city's general fund, employee benefits fund, and debt service fund combined. TIF revenue accounts for 83.8 percent of Figure 8. TIF Revenue is Large Share of City Property Taxes, FY2012 Shueville's property taxes, 78.0 percent of Tiffin's, and 75.4 percent of Oxford's (Figure 8). The ultimate tax shift produced by TIF is from city to non -city taxpayers. Some of the TIF revenue, of course, is diverted from the city's own general fund to the TIF fund. Shueyville Tiffin Oxford Swisher Coralville Lone Tree Solon North Liberty Iowa City 1.7% University Heights 0.0% Hills 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 0.1% IMA% 02% IM SM NA% Furthermore, city residents themselves are paying a portion of the higher county and school taxes required because of the city's own TIF. But the remainder of the diverted TIF revenue is paid by county and school district property taxpayers residing outside the city, and by state taxpayers through the higher school aid payments, which offset about 44 percent of diverted school taxes.6 Figure 9 shows how much of a city's TIF revenue comes from taxpayers residing outside of the city, including state taxpayers. Among the eight heavy TIF users, between 23 percent and 62 percent of their property taxes are exported to non -city taxpayers. Residents of Shueyville and Swisher, in fact, are able to export some of their taxes to residents of Linn County through higher College Community School District property tax rates. Smaller towns are actually in a better position to export taxes because the town's tax base is a very small share of the county or district tax base; thus the effect of higher school and Figure 9. Percent of all City Property Taxes Paid by Taxpayers Outside the City, FY2012 Shueyville Tiffin Oxford _�- Swisher Coralville county tax rates is felt Lone Tree — primarily elsewhere in Solon — the county or district. Iowa City, on the other North Liberty - hand, has much less Iowa City 1 0.6% ability to export taxes 0% 10 °h 20 °h 30% M% 50 °k 60% 70% because city taxpayers will pay the lion's share of any higher county or school taxes. This is perhaps why small towns have put such a large share of the town in a TIF area. (The appendix to this report contains maps of all the TIF areas in the county.) Swisher, Shueyville and Oxford show no refunds, rebates or other TIF incentives in their FY2012 budgets. For Shueyville, 100 percent of TIF revenue is used to retire debt, and that debt was issued for a new community center /city hall and for a major street project. In Swisher, the TIF revenue has been used to retire sewer improvement bonds, though recently much of it has simply been allowed to accumulate in the TIF fund. Oxford has used TIF revenue primarily to pay for water and sewer projects. Lone Tree in FY12 spent $4,851 on incentives, but $136,947 on general obligation debt service, for city infrastructure. These small towns, in other words, are diverting TIF revenues to the city's debt service fund to retire debt for water, sewer and street projects that otherwise would be retired entirely from a city debt service levy or from water charges. In this fashion, they are able to shift infrastructure costs from city to rural taxpayers. Sheuyvillle, for example, has used TIF to get rural Johnson and Linn County taxpayers to pay for the majority of their recent projects — we saw above that 62 percent of Shueyville's TIF revenue comes from non -city properties, including Linn County residents of College Community School District. Some smaller towns have created TIFs that capture nearly all of the new residential growth that occurs. Since growth in Oxford, Swisher, Solon, Lone Tree and Tiffin is largely residential, it brings with it increases in population and school children. Yet the tax base that accompanies those children is largely unavailable to the school districts that must educate them, the exception being the school debt levies. Instead, that revenue growth is captured by the cities themselves to pay for infrastructure and other city projects. The six small towns that rely heavily on TIF, plus the larger cities of Coralville and North Liberty (the other heavy TIF users), together accounted for more than 100 percent of the growth in school -age children in Johnson County from 2000 -10. The total population age 5 to 17 increased by 1,959 in the county, but by 2,534 in these eight communities that have come to rely heavily on TIF, while the number of children in that age range declined by 575 in the remaining four cities (Iowa City, Hills, University Heights, West Branch) and in rural Johnson County. The bottom line is that all of the growth in school children in the county over the past 10 years has been in the communities that have placed much of their new tax base off limits to the school districts. What is the Effect on the Average Home or Farm? What is the total effect of all TIFs in Johnson County on the property tax bills of typical residential or farm properties? The largest effects are for properties within the Clear Creek Amana or Iowa City Community school districts, which include 87 percent of the taxable valuation in the county. The effects can best be estimated for properties in the rural portions of the CCA or Iowa City districts, and are shown in Table 3 below. The average home in the county has a market value of around $200,000, which translates into a taxable value of $94,000 after applying the 2010 rollback and the homestead exemption.? We also consider a property with a taxable value of $250,000, which could either be a high -end residence (market value approaching $500,000) or a small business owning $250,000 in commercial real estate.a Finally, we consider the effect on a farm of 1,000 acres, including a farm home valued at $107,000. The tax impacts range from $140 per year for an average home in the rural portion of the Iowa City district, to $2,489 for a large farm in CCA. Table 3. Potential Property Tax/Public Service Cost of All Johnson County TIFs, FY2012 The impacts are best interpreted as a combination of higher taxes and lower public services. In the case of school districts, we know that the effect is to raise rates. (In CCA, 75 percent of the effect is through school taxes; in Iowa City, it is only 35 percent.) Most of the remaining effect is through higher county property taxes. For example, of the $140 for the average home in the rural portion of the Iowa City district, $74 represents either higher county taxes, or $74 worth of county services forgone, or some combination of both. (In the absence of TIF, the higher tax base would enable the County Board of Supervisors to lower taxes, to finance improved county services, or both.) The effects on property taxes for properties within a city relying heavily on TIF are difficult to estimate. We provide estimates only for Iowa City, because the city's own TIF revenue accounts for only 1.7 percent of city property tax revenue? For the remaining cities, where TIF revenues are a third or more of total property taxes, TIF could either raise or lower the taxes on city properties. This is because the city's own TIFs divert taxes from the general fund, which could produce higher general fund tax rates if the TIF taxes are used for incentives. But if TIF revenues merely substitute for city general taxes in financing city infrastructure, then the net effect of TIF is to substantially lower the city tax rate. Consider Shueyville, where 62 percent of the property taxes come from taxpayers outside the city. Thus the effect of TIF on Shueyville taxpayers is to drastically lower the city tax rate, or to finance a much higher level of city services. For cities such as North Liberty and Coralville, the gain to taxpayers from the city's use of TIF to finance routine city projects is counterbalanced by the increased school and county taxes due to their own and their neighbors' use of TIF, making the net effect difficult to sort out. It should be emphasized that these tax impacts represent the potential effect of TIF. They are based on the assumption that in the absence of TIF, cities would have found other ways of financing projects financed by TIF, or that TIF incentives had no effect on development Thus TIF, as a financing mechanism, has not been the cause of tax base growth. These are reasonable assumptions, though they are very much at odds with the claims of TIF proponents. First of all, only a portion of TIF revenue is spent on development incentives to begin with. The remainder finances city infrastructure, for the most part. Constructing infrastructure to accommodate growth is what cities do; in the absence of the TIF mechanism, the costs are paid from city property taxes, often the debt service levy to retire bonds that were issued to pay for the new roads or other improvements. Without the tax shifting benefits of TIF, cities would still perform these traditional city functions, financed in the traditional fashion. Property Located in: Clear Creek Amana Iowa City Iowa City Taxable School District— School District— School District — Inside Value Rural Johnson County Rural Johnson County Iowa City Average home $ 94,000 $ 373 $ 140 $ 132 High-end home or small business 250,000 991 371 352 Farm of 1,000 acres with farm home 822,000 2,489 1,038 The impacts are best interpreted as a combination of higher taxes and lower public services. In the case of school districts, we know that the effect is to raise rates. (In CCA, 75 percent of the effect is through school taxes; in Iowa City, it is only 35 percent.) Most of the remaining effect is through higher county property taxes. For example, of the $140 for the average home in the rural portion of the Iowa City district, $74 represents either higher county taxes, or $74 worth of county services forgone, or some combination of both. (In the absence of TIF, the higher tax base would enable the County Board of Supervisors to lower taxes, to finance improved county services, or both.) The effects on property taxes for properties within a city relying heavily on TIF are difficult to estimate. We provide estimates only for Iowa City, because the city's own TIF revenue accounts for only 1.7 percent of city property tax revenue? For the remaining cities, where TIF revenues are a third or more of total property taxes, TIF could either raise or lower the taxes on city properties. This is because the city's own TIFs divert taxes from the general fund, which could produce higher general fund tax rates if the TIF taxes are used for incentives. But if TIF revenues merely substitute for city general taxes in financing city infrastructure, then the net effect of TIF is to substantially lower the city tax rate. Consider Shueyville, where 62 percent of the property taxes come from taxpayers outside the city. Thus the effect of TIF on Shueyville taxpayers is to drastically lower the city tax rate, or to finance a much higher level of city services. For cities such as North Liberty and Coralville, the gain to taxpayers from the city's use of TIF to finance routine city projects is counterbalanced by the increased school and county taxes due to their own and their neighbors' use of TIF, making the net effect difficult to sort out. It should be emphasized that these tax impacts represent the potential effect of TIF. They are based on the assumption that in the absence of TIF, cities would have found other ways of financing projects financed by TIF, or that TIF incentives had no effect on development Thus TIF, as a financing mechanism, has not been the cause of tax base growth. These are reasonable assumptions, though they are very much at odds with the claims of TIF proponents. First of all, only a portion of TIF revenue is spent on development incentives to begin with. The remainder finances city infrastructure, for the most part. Constructing infrastructure to accommodate growth is what cities do; in the absence of the TIF mechanism, the costs are paid from city property taxes, often the debt service levy to retire bonds that were issued to pay for the new roads or other improvements. Without the tax shifting benefits of TIF, cities would still perform these traditional city functions, financed in the traditional fashion. Second, much of the TIF incentives are provided to residential and retail development. These are activities driven by the local market. Incentives are generally unnecessary because these activities cannot be anywhere else if they are to serve the local market. Where they do affect location, it would be better if they did not, because they only shift retail activity around within the market area, or induce development that the market cannot support. It is certainly possible to provide sufficiently generous incentives to make a commercial project viable that otherwise cannot be supported by the local market, but this merely allows the subsidized project to compete unfairly with existing businesses, drawing their customers away and creating vacancies. Vacancies, in turn, reduce rental income to property owners, which will translate into reduced assessments, offsetting the gain in value from the subsidized project. Consider that largest example of retail TIF in the county. The Mall /6 URA in Coralville, by far the largest TIF area in the county, derives most of its revenue from the Coral Ridge Mall and peripheral retail development. The City is on record saying that no rebates or other incentives were provided to General Growth, owners of the Mall,10 and the peripheral properties were developed because of the magnet effect of the Mall. If no incentives were needed or provided, it can hardly be claimed that the TIF is the cause of the Mall being there. Putting residential property in a TIF area is generally not done to provide incentives for developers to build single- family homes, because this is hardly necessary. Instead, it is done to siphon property taxes from the new development and shift tax costs to nonresidents. At the same time, it pulls taxes away from the school district that must educate the children in those homes. It is hard to see any justification for allowing TIF for such purposes. Incentives granted to manufacturing or other "footloose" export activities may bring tax base to the region that otherwise would locate elsewhere. Still, research has shown that taxes have no effect on the location decision even of industrial activity in the majority of instances, because taxes are such a small share of the total costs of doing business." Furthermore, only 4.6 percent of the Table 4. Most of TIF Increment is in Commercial, Residential Property valuation within a TIF increment in Composition of Property within TIF Increments, 2010 Taxable Values the county is industrial property (Table 4). Most is residential (21 Residential Commercial Industrial percent) or commercial (74 Coralville 5.4% 90.6% 3.9% percent). Of the commercial, Iowa City 16.3% 75.9% 7.8% probably over half is retail; the Lone Tree 86.7% 12.6% 0.0% Mall /6 URA makes up nearly half of North Liberty 26.5% 67.2% 6.2% all the commercial TIF value in the Oxford 68.6% 30.8% 0.0% county. A significant share of the Shueyville 98.7% 1.1% 0.0% TIF valuation in Iowa City, North Solon 72.0% 26.4% 1.4% Liberty, and in the 12th Street TIF in Swisher 85.9% 13.8% 0.0% Coralville is also retail, though the Tiffin 71.2% 28.6% 0.0% exact amount is difficult to Total County 21.0 °k 74.3 °k 4.6% ascertain. How Should TIT be Reformed? Tax Increment Financing is sometimes described as Iowa's largest economic development program. In FY2009, over $250 million in property taxes was diverted to TIF funds, an amount well in excess of the annual cost of all of the state's business tax credits in recent years.12 The state's share of TIF - through higher school aid payments, costing the state $46.8 million this fiscal year - is larger than many business credits.13 But there is one problem with this argument: it is not clear that the majority of TIF spending can really be characterized as economic development at all. 10 TIF was originally conceived as a kind of bootstraps financing method, where a city could undertake a redevelopment project in a declining area, in the hopes of catalyzing private development and reversing a decline in property values. The increased tax base in the area would, it was hoped, generate enough revenue to allow the city to recover its costs; to encourage cities to undertake risky projects in low income and blighted areas, the city was allowed to scoop off the additional school and county taxes as well until its investment was repaid. Then the school and the county would benefit from the increased tax base. TIF as used in Iowa no longer bears much resemblance to this model. It has been allowed to degenerate to the point that many cities view a TIF area as a perpetual cash cow to finance a wide range of city operations, from lawn mowing and street repairs to hiring lobbyists and consultants. In most cases it has nothing to do with revitalizing low income or declining neighborhoods. It is used to build hotels that lose money and compete with unsubsidized hotels in the same area, to entice retail stores to relocate from neighboring communities, and simply to get other people to pay for a community center or street improvements. Created as a tool to lure private investment to revitalize blighted areas, it is being used instead to put shopping malls and single - family homes on farmland. A strong case can be made to prohibit or severely limit the inclusion of residential and retail activity in a TIF area, with the possible exception of such uses that are incorporated into a larger commercial project, or for the creation of low- and moderate- income housing. Businesses that serve the demands of local markets for housing or for goods and services are driven by local market conditions. If demand is sufficient, firms will build more stores or houses to meet that demand, and financial institutions will provide the financing. In most cases in Johnson County, residential property is not included within a TIF area for the purpose of subsidizing that housing, but simply to capture the incremental taxes to finance projects unrelated to that housing. The capture of these incremental taxes is made even more problematic by the effect of the residential rollback, which can result in the base valuation in a TIF area being driven to zero.l+ Allowing retail activity to be part of a TIF area and to receive TIF incentives provides a strong incentive for cities to use TIF not to augment regional economic activity but simply to entice a retail business from one location to another within the same market area. This provides no benefit to the region, and in fact may operate to its detriment, creating vacancies in shopping areas that make it more difficult to lease the remaining space. In the long run, such a beggar -thy- neighbor use of TIF invites retaliation and can produce a downward spiral in commercial property tax revenues for all local governments, jeopardizing public services or necessitating increased taxes on remaining properties. There should be no perpetual TIFs, even for blighted areas, and a 20 -year time limit is much longer than needed to recover project costs in most cases. A number of other reforms would limit the overuse and abuse of TIF. But the most important single reform would be to convert all TIFs to project TIFs, where the TIF diversion ends as soon as the initial project is paid for. The TIF area could remain, with new projects financed in the same area, but the base year for the new project would be re- established when the new project is undertaken. A project -based TIF (which is the way it was originally intended to be used, and is still the way it is used by some cities) would also make it more feasible to eliminate the anti - democratic provision in TIF law that exempts TIF from public referendum requirements that otherwise would apply. As a result of this provision, a library bond issue must be approved by a majority of the voters, a school bond issue must be approved by a 60 percent supermajority, but a hotel financed as a TIF project need not be put to a vote at all.ls Serious consideration should be given to other limitations as well. There should surely be a limit to the portion of a city's tax base that could be included within a TIF area, and a limit to TIF debt as a share of total taxable value. While the latter limit was thought to exist because the courts had declared TIF debt to be general obligation debt, and GO debt is limited to 5 percent of the city's taxable value, this has been circumvented by the creation of "annual appropriation debt,' which appears not to be debt at all and does not count against the GO debt limit. The law should be changed to prevent such a subterfuge. The City of Coralville has used such annual appropriation debt heavily; though its total GO and TIF debt is over twice 11 the $93 million GO debt limit that total includes $130 million in annual appropriation TIF debt, and of that amount only the portion due this year counts against the debt limit 16 There should be serious consideration of size and contiguity limits. When TIF is justified as a means of enhancing a school district's tax base in the long run (when the TIF expires), it is absurd to allow a single TIF area to encompass more than one school district. The Mall /6 URA, which would violate any sensible contiguity rule, creates the spectacle whereby Clear Creek Amana, with 49 percent of its tax base under TIF, is denied property taxes that are going largely to create development in the Iowa City school district. Most obviously, the anti - piracy provision in the Iowa Code needs to be given some teeth?? As it stands, it is ineffectual, because a business that expands in the process of moving (and it is safe to bet that this would include the vast majority of business moves) is not classified as a relocation. There should be no exemption for expansions, period. A move is a move, and cities have plenty of other tools to resort to in such a case; they need not have TIF as well. It needs to be recognized that TIF is a strong driver of increased local government spending, and no doubt skews priorities in the process. TIF financing effectively lowers the price to a city of projects, and when you substantially lower the price of something you tend to buy more of it; it's called the law of demand. When 50 percent of the cost of a city hall or a fire station, for example, will be shifted to taxpayers outside the city, then what we have is a half -price sale on public projects, and we can expect more and fancier city halls and fire stations as a result. We can also expect incentive deals that far exceed what is reasonable and necessary. In the process, spending is skewed in favor of TIF development projects and less revenue flows into city and county general funds where it supports services like mental health, housing assistance, library acquisitions, recreation services, police protection — everything that doesn't involve new buildings or infrastructure. Without serious reform, we can look forward to a future in which increasing numbers of cities TIF all or most of their city for the primary purpose of shifting taxes to nonresidents, and more and more cities join the incentive wars in retaliation for the piracy of retail and other businesses by their neighbors. The end result will be a local property tax system that is increasingly unfair, and an erosion of revenues that threatens the ability of cities and counties to finance important public services, many of which are part of the foundation for future economic growth. Ironically, this result will have been arrived at in the name of promoting "economic development." ' Technically, the city creates a "TIF area" after establishing an Urban Renewal Area; the TIF area could be smaller than the URA, but usually is identical with it. We use the term "URA" to be synonymous with "TIF area" in part because most of the TIF areas in Johnson County are named URAs. I Figure 1 assumes that the TIF was established in 2006, so that the base value is the total valuation in the TIF area as of January 2005, or $500,000. A $2 million commercial project is completed during 2006 and goes on the tax roles as of January 2007. A small increment exists for 2006 because of inflation in the value of the base value property. We assume annual inflation of 4 percent. 3 The debt service levies of the city, the county, the school district, and the community college district are exempt from the TIF diversion because they are legally obligated in their entirety for the repayment of debt. In addition, the school district's physical glant and equipment (PPEL) levy Is not subject to TIF diversion. The Highway 6 URA was established in 1992 (and later expanded) as a blighted area TIF, and that portion of the combined URA remains a blighted area TIF with no expiration date. The Coral Ridge Mall URA was created in 1997 (and expanded in 2005) as an economic development TIF, which means that it expires at the end of 20 years. Thus the Coral Ridge Mail portion of the combined URA will cease to exist in 2018, whereas the remainder will continue on. The city will therefore no longer receive what is now a $10.5 million revenue flow into the TIF fund, representing 65 percent of the city's total TIF revenue in FY2012. 6 Figure 7 assumes that the total properly tax rate in the TIF area is the same with or without TIF. In actuality, the rate could be a little higher or a little lower. TIF forces school tax rates up, and will either force county tax rates up as well, or force a reduction in services. At the same time, to the extent that the city uses TIF revenue to substitute for general fund revenue, the city's own tax rate could be lower with TIF. The net effect could be total property taxes collected that are higher or lower with TIF than without. 12 6 Included are higher Kirkwood and other countywide taxes. We do not include the share of increased state taxes paid by residents of the city because any one city's share of the state total would be very tiny. The 44 percent of diverted school taxes offset by state aid is the average for Johnson County's five main school districts: Clear Creek Amana, Iowa City, College, Lone Tree, and Solon. Small portions of six other districts extend into Johnson County but are unaffected by Johnson County TIFs. ' The average market value of a single - family residence in Johnson County (not including Iowa City) was about $200,000; the average value of a single - family residence in Iowa City (excluding condos) was also about $200,000. The homestead credit, funded at 63 percent for FY2010, has the effect on the homeowner of exempting the first $3,056 in taxable value. s According to the abstract of assessment for Johnson County for January 2009, the average 100 percent value of a farm dwelling was $107,000, and the average "actual value" of farmland was $1,115 per acre. Since property is reassessed in odd - numbered years, these figures would have been virtually the same in January 2010. This translates into a taxable value of $52,659 for the home and $770 per acre for the land, after rollbacks. We assume the farm benefits from the family farm and ag land tax credits, which in effect rebate a portion of the general school taxes on farm land above the $5.40 levy. These credits are pro- rated; for FY2012 the two credits combined offset 27.2 percent of the general tax rate above $5.40, which in effect means that the farm pays 72.8 percent of the increase in the "additional levy" due to TIF, and all of the increase in the management levy. 9 The tax effects are slightly smaller in Iowa City than in the rural portions of the Iowa City school district because Iowa City residents do not pay a higher county assessor levy due to TIF; the city has its own assessor. 10 See Commentary by City Administrator Kelly Hayworth provided on Eye on Coralville, May 23, 2011, "Tax Increment Financing: Perception and Reality," http: // blip .tv /coreivisionfeocville4if- 5201252. See Peter Fisher, Corporate Taxes and State Economic Growth, Iowa Policy Project, February 2011, at http llwww iowapolicvpro'ect org /201ldocs /110209- IFP- corptaxes.pdf See Iowa state auditor's presentation on TIF at http:/ /auditor Iowa govttech updates/TecTIFUpdate2008 odf and the Dept. of Revenue's Contingent Liabilities Report, October 2011, Table 9, for data on tax credits, at P: //wra ww iowe.00y /taxttaxiaw /1011 RECReport.pdf . See Iowa Association of School Boards, Excel spreadsheet on Impact of TIF for 2012, at http: / /www.ia- sb.org/Fi nance.m2x ?id =4980 This feature of TIF law is explained in detail in the above cited presentation of the State Auditor. " Tax Increment Financing is part of the urban renewal statute, Chapter 403 of the Iowa Code. Chapter 403.9(2) declares that "Bonds issued under the provisions of this chapter are declared to be issued for an essential public and governmental purpose." While a simple majority vote in a referendum is required for "general corporate purpose" debt (which would include ?arks and libraries, among other things), for "essential public purpose" debt a referendum is not required at all. 6 Emily Schettler, "Cities' debt varies across county." Iowa City Press - Citizen, Nov 3, 2011. 17 Iowa Code section 15A.1(2) states (underlining added): "2. Before public funds are used for grants, loans, tax incentives, or other financial assistance to private persons or on behalf of private persons for economic development, the governing body of the state, city, county, or other public body dispensing those funds or the governing body's designee, shall determine that a public purpose will reasonably be accomplished by the dispensing or use of those funds. In determining whether the funds should be dispensed, the governing body or designee of the governing body shall consider any or all of the following factors: a. Businesses that add diversity to or generate new opportunities for the Iowa economy should be favored over those that do not. b. Development policies in the dispensing of the funds should attract, retain, or expand businesses that produce exports or import substitutes or which generate tourism - related activities. c. Development policies in the dispensing or use of the funds should be targeted toward businesses that generate public gains and benefits, which gains and benefits are warranted in comparison to the amount of the funds dispensed. d. Development policies in dispensing the funds should not be used to attract a business presently located within the state to relocate to another portion of the state unless the business is considering in good faith to relocate outside the state or unless the relocation is related to an expansion which will generate significant new iob creation. Jobs created as a result of other jobs in similar Iowa businesses being displaced shall not be considered direct jobs for the purpose of dispensing funds." 13 Press Release Immediate January 4, 2012 IP4 L David Scott Executive Director Iowa Good Roads Association Phone: 515- 284 -7410 Dave. scottki ra.org Bipartisan Proposal to improve Iowa's Roads and Bridges Key legislative leaders called for a bipartisan proposal to increase the gas tax in Iowa by four cents in 2013 and four cents in 2014 and increasing the fee for new registrations from five percent to six percent in 2012. State Senator Tom Rielly (D- Oskaloosa) Chair of Senate Transportation Committee and Representative David Tjepkes (R- Gowrie) Chair of the House Transportation Committee held a bipartisan joint press conference outlining a new funding proposal that would increase funds available for Iowa streets and roads by over $220 million. The majority of the funds would come through an increase in the state's gas tax. The proposed legislation would increase the tax by four cents in 2013 and by an additional four cents in 2014. Each penny of the gas tax raises approximately $23 million. "The gas tax is the only source of revenue we can use that is contributed to by people who do not live in Iowa, but use our roads," said Tjepkes. According to a report prepared by the Governor Branstad's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory committee tasked with gathering input on the condition of our state, city and county roads and bridges, 35 percent of large trucks travelling in Iowa are from out of state and 15 percent of the passenger car and small trucks are from outside of the state. Senator Rielly added, "The Iowa constitution also guarantees that gas taxes will be used only on our roads so the public knows the money collected will go only for the intended purpose." Governor Branstad appointed the Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Committee last year. The committee heard from over 500 Iowans before making their recommendations which, in addition to calling for an eight to ten cent increase in the gas tax also the committee made several other recommendations that are included in the proposed legislation. more Fee for new registration The Transportation 2020 Advisory Committee recommended the legislature modify how the sales tax is coupled with the fee for new registrations on vehicles. The fee for new registrations is the five percent that is currently imposed on the registration of new and used vehicles. Historically, the five percent level was tied to Iowa's sales tax rate. However, with the implementation of local option taxes the state's sales tax is now at six percent. The proposed legislation will again make this fee consistent with the state's sales tax rate. New fee for electric vehicles The Governor's Advisory Committee also recommended a modification in how in how some vehicles that run on something other than diesel or gasoline pay to support the roads they are using. Some of these vehicles pay very little or nothing into the road use tax fund either in terms of registration fees or the gas tax, but they still use our roads said Rielly and Tjepkes. This bill would modify the current registration fees for electric vehicles to be based on weight and value using the same formula that applies to most passenger vehicles. Constitutional protection for driver license fee The gas tax and registration fees in Iowa are protected by the Iowa Constitution so those monies can only be used on our streets and roads. Driver license fees currently do not have that same protection. This bill would rename these fees so they would fall under the same constitutional protection as the gas tax and registration fees. Reimbursements Currently the Iowa DOT is required to reimburse other state agencies for services provided by those state agencies. The proposed legislation calls for the state's general fund to absorb those expenses. Other elements of the legislation The Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizens Advisory Committee also recommended the Iowa DOT meet annually with the cities and counties to review operation and maintenance on Iowa's public roadway system to identify ways to jointly increase efficiencies. The proposed legislation would put into law this requirement. The bill also calls for an every two year review of road fund revenues and the sufficiency of revenues to meet those needs. Current law calls for a review only once every five years. Under the proposed legislation monies collected under these new proposals would be divided between the cities, the counties and the state using the distribution formula established in 2008 which gives a larger share to the state's system. However, that formula caps the amount going into the fund so that anything above that cap reverts back to the formula prior to 2008 which lowers the state's share, but increases the counties' portion. More BACKGROUND The following organizations appeared at the press conference in support of increasing highway funding. David Scott, the executive director of the Iowa Good Roads Association called on legislative leaders to have the courage to do what is right for the state of Iowa and to pass the proposed legislation. Scott reported a number of organizations have expressed support of increasing road fund revenues in the recent months. The following organizations learned for the first time today the specifics of the legislation, said Scott and although they appeared supportive of the concept Scott called on them to educate themselves and to help educate the public on the needs facing the aging road and bridge system in Iowa. • The Iowa Motor Truck Association • The Iowa League of Cities • The Iowa State Association of County Supervisors • The Iowa Farm Bureau • The Associated General Contractors of Iowa • The Iowa Good Roads Association • The Iowa State Association of Counties • The Professional Developers of Iowa • Representatives from the Iowa State Building trade unions • Iowa Corn Growers Association • The Iowa Soybean Association • The Iowa Limestone Producers Association • The Iowa Asphalt Paving Association • The Iowa Concrete Paving Association • The American Council of Engineering Companies of Iowa • The US Highway 30 Coalition • The Iowa County Engineers Association • The Highway 20 Corridor Association • The Highway 61 Coalition • Council 61 of AFSME r -- . p4 CITY OF IOWA CITY IP5 M E M 0 RA N D U M Date: January 5, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Budget Work Sessions Attached is memo outlining the procedure for department head budget presentations. In addition both the Saturday and Monday work sessions will be taped and replayed at a later time. There will be no live streaming or broadcast. With the schedule this year replaying will allow several weeks of program viewing prior to the public hearing and Council action on the budget. r �1..:. 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY 1- MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2012 To: Department Heads From: Tom Markus, City Manager Re: Agenda for January 7 and 9, 2012 Budget Work Session This year I am asking each department head to present their budget to the City Council. This is an opportunity for each department head (not division heads or Commission members) to update Council on activities, changes included in the budget. I envision the presentation to be 60% the actual presentation and 40% a question /answer exchange. I ask that you plan to arrive 15 minutes ahead of time in the event we run early, and plan on leaving shortly thereafter. In that way you have some free time during the day, and presentations stay on target and on time. We will contact you if additional information is requested after your departure. Upon further review in an attempt to be fair to all DHs you will not be permitted to use power point for your operations budget presentation. My power points presentation will include the organization chart for each department and I will make arrangements to display it for each departmental presentation. You may wish to refer to other pages of the budget during your presentation. The budget can be found in the December 22 City Council information packet or at www.icaov.ora/budqet. January 7, 2012 Budget Work Session 8:00 Budget Overview and Highlights —City Manager Office & Finance 9:30 Break 12:00 Lunch General Government Program Budgets: City Clerk City Attorney City Manager Finance Public Safety Program Budgets: (I hour) Police Department Fire Department Housing & Inspection Services Culture & Leisure Program Budgets: (1 hour) Library Parks & Recreation Senior Center Community & Economic Development Program Budgets: (30 min Planning and Community Development Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County Business -Type Funds: 0 hour) Parking Transit Airport January 4, 2012 Page 2 2:30 Break Discussion / Wrap up 5:00 Scheduled conclusion time January 9, 2012 Budget Work Session 1:00 Review of Saturday's work session 1:30 Capital Improvement Projects (2 hours) 3:30 Break 4:00 Public Works Program Budgets: 0 hour) 5:00 Discussion and Wrap up 7:00 Scheduled conclusion time U:BUDGETSCHEDULE.doc 01-05-17 IP6 � r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS January 5, 2012 January 6th (7:30 a.m.) 1. Meet with State Legislators regarding Iowa City's 2012 Legislative Priorities Pending Topics to be Scheduled 1. Discussion of the Function and Potential Consolidation of Various Boards and Commissions 2. Explore Periodically Holding Public Meetings in Geographically Dispersed and Accessible Locations throughout the Community 3. Discussion Pertaining to the Geographic Dispersion of City -Owned Public Housing Units 4. Presentation of Staff's Plan to Address the Priorities Identified in Council's FY 2012 -13 Strategic Plan r CITY OF IOWA CITY N�' � MEMORANDUM � Date: January 5, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: 521 E. Washington Street (Red Avocado) Introduction: We have received a substantial number of a -mails in response to a change.org petition regarding redevelopment of properties located at 511, 517 and 521 E. Washington Street including the building that houses the Red Avocado restaurant. (A copy of one the petitions is attached). Some of the emails erroneously refer to a rezoning of the property. History /Background: The properties have been zoned Central Business Service (CB -2) since 1983. In 2005 the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council considered a rezoning of these and adjacent properties to a Mixed Use (MU) in order to maintain the character and scale of the neighborhood. The Historic Preservation Commission also considered including those properties in Conservation District in order to protect the buildings. Both of these designations met with the objection of property owners and the City Council chose not to rezone the properties. Discussion: The owners recently sold the properties to Allen Homes who intends to develop a new building according to the current zoning. There is no zoning change requested and therefore the City has limited discretion regarding this proposal. The CB -2 zone allows a mixed use building with commercial on the ground level and up to 3 floors of residential apartments above. Staff will review all the plans for the new building to make sure it complies with current zoning and building codes. Financial Impact: The redevelopment of the Washington Street properties will likely result in increased tax base, additional dwellings near downtown and campus and ground floor commercial space suitable for offices and small businesses. However, smaller local business will be displaced at least temporarily. We have been told by the developer that they have offered to help the Red Avocado relocate to a temporary location and if they desire move into the newly constructed building. The Red Avocado and Defunct Books may qualify for economic development assistance to assist with the relocation or expansion of the businesses. Community Development staff is in contact with the owners to determine if they qualify for assistance. Conclusion: Given that the proposed Washington Street project complies with the current zoning and the Council previously decided against changing the zoning on these properties, the City has little discretion regarding the current proposal. Staff will explore potential economic development assistance for the existing businesses. From: Rya Dunnington <ryamuse= gmail.com @change.org> on behalf of Rya Dunnington <ryamuse @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 8:26 AM To: PlanningZoning Public Subject: Refuse the application to rezone 221 and 225 N Linn St and 223 Bloomington Greetings, I just signed the following petition addressed to: The City of Iowa City. --------------- - Refuse the application to rezone 221 and 225 N Linn St and 223 Bloomington This rezoning request would permit the building of a 3 -story apartment /commercial building. The building's proposed size, height, and residential density are incompatible with the residential character of the Northside neighborhood and the "Main Street" commercial character of Northside Marketplace as well as with the City's downtown development plan and the wishes of the Northside Neighborhood Association. We SUPPORT development that preserves the scale and land use characteristics of Northside Marketplace's commercial district: small, owner- occupied buildings with ground floor commercial establishments and a second story of residential use. ---------- - - - - -- Sincerely, Rya Dunnington Iowa City, Iowa Note: this email was sent as part of a petition started on Change.org, viewable at .uww chnnoe_orsy /netitions /stop- overdevelopment -on- the - north -side. To respond, email responsesna change.org and include a link to this petition. City of Iowa City - News & Headlines Page I of 1 «« !Back to Site Back to News Releases News Releases Originally posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 at 11:11:29 AM CITY HAS LITTLE RECOURSE TO STOP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT A planned redevelopment in the 500 -block of E. Washington Street which would raze three buildings and displace two local businesses has drawn substantial criticism and an online petition urging City officials to halt the project, but there is little recourse available, according to City of Iowa City Senior Planner Robert Miklo. The properties, located at 511, 517, and 521 E. Washington, have been purchased by Allen Homes, which intends to tear down the three adjacent buildings and construct a new four -story multi - purpose structure that includes commercial and residential space. One of the buildings slated to be torn down currently houses two businesses, the Red Avocado restaurant and Defunct Books. Miklo stated that Allen Homes' plan adheres to current CB -2 zoning regulations for the area, which allows a mixed use building with commercial space on the ground level and up to three floors of residential apartments above. Because the project meets current zoning guidelines, the City has limited discretion regarding the proposal, Miklo said, although he emphasized that staff would review all plans for the new building to ensure it complies with current zoning and building codes. The three properties have been zoned Central Business Service (CB -2) since 1983. In 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council considered rezoning these and adjacent properties to a Mixed Use (MU) classification in order to maintain the character and scale of the neighborhood. The Historic Preservation Commission also considered including the properties in a Conservation District to protect the historic nature of the buildings. However, both plans met with the objection of property owners, and the City Council chose not to pursue the rezoning efforts. While the redevelopment of the Washington Street properties will at least temporarily displace smaller local businesses, the new structure would likely result in increased tax base, additional dwellings near downtown and campus, and ground floor commercial space suitable for offices and small businesses, Miklo said. The City has been told by Allen Homes that Red Avocado has been offered a spot in the new building if they're interested, along with assistance to help the business relocate to a temporary site until the new space is available. The City's Community Development staff has also been in contact with the owners of both businesses to determine whether they qualify for economic development assistance for the relocation or expansion of their businesses. For more information, contact Robert Miklo at 319.356.5240 or e-mail bob- miklo(c_iowa- city.org. Originating Department: Urban Planning Contact Person: Robert Miklo Contact Phone: (319) 356 -5240 Back to News Releases http: / /www.icgov.org /default/ apps /GEN/ news. asp ?newsID = 7626 &page =l &output =print 1/5/2012 Marian Karr From: Tom Markus Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:16 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: 500 E. Washington From: James Throgmorton [mailto:jthrogmo @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:51 AM To: Matt Hayek; Susan Mims; Rick Dobyns; Michelle Payne; Terry Dickens Cc: Tom Markus Subject: 500 E. Washington Hi. I am deeply disturbed by Allen Homes' intended demolition/construction on the 500 block of E. Washington. I recognize the property rights associated with the site's current zoning, but I believe the Council needs to respond clearly and forcefully to the proposed action. First, we need to convey to Jesse Allen our sense of how important it is that he (and similar owners) behave in a manner that is responsive not just to market demand but to the long term prosperity of our older neighborhoods. Bad behavior can have consequences he might not like. In my judgment, better behavior would include reducing the height of the proposed building from 4 to 3 stories, retaining the building in which Red Avocado and Defunct Books are located, providing those two businesses with mutually acceptable long -term leases, and ensuring that the new building (and associated parking lot) is aesthetically and functionally compatible with the existing neighborhood (to include its relationship with College Green Park). Second, we need to instruct the City Manager to have staff revive efforts to create a historic preservation district, which would include all properties fronting onto College Green Park and on the streets leading from the park to the downtown. Third, we need to push the University to build a second new dorm to alleviate growing market demand for new student apartments. Our older neighborhoods should not be wrecked as a consequence of the University's effort to recruit additional students. And fourth, those of us who are new to the Council would benefit from having the planning staff explain to us how the major site plan review process is designed to work. I would especially benefit from learning how much discretion the staff and the council can exercise during this review process. (Connie is not included on the mailing list because I do not know her email address, or whether she uses email.) Jim Marian Karr From: Tom Markus Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 4:32 PM To: James Throgmorton othrogmo @yahoo.com) Cc: Council Subject: RE: 500 E. Washington I have scheduled a general discussion re Neighborhood Stabilization (Strategic Plan) at which this issue can be discussed. As previously communicated it is best not to engage in this type of communication outside the public forum if only to preserve our reputation as an open and transparent government. I would encourage all council members to hold off commenting on or to this email until the work session next Tuesday. The city attorney can then advise as to the appropriate legal methods in which to communicate about this type of concern. From: James Throgmorton [mailto:jthrogmo @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:51 AM To: Matt Hayek; Susan Mims; Rick Dobyns; Michelle Payne; Terry Dickens Cc: Tom Markus Subject: 500 E. Washington Hi. I am deeply disturbed by Allen Homes' intended demolition/construction on the 500 block of E. Washington. I recognize the property rights associated with the site's current zoning, but I believe the Council needs to respond clearly and forcefully to the proposed action. First, we need to convey to Jesse Allen our sense of how important it is that he (and similar owners) behave in a manner that is responsive not just to market demand but to the long term prosperity of our older neighborhoods. Bad behavior can have consequences he might not like. In my judgment, better behavior would include reducing the height of the proposed building from 4 to 3 stories, retaining the building in which Red Avocado and Defunct Books are located, providing those two businesses with mutually acceptable long -term leases, and ensuring that the new building (and associated parking lot) is aesthetically and functionally compatible with the existing neighborhood (to include its relationship with College Green Park). Second, we need to instruct the City Manager to have staff revive efforts to create a historic preservation district, which would include all properties fronting onto College Green Park and on the streets leading from the park to the downtown. Third, we need to push the University to build a second new dorm to alleviate growing market demand for new student apartments. Our older neighborhoods should not be wrecked as a consequence of the University's effort to recruit additional students. And fourth, those of us who are new to the Council would benefit from having the planning staff explain to us how the major site plan review process is designed to work. I would especially benefit from learning how much discretion the staff and the council can exercise during this review process. (Connie is not included on the mailing list because I do not know her email address, or whether she uses email.) Jim Development would benefit College Green neighborhood I Iowa City Press Citizen I press... Page I of 2 If- I rm" em %b ar ktt -s p Development would benefit College Green neighborhood I have read the numerous contributions on the petition to save the Red Avocado restaurant. It is a wonderful tribute to a unique local business. It is unfortunate that none of those people have the facts. I have owned the properties, the B &B building since 1976, the building housing the Red Avocado Restaurant and Defunct Books since 1994, and the Inn since 2004. After the first year lease with a new tenant, I did not have leases and therefore we were mutually on a month to month agreement. Dawn's Beads (now under new ownership as Beadology), after a tenancy of several years, actually gave me one month notice that they were moving to their present location. The space was vacant for four months until a new tenant was secured. For anyone to say that the tenants were evicted or forced to leave is incorrect. In fact, both tenants knew as of May 2011 that I was leaving the neighborhood and the houses would be sold by the end of the year. For years, the Red Avocado has had first right of refusal to buy the building. I also offered to sell to Defunct Books. Both refused the offer before I sold to the present developers. They both had ample opportunity to search for other locations for their businesses. Additionally, another developer was in discussions with New Pioneer to possibly purchase. So this sale was no secret to the parties involved. Those who decry demolishing those "beautiful buildings" don't have a clue how t hey got that way or how much time, effort and money it took to get and keep them that way. After borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars to physically improve the properties and 21 years of picking up tossed beer cans and trash, discarded cigarette butts, panties, bras, shoes and whatever else one can think of, cultivating the gardens on three properties, shoveling snow off sidewalks and parking lots, getting up at 5 a.m. to fix breakfast and wait up until 2 a.m. for late arriving guests, at age 69 1 believe I have earned the right to change my lifestyle and move on to a new endeavor. I did not move the bed and breakfast to Michigan. I merely closed the Advertisement X' Print Powered By _ I EEi 7atDynamics http: / /www .press - citizen.com/article / 20120110/ OPINIONO2 /301100008/Development -wo... 1/10/2012 Development would benefit College Green neighborhood I Iowa City Press Citizen I press... Page 2 of 2 p ress -citizen.com Iowa City location. The wonderful restaurant is not being razed or demolished. Just the tired, old, leaking, twisted (from the tornado) building is being torn down. I wish that the friends of the restaurant and bookstore would offer their time and efforts to help the businesses relocate instead of just blowing their hot -air complaining comments. The younger developers who purchased the properties are not some wealthy old - timers but are conscientious, hardworking, creative younger men willing to take the risk to create their own dream. I have just recently seen their plans and believe they will immensely improve the ambiance of the neighborhood. Soon, hopefully, New Pioneer will move on with their plans and demolish their decrepit tiny store for their new one. That will help the neighborhood as well. Nila Haug is the former owner of the buildings at 511, 517 and 520 Washington St. Advertisement Print Powered By Fo � rmattD near ics http: / /www.press- eitizen.com/article/ 20120110 /OPINIONO2 /301100008 /Development -wo... 1/10/2012 r * —=-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P8 .y,�� DUM ME Ma RAN Date: January 5, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Council Electronic Packets Staff is continuing to pursue providing electronic packets to you and the public more efficiently. Starting this week we will offer the packet in a new format as one PDF- format electronic file. The PDF packet will be bookmarked for ease in locating the items and supporting documents, and will also provide the ability to search the packet. Staff will be providing you information on equipment issues in the near future. Hard copy packets will be provided to each of you until you are comfortable with the new application and a decision is made by Council on the equipment. Packets can be picked up after 3:00 PM Thursday afternoon at the City Clerk's office. After that time the packets are delivered to the Police Department for 24/7 pick -up. You can receive the packets by subscribing on the city website and will receive the packet with bookmarks automatically. If you choose not to subscribe, the packets are available on the City website, www.icgov.org /councildocs. For those involved in the "testing" phase of this transition, you will not be receiving an email from me but should be able to access using the new links. Please let me know if you have any problems accessing the materials. U:electronicpacketsmemo.doc City of Iowa City - News & Headlines Page 1 of 1 «u Back to Site c Back to News Releases News Releases Originally posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 at 10:22:42 AM CITY TO ENHANCE COUNCIL ELECTRONIC PACKETS Starting with the City Council meeting of January 10, the packet of materials provided electronically will take on a new look. The traditional Council agenda packet and information packet will be bookmarked for ease in locating the items and supporting documents, and provide searching for current packets. City Clerk Marian Karr stated that although electronic packets have been available for ten years, and searching capabilities provided for archived packets, the new features will be appreciated by users. The enhanced search feature will allow individuals to search by item number, subject, or word, for the current packet. In addition, the bookmarks will replace the previous hyperlinks which will allow an "indexed" approach to the agenda. Individuals subscribing to the materials will receive the bookmarked packets automatically. For those individuals not subscribing, the packets are available in the City website, www.icclov.org /councildocs. Packets are released Thursday afternoon from the City Clerk's office. Originating Department: City Clerk Contact Person: Marian Karr Contact Phone: (319) 356 -5041 Back to News Releases http: / /www.icgov.org /default/ apps /GEN/ news. asp ?newsID = 7624 &page =l &output =print 1/5/2012 It - P.=-,Q CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P9 MEMORANDUM Date: December 28, 2011 To: Mayor and Council From: Marian Karr, City Clerk Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Public Meetings in Alternative Locations Introduction: During the recent strategic planning sessions, Council expressed a desire to explore periodically holding formal meetings in geographically dispersed locations throughout the community. The purpose of the alternative meeting venues would be to engage residents and businesses in the immediate vicinity to communicate with the Council while increasing the exposure of the elected officials and management staff. Items for Council Consideration: Council formal meetings can certainly be facilitated in alternative locations throughout the community. However, there are a number of factors that should be taken into consideration. Some of those factors vary depending on whether Council desires to hold regular formal meetings in alternative locations or whether you wish to hold a special formal or work session meeting with an agenda unique to the chosen location. Regardless of the type of meeting, Council meetings need to be held in publicly accessible locations. Examples of such considerations may include parking, elevators, and accessible doorways and restrooms. Locations should also be flexible enough to provide for specific disability services, such as the provision of hearing impaired equipment. The room should be big enough to accommodate the anticipated crowd. Currently, the Council Chambers seats forty -five with additional seating areas designated for the media. The hallway overflow accommodates another twenty -five persons, and provides audio during the meeting. Providing amplified sound through a microphone system should also be considered. Currently the City uses thirteen microphones in the Council Chambers. Staff can transport eight microphones through a mixer and provide a public address system for the audience. This should be sufficient for most meetings, but may require some sharing of microphones. Alternatively, staff can look to rent or purchase additional microphones to better accommodate the chosen facility if deemed appropriate. Similarly, staff may need to provide for a projector if a presentation or other visual graphics are intended to be shared at the meeting. Currently, regular formal meetings are broadcast live to the general public. Work sessions and non - regular meetings are typically not broadcast live. It is unlikely that a live broadcast could be conducted at an alternative venue without significant expense. It may be possible that the meeting could be streamed over the Internet live and taped for rebroadcast over the television at a later date and time. Depending on the chosen venue, staff may have to reduce the number of cameras used for the broadcast. The lack of a live broadcast is certainly something Council will want to consider when deciding whether a regular formal meeting should be held in an alternative location. December 28, 2011 Page 2 Finally, in order to schedule and work out meeting logistics, staff will need to book the chosen venue several months in advance. At the time of booking, the agenda items for a regular formal meeting will be unknown. Therefore it is possible that an item may be presented affecting a geographic area that differs from the venue location. This may cause concern from residents or businesses that wish to provide input or witness Council discussion on the item that impacts their neighborhood. Staff would certainly try to avoid such a situation, but the timing of agenda items is difficult to project several months in advance. Discussion of Solutions: If Council wishes to move forward with this initiative, staff would recommend proceeding on a trial basis with two to three meetings for the 2012 calendar year. Logical gathering places may include schools, public facilities or commercial buildings with available community rooms. Staff would look to Council for direction on geographic locations and types of facilities. After receiving direction, staff will develop a list of potential venues. Staff can accommodate either the regular formal meetings or special (agenda unique to location) work session meetings depending on Council preference. Most importantly, Council needs to consider the implications on our ability to broadcast the meeting. If live broadcasts are a priority for regular formal meetings, then staff would recommend holding a work session or special meeting in the alternative venue. CITY OF IOWA CITY - IP10 MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2011 To: Mayor & City Council, Council -Elect From: Sue Dulek, Asst. City Atty. Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 0*1 Re: Function of Boards /Commissions Introduction: Council has requested information on function and possible consolidation of City Boards and Commissions. This memo is intended to provide background to this request. History /Background: For the past two years the matter of reviewing the function of City Boards and Commissions and exploring the possibility of consolidation has appeared on your pending work session issues list. Most recently during your goal setting session on November 29 two issues were identified: 1. Commissions — how many and which ones can be consolidated. Makeup of commissions. 2. Stronger links between what boards and commissions are doing and what we want to accomplish annually Discussion of Solution: The attached list provides information on the City's eighteen Boards and Commissions. The list is divided into two parts: Required by State Law and Not Required By State Law. Each Board or Commission is identified by its origin (State Code or City ordinance or resolution); number of required members, length of term, and current number of members. A brief summary of duties is also provided. After review, Council may wish to schedule for an upcoming work session, or provide direction to staff on possible consolidations. Based on Council direction staff will provide further information. Financial Impact: Depending on Council direction provided there could be cost savings in distribution of materials, both in printing and /or mailing costs. Additional savings could be achieved in staff time dedicated, and comp time provided. Recommendation: No recommendations are included at this time pending further direction from Council. S:bdscommmemo.doc Required by State Law Airport Commission Required by: Section 330.20 of the Iowa Code Required Length of Term by State: 3 -6 years Required # of Members by State: 3 or 5 Length of term by City: 4 (Section 13 -1 of the City Code) # of City Members: 5 (Section 13 -1 of the City Code) Duties: Manage and control the Airport; all the powers granted under Code of Iowa Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Required by: Section 329.12 of the Iowa Code Required Length of Term by State: 5 years Required # of Members by State: 5 (Council appoints 2, County appoints 2, and the 4 select the 5`" member) Length of term by City: N/A # of City Members: N/A Duties: Hear and decide cases, exception, and variances of Airport Zoning Code Airport Zoning Commission Required by: Section 329.9 of the Iowa Code Required Length of term by State: 6 years Required # of Members by State: 5 (Council appoints 2, County appoints 2, and these 4 select the 5th member) Length of term by City: N/A # of City Members: N/A Duties: Recommend amendments to and adoption of Airport zoning regulations Assessors Examining Board Required by: Section 441.3 of Iowa Code Required Length of Term by State: 6 years Required # of Members by State: 3 (Council appoints 1, County appoints 1, ICCSD appoints 1) Length of term by City: N/A # of City Members: N/A Duties: Holds examinations for the position of assessor and hears appeals of firing or suspension of a deputy assessor by the assessor. Board of Adjustment Required by: Sections 414.7 and .8 of the Iowa Code Required Length of term by State: 5 years Required # of Members by State: 5, 7, or 9 Length of term by City: 5 years (Section 14 -7A -2 of the City Code) # of City Members: 5 Duties: Grants variances and special exceptions as provided in the Zoning Code and hears appeals of administrative decisions. Page 2 of 4 Civil Service Commission Required by: Section 400.1 of the Iowa Code Required Length of Term by State: 4 years Required # of Members by State: 3 Length of Term by City: N/A # of City Members: N/A Duties: Approves all Police /Fire entrance and promotional examinations used by the City of Iowa City; holds hearings involving employee discipline, discharge or reduction in rank or compensation. Historic Preservation Commission Required by: Section 303.34(3) of the Iowa Code Required Length of Term by State: Local decision Required # of Members by State: Minimum of 3; also there must be at least 1 member from each historical district (Iowa City has 7 districts) Length of term by City: 3years (Section 14 -7A -3 of the City Code) # of City Members: 11 (Section 14- 7A -3A) Duties: Conducts studies for the identification and designation of Historic Districts, Historic Landmarks and Conservation Districts ; reviews and acts upon all applications for Certificates of Appropriateness; furthers the efforts of historic preservation in the city by making recommendations to the City Council. Human Rights Commission Required by: Section 216.19(2) of the Iowa Code Required Length of term by State: Local decision Required # of Members by State: Local decision Length of Term by City: 3years (Section 2 -2 -3 of the City Code) # of City Members: 9 (Section 2 -2 -3 of the City Code) Duties: Investigate complaints based on violations of the City Human Rights Ordinance; disseminates information to educate the public on illegal discrimination and civil rights; makes recommendations to the City Council for such further legislation concerning discrimination. Library, Board of Trustees Required by: Section 392.5 of the Iowa Code Required Length of Term by State: Local decision Required # of Members by State: Local decision Length of Term by City: 6 years (Section 11 -1 -2 of the City Code) # of City Members: 9 (Section 11 -1 -2 of the City Code) Duties: Directs and controls all the affairs of the Library Plannine & Zoning Commission Required by: Section 414.6 of the Iowa Code Required Length of term by State: Local decision Required # of Members by State: Local decision Length of Term by City: 5years (Section 14 -7 -1 of the City Code) # of City Members: 7 (Resolution No. 04 -273) Duties: Makes or causes to be made surveys, studies, maps, plans or charts of the whole or any portion of the City and any land outside which in the opinion of the Commission bears relation to a comprehensive plan; recommends to the City Council amendments, supplements, changes and modifications to the zoning ordinance. Page 3 of 4 Not Required by State Law Appeals, Board of Established /Created by: Ordinance (Section 17 -12 of the City Code) Length of Term: 5 years # of Members: 5 Duties: Holds appeal hearings; and determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction and provide for reasonable interpretation of the International Building Code, International Residential Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electrical Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fire Code, Dangerous Building Code, and the Iowa City Housing Code. Housing & Community Development Commission Established /Created by: Resolution No. 95 -199 Length of Term: 3years # of Members: 9 Duties: Aassesses and review policies and planning documents related to the provision of housing, jobs, and services for low and moderate income residents; reviews policies and programs and make recommendations to Council concerning the Public Housing Authority and the Community Development Division re the use of public funds to meet the needs of low and moderate income residents; actively publicizes community development and housing policies and programs; seeks public participation in assessing needs and identifying strategies to meet these needs; and recommends amendments, supplements, changes, and modifications to the Iowa City Housing Code. Parks & Recreation Commission Established /Created by: Resolution No. 95 -3 Length of Term: 4 years # of Members: 9 Duties: Recommends and reviews policies, rules, regulations, ordinances and budgets relating to parks, playgrounds, recreational centers and cultural functions of the city; and exercises broad responsibility for the development of parks, recreation centers, playgrounds and cultural facilities to serve the City, including the creation and appointment of advisory groups to make studies. Police Citizens Review Board Established/Created by: Ordinance (Section 8 -8 of the City Code) Length of Term: 4 years # of Members: 5 Duties: Reviews police policies, procedures, and practices, and may recommend modifications; receives complaints and issues reports prepared after investigation of complaints about alleged Iowa City police misconduct. Public Art Advisory Committee Established /Created by: Resolution No. 97 -326 Length of Term: 3 years # of Members: 7 (Council appoints 5 and 2 are City staff members) Duties: Administers the Public Art Program by determining the placement of public art, the type of art to be used in a specific project, and the artist to be engaged; overseeing the acceptance of gifts of art; overseeing the maintenance and disposition of public art; and overseeing expenditures of the Public Art Program budget. Page 4 of 4 Senior Center Commission Established /Created by: Resolution No. 03 -287 Length of Term: 3 years # of Members: 7 (Council appoints 6 and Commission appoints 1) Duties: Serves in an advisory role to the City Council with regard to the needs of the Senior Center and its participants; makes policy and program recommendations; seeks adequate financial resources for the operation of the Center; encourages full participation by senior citizens; promotes the effective integration of the Center into the community; cooperates with organizations sharing common goals; acts as an advocate with regard to the needs of area senior citizens; and assists the City Manager in the evaluation of personnel. Telecommunications Commission Established/Created by: Ordinance (Section 12 -4 -3 of the City Code) Length of Term: 3 years # of Members: 5 Duties: Conducts regular meetings and public hearings concerning cable television and on telecommunications - related issues; renders decisions on cases involving disputes between subscribers or potential subscribers and the cable company which cannot otherwise be resolved by those parties or the Cable TV Administrator; reviews and audits timely submission of reports by the cable company to the City as required by the CATV Ordinance; works with the public, the media, the City, and the cable company for the purpose of making recommendations to City Council on various issues; such as: interconnecting the City cable system with other communication systems; promotes community programming; and performs periodic review and evaluation of the cable system. Youth Advisory Commission Established /Created by: Resolution No. 05 -334 Length of Term: 2 years # of Members: 7 Duties: Promotes understanding and awareness among Iowa City youth, allows a select group of youth to help make decisions concerning them and their peers, enables youth members to utilize and expand on their leadership abilities, and serves as a mechanism for communication between youth and adults. CITY OF IOWA CI Y MEMORANDUM Date: November 17, 2011 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Ti 1 `` Re: KXIC Radio Show KXIC offers a City show at 9:00 AM every Wednesday morning. In the past Council has volunteered for dates, and staff filled in as necessary. Please take a look at your calendars and come prepared to help fill in the schedule at your work session on January 10: January 11 January 18 January 25 February 1 February 8 February 15 February 22 U: radios howasking.doc Iowa Chamber Alliance A unified voice for economic growth 2012 Agenda rrTrrri IP12 Rlowa Chamber Alliance 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda The Iowa Chamber Alliance provides leadership on key issues and strategic policy recommendations for achieving an environment conducive to economic growth in Iowa. Growth is achieved with competitive taxes, responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, investment in infrastructure, forward- looking programs that encourage entrepreneurship and attract investment, and a stable regulatory environment rooted in science and weighed for efficiency and cost - effectiveness. The potential for Iowa to grow in 2012 and beyond is strong. Iowa's finances are improving. The economic development structure for Iowa has been updated. And, national attention has highlighted Iowa's workforce strengths and relative resilience during the national economic downturn. Further, there is broad agreement on the issues still requiring attention: • Property taxes • Education reform • Transportation & infrastructure investment • Economic development incentives What remains to be seen is whether or not there will be broad agreement on how these issues will be addressed. These policy issues are priorities of the 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda for the Iowa Chamber Alliance. The Alliance provides the following overview on these issues as guidance for how the Governor and Legislature can approach these important issues to further drive economic growth for Iowa. Taxes Commercial & Industrial Property Taxes In order to compete with other states, regions and countries, Iowa must improve its business tax climate. The number one thing that can help achieve this is property tax relief for commercial and industrial property taxpayers. Iowa's tax system ranks in the top two states for the highest business property taxes. This is unacceptable and puts Iowa at a competitive disadvantage at a time when competition is not just with other Midwestern states, but the entire United States and beyond. The Alliance supports addressing unfunded mandates, pensions and other measures to help offset rollback effects on local governments. Corporate Income Tax The Iowa Chamber Alliance supports efforts to simplify and reduce corporate income taxes as a means to better market Iowa's economic development efforts. Personal Income Tax personal income tax is overly complex. icity should be pursued with respect va's personal income tax code so that can better market itself for economic dopment. Flattening and streamlining personal income tax will help illustrate it Iowa is working to attract business id new jobs. Iowa's Property Taxes: By the numbers... urban property tax rate. commercial property tax rate. rural industrial property taxes. urban industrial property taxes. Source: Minnesota Taxpayers Association Economic Development The successful creation of the new Iowa Economic Development Authority and the Iowa Partnership for Economic Progress - a concept for a private public partnership born out of the Iowa Chamber Alliance - provides the flexibility, nimbleness and expertise needed for economic development for the entire state of Iowa. Now, this new entity requires a new set of economic development incentives and tools to help fulfill its mission. Existing incentives need to be reviewed for their effectiveness. Transportation Infrastructure Iowa has great needs for updating and repairing its transportation infrastructure. Quality roads are central to economic growth. The Iowa Chamber Alliance supports fully funding the Transportation Investment Moves the Economy in the 21st Century Fund (TIME -21). The Alliance supports new or alternative sources of revenue, including a fuel tax increase, provided the cap on TIME -21 is removed. New revenues should not be distributed under the old Road Use Tax Fund formula. Consideration must also be given to distributing more dollars toward Iowa's most traveled roads, which drives commerce and economic growth for Iowa. Cl Workforce Development Education Comprehensive education reform is critical for Iowa from three perspectives: Iowa must ready a globally prepared workforce to compete with the challenges of the 21st Century in advanced manufacturing, life- sciences, agriculture, professional services, and other high - paying quality job creating sectors. 2. Iowa must ensure a high quality of life as a tenant of our economic development activities. Businesses should want to locate in Iowa because of our high quality of life - and top performing schools are at the top of the list. 3. As grandparents, parents, and future parents of children in Iowa, we have an obligation to provide the best and brightest opportunities for the youngest residents of Iowa. General Business The Iowa Chamber Alliance supports internal periodic review and cost - benefit analysis of agency rules and regulations in cooperation with affected businesses and organizations to ensure a minimally invasive and efficient regulatory environment. Rules and regulations should be regularly evaluated for necessity, effectiveness, cost - efficiency, enforceability, and financial impact. Regulatory stability and responsiveness must be recognized as a critical component of the business climate. The Alliance also supports incentives to help small employers adopt wellness and prevention programs as a way to better the health of Iowa's workforce and manage increasing health insurance costs. About the \ Iowa Chamber Alliance A Unified Voice for Economic Growth The Iowa Chamber Alliance is a non - partisan coalition that represents sixteen Chambers of Commerce and economic development organizations from Iowa's largest communities. The mission of the Iowa Chamber Alliance is to put forth and enact an agenda to grow the state's economy through support of proactive programs that stimulate economic growth opportunities for the entire state and its residents. Iowa Chamber Alliance Guiding Principles We believe that by working together we can create significant, positive changes that will prepare Iowa for the future and ensure quality of life for its citizens. We believe Iowa needs strategic, aggressive, forward - thinking statewide policies and programs that stimulate strong economic growth, resulting in additional jobs and increased state and local revenues. • We support: — Long -term statewide policies and programs that provide reliable economic development tools for encouraging business relocation, expansion and entrepreneurship in Iowa communities. — A regulatory and tax climate conducive to making Iowa the most competitive state in the nation for attracting business expansion opportunities and fostering the growth of new and existing businesses. — An ongoing funding mechanism for building infrastructure and amenities that improve the quality of life in Iowa communities. Continued on back... 0 Iowa Chamber Alliance Guiding Principles continued... — Streamlined governments at all levels that are efficient, cost - effective and responsive to business needs by finding ways to use tax dollars more wisely while improving their services. — A long -term marketing plan that promotes Iowa's positive distinguishing attributes to both internal and external audiences, positioning Iowa as the location of choice for operating a business, living and traveling. The Alliance member communities include Ames, Burlington/West Burlington, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Des Moines, Dubuque, Ft. Dodge, Iowa City, Marshalltown, Mason City, Muscatine, Quad Cities, Sioux City, and Waterloo /Cedar Falls. The Iowa Chamber Alliance is a non-partisan coalition representing 16 Chambers of Commerce and economic development organizations throughout Iowa. For additional information, contact: NlOWa Chamber Alliance 5550 Wild Rose Lane, Suite 400 West Des Moines, IA 50266 Phone: (515) 226 -1492 Fax: (509) 351 -6696 Web site: www.iowachamberalliance.com E -mail: jstineman @strategicelements.com Marian Karr IP13 From: Tom Markus Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:38 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Hot News: Governor Branstad Issues Proclamation Supporting Aviation Info packet From: Michael Tharp Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 11:31 AM To: Howard Horan; Jose Assouline; Minnetta Gardinier; Rick Mascari (Arena610 @aol.com); Steve Crane Cc: Sue Dulek; Tom Markus Subject: FW: Hot News: Governor Branstad Issues Proclamation Supporting Aviation Greetings all, Just wanted to forward this on. Mike Michael Tharp, C.M. Operations Specialist Iowa City Municipal Airport 1801 S. Riverside Dr Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: (319) 356 5045 ext. 5 Fax: (319) 351 1290 From: Mc Enany, Michelle [DOT] [mailto:Michelle.McEnany @dot.iowa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:55 AM Subject: Hot News: Governor Branstad Issues Proclamation Supporting Aviation Great news! Governor Branstad this week signed a proclamation recognizing December, 2011 as General Aviation Appreciation Month in Iowa! In the proclamation, the governor notes that general aviation airports play a critical role for citizens, businesses and travelers to our state. It continues by stating that general aviation activity in Iowa involves business aviation, air medical transport, air cargo, aerial application, law enforcement, search and rescue, specialty aerial services, air charter, personal aviation and recreational opportunities. Branstad specifically noted general aviation's vital role in the state's response to emergencies and natural disasters, and support of national defense, training exercises and emergency response. The proclamation also recognizes the economic impact of aviation and businesses that help to support the air transportation system in Iowa. Full press release: http: / /www.news.iowadot.gov /newsandinfo/ 2011 /12 /governor- branstad- issues - proclamation- naming- december- 2011 -.html More information on general aviation in Iowa: http: / /www.iowadot.gov/ aviation / aviationiniowa /generalaviation.htmi Photos of general aviation activity in Iowa: http: / /www.iowadot.gov/ aviation / aviationiniowa /gallery /gallery.html Video of the importance of business aviation in Iowa: http: / /www.iowadot.gov/ aviation /aviationiniowa /video.html Matt Hayek op -ed to the New York Times, December 22, 2011 Iowa finds itself in an interesting place in history. Not for the upcoming presidential caucuses, important as they are. I'm speaking about Iowa City's relationship with the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In October, when membership countries voted to admit Palestine into UNESCO, U.S. law required that it suspend funding to the agency. We find ourselves directly affected because, in 2008, Iowa City was brought into the UNESCO Creative Cities Network, as the United States' first City of Literature. Founded in 2004, the network boasts an amazing array of emerging and established cultural capitals in areas such as design, gastronomy, music, film, and folk arts: 30 cities in all, including Seoul, Korea; Graz, Austria; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Shenzen, China; Montreal, Canada; and Bologna, Italy. Some may regard Iowa as fly -over country, but the size of our sister cities in literature— Edinburgh, Scotland; Melbourne, Australia; Dublin, Ireland; and Reykjavik, Iceland— suggest that a small Midwestern city may be more central than it appears. In culture and education, scientific developments, and health standards, size doesn't matter. Access, communication, and shared knowledge do. UNESCO developed the Creative Cities Network to connect the people who make these places centers of excellence, from artists and volunteers to a region's civic and cultural leaders. In the short run, the cities get the development advantages of sharing ideas and best practices. In the long run, though, the network is charged with supporting the efforts of other cities, particularly in developing countries, to nurture their own creative economy. The network connects cities eager to share experiences, ideas and best practices for cultural, social and economic development. The suspension of U.S. funding means these connections are in danger of being lost. What connects the UNESCO Cities of Literature is a strong belief in the power of the word to shape lives and the recognition of its importance not only to each citizen but the community as a whole. As a mayor, I recognize that the promotion of our literary heritage is good for our economy. In the global economy, industries depend upon writers, illustrators, designers and artists for their creativity and critical thinking skills. The City of Literature designation is important to the efforts of our businesses to attract knowledge -based workers. We employ the UNESCO designation to encourage commercial opportunities for creative tourism and our literary creative industries (small presses, magazine publishing, journals, theatre, independent bookstores, historical research and preservation, and bookmaking). Together with Santa Fe, New Mexico, a UNESCO City of Folk Arts and Crafts (the only other Creative City in the USA) we work to promote cultural tourism exchanges here in the U.S. From the tsunami early warning system to Holocaust education programs, from water projects in Iraq to literacy training in Afghanistan, UNESCO is uniquely positioned to bring together the talents of scientific, cultural, and educational leaders here and abroad. UNESCO can channel our collective wisdom into the ongoing challenge of making the world a safer, smarter, more livable, and more just place. The Creative Cities Network is a small part of UNESCO's broader compass, but a good example of how easy it is to establish promising new foundations for shared knowledge, cultural exchange, and innovation. America is at its best as a nation when it engages the world. International structures that support such engagement should not be discarded out of hand. Matt Hayek op -ed to the New York Times, December 22, 2011 Matt Hayek is a native of Iowa City and, since 2010, its mayor. He is a 1992 graduate of the University of Michigan Residential College and a 1997 graduate of Michigan Law School. From 1992 until 1994, Mr. Hayek served as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in rural Bolivia. He practices law and is married with three children. Email: mhayek @hhbmlaw.com Phone: 319 - 337 -9606 Joint Emergency Communications Center 4529 Melrose Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Johnson County Board of Supervisors c/o Andy Johnson 913 South Dubuque Street Suite 201 Iowa City, IA 52240 City of Iowa City Council Mayor and City Manager c/o City Clerk 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 City of North Liberty City Council Mayor and City Manager c/o City Clerk 5 E. Cherry Street North Liberty, IA 52317 December 19, 2011 Johnson County Emergency Management Commission c/o Emergency Management Coordinator 4529 Melrose Ave. Iowa City, IA 52246 City of Coralville City Council Mayor and City Manager c/o City Clerk 15055 th Street Coralville, IA 52241 Enclosed please find the 2011 Annual Report of the Joint Emergency Communications Service Association ( JECSA). This report is being provided to you as part of the 28E agreement between JECSA and its member entities. The 2011 annual report was approved by the JECSA Policy Board at its December 16, 2011 meeting. Sincerely, Gary Girard Albrecht Executive Director, JECC JECC Administrative Line: (319) 356 -6880 1 Non - Emergency Dispatch: (319) 356 -6800 JECC Administrative fax: (319) 338 -0028 1 Dispatch Fax: (319) 338 -0022 IP15 N O Q r 0 a� Y n .� C-) ate ;Crn CO a M -' N N Enclosed please find the 2011 Annual Report of the Joint Emergency Communications Service Association ( JECSA). This report is being provided to you as part of the 28E agreement between JECSA and its member entities. The 2011 annual report was approved by the JECSA Policy Board at its December 16, 2011 meeting. Sincerely, Gary Girard Albrecht Executive Director, JECC JECC Administrative Line: (319) 356 -6880 1 Non - Emergency Dispatch: (319) 356 -6800 JECC Administrative fax: (319) 338 -0028 1 Dispatch Fax: (319) 338 -0022 IP15 Joint Emergency Communications Services Association 2011 Annual Report, �PJ N TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from Executive Director ................................................................................ ..............................3 Mission / Purpose ............................................................................................................. ..............................4 Overview.......................................................................................................................... ..............................5 OrganizationalChart ...................................................................................................... ..............................6 PersonnelAllocation ...................................................................................................... ..............................7 CallCategories and Volume .......................................................................................... ..............................8 Computer Aided Dispatch Summary .......................................................................... .............................10 RadioSystem Usage ..................................................................................................... .............................11 Telecommunications.................................................................................................... .............................12 EmergencyMedical Dispatch ...................................................................................... .............................13 Budget............................................................................................................................ .............................14 4 C-) 1i CO i rri y N N December 16, 2011 Joint Emergency Communications Center 4529 Melrose Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Dear Joint Emergency Communications Services Association Policy Board members and 28E member entities: As Executive Director, I am pleased to present the 2011 annual report of the Joint Emergency Communications Services Association of Johnson County (JECSA). FY 2011 was a unique year as the JECC went live on June 29'h of 2010 and hired a new Executive Director, who started January 3, 2011. This report contains 12 months of statistics for FY -2011. As you read through the report, I have summarized the total number of telephone calls and CAD calls for service that were processed at the JECC during the 12 months of operation in FY -2011. You will notice that wireless 911 calls account for a majority of our 911 calls as more residents are getting rid of their land lines. While FY -2011 presented some challenges, none were too great to overcome and I look forward to the future, and providing the highest level of emergency communications to the residents of Johnson County. Sincerely, /6 Gary Albrecht Executive Director, JECC JECC Administrative Line: (319) 356 -6880 1 Non - Emergency Dispatch: (319) 356 -6800 JECC Administrative Fax: (319) 338 -0028 1 Dispatch Fax: (319) 338 -0022 n c : ", 0 � cad � Q r' N IV JECC Administrative Line: (319) 356 -6880 1 Non - Emergency Dispatch: (319) 356 -6800 JECC Administrative Fax: (319) 338 -0028 1 Dispatch Fax: (319) 338 -0022 VISION To serve and support the public safety communications needs of our customers in the most efficient and responsive manner possible. MISSION STATEMENT To provide all residents of Johnson County a single answering point for processing their calls for emergency and non - emergency assistance for police, fire, medical and general service responders. To provide primary communications for all public safety agencies responding within our jurisdictional boundaries through use of 2 -way radios, telephones and /or teletype equipment. To maintain and continuous training for all employees to insure prompt, professional and efficient vices. c —TI SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE JECC N CID G fn ■ Enhanced 911 services to all Citizens of Johnson County. ,u ■ Wireless 911 services to all Citizens of Johnson County. ■ Radio Communications /Computer Aided Dispatch to 5 Law Enforcement Agencies. • Radio Communications /Paging Communications /Computer Aided Dispatch to 14 Fire Departments. • Radio Communications /Paging Communications /Computer Aided Dispatch to Johnson County Ambulance Service. • Radio Communications to University of Iowa Department of Public Safety. • Radio Communications to the Iowa Department of Corrections High Risk Unit. • Radio Communications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR -Lake McBride, DNR Conservation and Johnson County Conservation. • Radio Communications /Paging Communications to Johnson County Hazardous Materials Team. • Radio Communications to UIHC, Mercy Hospital and VA Hospital. • Radio Communications to North Liberty Public Works Department. • Activates and monitors the Johnson County Outdoor Warning Systems. • Notification and monitoring point for Severe Weather activity for the National Weather Service - -Quad Cities. OVERVIEW The Joint Emergency Communications Center of Johnson County (JECC) is the clearing house for all 9 -1 -1 calls and all Emergency Communications for Johnson County. The JECC serves as the epicenter for emergency communications for all citizens of Johnson County. The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) is also located in the same facility. The JECC serves the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year with specially trained dispatchers to answer all emergency calls for assistance. These operators receive and /or transmit emergency telephone, radio, alarm, and other types of data over multiple computer systems, then analyze it in a timely manner for the purpose of relaying the information between citizens and first responders during emergencies in order to preserve life and property. Another important responsibility of Emergency Communications Personnel is the accurate entry and removal of wanted persons, articles and vehicles in NCIC. This includes providing, on demand, the results of NCIC queries made by field units. N C? �-< Co �rn ra N Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) Organizational Chart User Advisory Committee Associate Director/ Emergency IT Manager Communications Part-Time Coordinator Dispatchers Network Analyst Dispatcher I Dispatcher I F Dispatcher I Day Shift Afternoon Shift Night Shift Dispatcher II Dispatcher II I Dispatcher II Day Shift Afternoon Shift I Night Shift N O C7. 0 a{� 1 JECSA Policy Board rn �rn r Executive Director N ry User Advisory Committee Associate Director/ Emergency IT Manager Communications Part-Time Coordinator Dispatchers Network Analyst Dispatcher I Dispatcher I F Dispatcher I Day Shift Afternoon Shift Night Shift Dispatcher II Dispatcher II I Dispatcher II Day Shift Afternoon Shift I Night Shift C:) C� i 1 PERSONNEL ALLOCATION - FY2012 ; n-< a n � N Job Title Management Administrative Operations Total Executive Director 1 1 Associate Director /IT Manager 1 1 Emergency Communications Coordinator 1 1 Network Analyst 1 1 Dispatcher) 6 6 Dispatcher)) 19 19 Dispatcher II / Part -Time 3 3 Total 32 ANNUAL ACTIVITY SUMMMARIES - FY2011 Total CALL CATEGORIES AND VOLUMES N Wireless (Cellular) 911 Calls 33,496 July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 n 3 Total 44,963 CD — 911 911 Emergency Calls CJ FY 2011 Wireline to Wireless Comparison VOW 0.39% .n rn C) Call Type Total Wireline 911 Calls 11,290 Wireless (Cellular) 911 Calls 33,496 VolP 911 Calls 177 Total 44,963 Summary of all Call Types Alarm Line 1.82% Abandoned 3.89% FY 2011 Call Type Categories VoIP (Emergency & Nnutincl Categories Volume Percent Emergency (911) 37,424 19.03% Non - Emergency (Routine) 95,942 48.80% Abandoned 7,651 3.89% Alarm Line 3,572 1.82% Outbound 51,830 26.36% VoIP (Emergency & Routine) 197 0.109/' Total 196,616 100% 'For reporting purposes, the Abandoned Call category lists calls in which the caller hung up before the call was answered, or while the call was being processed. Dispatch initiates a call back to each abandoned call received by the JECC. v -1, ro � r Co rn l J,� =A' N N N O C:) = t= r•i n r 7� C rn COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SUMMARY 1 N N July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 The Joint Emergency Communications Center processed approximately 196,616 emergency and non - emergency telephone calls in fiscal year 2011. During the fiscal year, these telephone calls resulted in the creation of 149,628 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) incidents processed by JECC staff. The Joint Emergency Communications Center professionally handles calls for 15 Public Safety Agencies throughout Johnson County and surrounding counties. CAD Incidents - FY2011 15,000 - -._ Z 10,000 - -_ -- N 5,000 LL N u 1` A JS� �a� mac �e� ,pay a(k a � e,Z tsa PQ t1` �J LAW ENFORCEMENT FIRE /MEDICAL COMBINED ACTIVITY Monthly Cumulative Monthly Cumulative Monthly Cumulative Total July 11,158 11,158 1,154 1,154 12,312 12,312 August 11,874 23,032 1,134 2,288 13,008 25,320 September 11,755 34,787 1,113 3,401 12,868 38,188 October 11,426 46,213 1,333 4,734 12,759 50,947 November 9,983 56,196 1,092 5,826 11,075 62,022 December 10,131 66,327 1,085 6,911 11,216 73,238 January 10,811 77,138 1,092 8,003 11,903 85,141 February 10,754 87,892 1,238 9,241 11,992 97,133 March 11,925 99,817 1,215 10,456 13,140 110,273 April 11, 706 111,523 1,349 11,805 13,055 123,328 May 12,117 123,640 1,325 13,130 13,442 136,770 June 11,511 135151 1,347 14,477 12,858 149,628 TOTAL 135,151 135,151 14,477 14,477 149,628 149,628 RADIO SYSTEM USEAGE July 1, 2011 through November 30, 2011 The Joint Emergency Communications Services Association (JECSA) for Johnson County owns and operates a 7 -site, Harris Linear IP Simulcast P25 Radio System. During the first five months of fiscal year 2012 there were approximately 2,386,473 push to talks (radio calls) processed on the system utilizing up to 95 talk groups. July- November 2011 Push To Talks s00000 N m 600000 _._. f' f 400000 _..... Z a 200000 0 _. July August September October November Push to Talks Duration (HH:MM:SSI July 510,711 849:20:04 August 655,569 1016:32:00 September 443,076 915:25:58 October 410,687 930:08:18 November 410,687 828:43:14 TOTAL 2,386,473 4540:09:34 N O Co rn �r ' N N N O � C7 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ni In fiscal year 2011, we continued to see more growth in incoming cellular 911 calls vem6landTrrte 911' phone calls. There are also an increasing number of VolP (Voice over Internet Protocol) calls thKcome into the 911 Center as that technology is expanding into the homes. On an average day, the Joint Emergency Communications Center will receive approximately 539 calls. This includes Emergency 911 calls and Non - Emergency calls. The heaviest volume of calls is received on the non - emergency number 356 -6800 between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Please remember that 911 should only be used for true emergencies. The 911 and non - emergency number 356 -6800 are dedicated telephone lines that provide emergency dispatchers with the ability to see phone numbers, addresses, and names to assist them in pinpointing a caller's location. This is called Automatic Location Identification or ALI. Specially designated telephone trunks are installed for cellular 911 phone calls received at the 911 Center as well. Depending on the type of cellular phone that is being used, the dispatcher may or may not be able to locate you in an emergency. The 911 phone system as the JECC supports both Phase I and Phase II type wireless 911 calls. A Phase II call provides 911 dispatchers with the telephone number and location by plotting the latitude and longitude that appears on the ALI screen when a cellular 911 call is received. Dispatchers have the ability to retransmit a call, if necessary, (as long as the cell phone call remains connected) to continue to update and re -plot the location within 100 meters or 328 feet. If a caller is using a prepaid cellular phone with Phase II capability, their location can also be plotted; however, they cannot be called back because there is no telephone number associated with prepaid wireless phones. The Joint Emergency Communications Center also supports VoIP calls. Some examples of VolP phone companies are Mediacom and Vonage. When placing a call to 911 using this technology, caller information may or may not appear on the dispatchers screen. It is important for all subscribers of this technology to ask their providers how 911 calls are handled with their company. We also continue to explore new technologies and Next Generation 911 (NG911) services such as receiving text messages to keep up with the technological advances in the field of 911 communications. - N - W The Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) utilizes the Medical Priority Dispatch System's Emergency Medical Dispatch Program (EMD) to handle requests for emergency medical assistance. All of our dispatcher's are EMD certified. The EMD program is a set of cards that direct the dispatcher to ask the caller a series of questions based on the nature of the medical emergency. This enables the dispatcher to determine the most appropriate medical response priority. EMD also provides written Post - Dispatch and Pre - Arrival instructions to give to callers when appropriate and possible. Included in this process is a Quality Assurance program. All certified EMD dispatchers receive ongoing feedback on their performance based on guidelines established by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch and EMS, Inc. The purpose of Quality Assurance is to provide a non- punitive means of assisting staff in maintaining a high level of performance. Overview: The EMD card set is made up of thirty -three (33) protocols including specific Post - Dispatch and Pre - Arrival instructions. The first thirty -two (32) protocols are geared toward the general public by addressing medical emergencies such as difficulty breathing, seizures and traumatic injuries. These protocols include specific Post - Dispatch instructions based on the Chief Complaint and lead the dispatcher to detailed Pre - Arrival instructions as needed. Examples of Pre - Arrival instructions include step -by -step directions on how to perform CPR and childbirth delivery. The remaining protocol is geared toward skilled care facilities. This protocol does not require specific Post - Dispatch and /or Pre - Arrival instructions as staff in these facilities possess medical skill and knowledge. Our staff receives individual and group training and education throughout the year based on the overall findings of these reviews. All staff also has access to a variety of self- education tools to help them maintain their skills. In order to maintain their certification with the EMD program, all staff is required to recertify every two years. This includes the successful completion of a written examination, twenty -four (24) hours of training and CPR certification. N O CD rn O � C i EMERGENCY MEDICAL DISPATCH Introduction: -: - N - W The Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) utilizes the Medical Priority Dispatch System's Emergency Medical Dispatch Program (EMD) to handle requests for emergency medical assistance. All of our dispatcher's are EMD certified. The EMD program is a set of cards that direct the dispatcher to ask the caller a series of questions based on the nature of the medical emergency. This enables the dispatcher to determine the most appropriate medical response priority. EMD also provides written Post - Dispatch and Pre - Arrival instructions to give to callers when appropriate and possible. Included in this process is a Quality Assurance program. All certified EMD dispatchers receive ongoing feedback on their performance based on guidelines established by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch and EMS, Inc. The purpose of Quality Assurance is to provide a non- punitive means of assisting staff in maintaining a high level of performance. Overview: The EMD card set is made up of thirty -three (33) protocols including specific Post - Dispatch and Pre - Arrival instructions. The first thirty -two (32) protocols are geared toward the general public by addressing medical emergencies such as difficulty breathing, seizures and traumatic injuries. These protocols include specific Post - Dispatch instructions based on the Chief Complaint and lead the dispatcher to detailed Pre - Arrival instructions as needed. Examples of Pre - Arrival instructions include step -by -step directions on how to perform CPR and childbirth delivery. The remaining protocol is geared toward skilled care facilities. This protocol does not require specific Post - Dispatch and /or Pre - Arrival instructions as staff in these facilities possess medical skill and knowledge. Our staff receives individual and group training and education throughout the year based on the overall findings of these reviews. All staff also has access to a variety of self- education tools to help them maintain their skills. In order to maintain their certification with the EMD program, all staff is required to recertify every two years. This includes the successful completion of a written examination, twenty -four (24) hours of training and CPR certification. Commodities Supplies & Materials Misc. Contractual Services 3.44% Contractual Maint & Repair Services' 3.70% JECSA FY2012 Budget N a -fin 0 ,r T1 " July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 r) F" w Telecommunications 3.30% Postage & Mailing Servi es Travel& 0.0'% Annual Training Maintenance 0.33%l 0.50% utilities \ r Rental and Leases 1.01% ital Outlay 4.21% Total: $2,995,936 9 -1 -1 THINGS EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW It's important to know how to help 9 -1 -1 help YOU! In an emergency seconds matter, so being prepared can make all the difference. Know WHEN to call 9 -1 -1. 9 -1 -1 is for emergencies only. You should only dial 9 -1 -1 if someone is hurt or in danger, or if you are in immediate need of police, fire or medical assistance. If you aren't sure if your situation is an emergency, you should err on the side of safety and call 9 -1 -1 and let the expert who answers your call make the decision whether to send help or not. Know WHEN NOT to call 9 -1 -1. Don't call 9 -1 -1 because your power or cable is out or because you are late for a meeting and need to find an address. While those situations may count as emergencies for you, they aren't for public safety. Inappropriate use of the 9 -1 -1 system wastes resources and ties up the lines at the 9 -1 -1 center, and nobody wants to be on hold when they are in the middle of a real crisis. Know the capabilities of the device you are using. 9 -1 -1 can be contacted from pretty much every device that can make a phone call (traditional landline, cell phones, VoIP), but the callback and location information that accompanies your call to the 9 -1 -1 center can vary drastically amongst technologies and between geographic regions. Know WHERE you are. This is probably the most important information you can provide as a 9 -1 -1 caller, so try to be aware of your surroundings. Make a real effort to be as detailed as possible, if you are outside and don't know the street address, take a look around and try to find landmarks or cross streets. If you are inside a large building or one with multiple levels, you can help emergency services by letting them know which floor you are on, which apartment you are in, etc. Stay calm. When you are on the phone with 9 -1 -1, you are their eyes and ears. Even though, you may want to, try not to panic. If you are crying or yelling, it can be hard for the 9 -1 -1 operator to understand you. If you are unable to stay strong, pull yourself together and answer ALL of the 9 -1 -1 operator's questions, the faster they can get the right services to your location. NEVER hang up. You may have called 9 -1 -1 by accident, or your situation may have resolved itself, but it is important to let the 9 -1 -1 operator know this. If you end the call abruptly, the 9 -1 -1 operator is going to assume that something has gone very wrong and will either call you back or send help anyway. This will take away from the 9 -1 -1 center's ability to take calls and dispatch services to on- going emergencies, so make sure the 91 -1 operator tells you it is okay to hang up. Keep in mind that the 9 -1 -1 operator can dispatch responders to your location with disconnecting from the call, so, until you are instructed to do otherwise, make sure to hold the line so that you can provide any n&6essary information or assistance to the 9 -1 -1 operator. o rn N3 c) .< --, t` a W CITY OF IOWA CITY 01-05-1 `' ►ir'' I P16 Date: January 5, 2011 To: Thomas M. Markus, City Manager From: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Re: Update: Flood Related Activities Public Works Department (Rick Fosse, 356 -5141) Flood Hazard Buyout Program • Bids are currently being solicited for the demolition of an additional 6 properties in the Parkview Terrace neighborhood. Demolition should be completed on these properties by mid - February and will bring the total number of homes demolished to 81. Dubuque Street Elevation and Park Road Bridge Reconstruction Project • Begin assembly of preferred alternative. • HNTB hosted a roadway and bridge constructability charrette in their Kansas City office on December 15. It was attended by their planning and design staff, Stanley Consultants and City Staff. • The next scheduled TAC meeting is March 7, 2012. • Continued writing of draft Environmental Assessment. • Continued preparation of Section 4(f) documentation for determination of 4(f) resources. • Continued environmental impact analysis of conceptual alternatives. • Continued Park Road Bridge studies and refinement of bridge type alternatives. • Continue refining roadway alternative and bridge cost estimates as the preferred alternative evolves. Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation Project • Plans and Specifications have been finalized • The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has approved the Plans and Specifications and will be issuing a construction permit. • The bidding process is ready to begin Rocky Shore Drive Pump Station and Floodgates Project • The design is 60% complete 1 • Continued to address citizen questions and concerns regarding this project • Working on agreement with CRANDIC railroad West Side Levee • The wetland mitigation is still under review by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. MMS is currently working with the IDNR to get the mitigation efforts approved. Taft Speedway Levee • A preliminary screening of flood mitigation alternatives for the Taft Speedway / Idyllwild Area has been completed. The preliminary screening results have been posted on the project website. • The screened alternatives are currently being refined and evaluated by the Consultant. The results of the screened alternative analysis will be presented at the next public meeting. The next public meeting is scheduled for late January at the Parkview Church in Iowa City. Specific details are unknown at this time; however, updates will be posted to the project website when they become available. East Side Levee MMS Consultants, Inc. from Iowa City has been selected to provide engineering services for the East Side Levee Project. The pre- design neighborhood meeting is scheduled for late January at Hills Bank in Iowa City. Survey work will begin in the next couple weeks. Animal Shelter • The former Animal Shelter on Kirkwood Avenue has been demolished and the site has been re- graded. • Based on Requests for Qualifications (RFQ's) that were received, Staff is currently negotiating with an architecture and engineering firms to design the new Animal Center. River Crossings FEMA has obligated funding for the project which is estimated at $352,454 of which FEMA's 90% portion is $317,209. Public Works staff will meet with UI staff to complete final design in January 2012. The updated proposed project schedule is as follows: • Complete final design — February 17, 2012 • Bid Opening — March 29, 2012 • Final completion date — December 21, 2012 Water Works Prairie Park Source Protection A contract has been awarded for this work and the contractor will begin work on this project this Spring. Work is to be completed by the end of September 2012. 2 Planning and Community Development (Jeff Davidson, 356 -5232) A total of 85 residential properties have been acquired with disaster recovery buyout grants. Of the 85 properties, 44 properties have been acquired using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, 35 properties with Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds and six properties with Community Disaster Grant (CDG) funds. A total of 66 structures have been demolished in the Parkview Terrace and Taft Speedway neighborhoods. Ten more properties are scheduled to be demolished by mid - January. • The final 2 HMGP properties are waiting to be demolished. The grant will then be closed out. The HMGP Acquisition Program application was submitted in January 2009 and to date has spent almost $8 million. • The CDBG acquisition program application was submitted in August 2009. To date, the CDBG acquisition program has spent $11 million in acquisition and demolition costs. • Sixteen homes in Round 3 of the Single Family New Construction Program have been built and sold. To date, 93 owner - occupied affordable housing units have been constructed and sold from all three rounds. 15 more units will be built in Round 3. • State officials requested Iowa City submits, by the end of February, a plan for Round 4 of the Single Family New Construction Program. There will be 32 homes constructed in Round 4. All homes in this round must be built for no more than $150,000 and must be targeted for homeowners with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. There will be a total of 140 homes built in Rounds 1 -4 of the program. • An environmental assessment for the West Side Levee is being completed. Once the assessment is completed and approved by the state, a construction request for proposals can be developed. • Staff participated in the kickoff meeting with MMS Consultants, the firm picked for the design and engineering of the East Side Levee. The first public meeting will be later in January. • The next public meeting for the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study will occur in late January. HDR is the firm conducting the study and will lead the meeting. • State officials are reviewing the request for proposal for the adaptive reuse and flood mitigation plan for the Ned Ashton House (820 Park Road). The property was acquired with CDBG buyout funds, but the structure will not be demolished because it is on the National Register of Historic Places. It will become a parks special events facility. • Applications for Federal Jumpstart funds for repair, rental rehabilitation, down payment assistance and interim mortgage assistance are still being accepted and funds are available. Since October 2008, $869,500 in Federal Jumpstart funding has been used to assist 18 households. The state Jumpstart Program closed in December 2010 after helping 88 households. 3 �r 01-00-12 IP17 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240- 1826 (3 19) 3S6 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org January 3, 2012 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — MAINTENANCE WORKER II - STREETS 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 Maintenance Worker II - Streets. Troy Palmer IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION William M. Cook �` ! IP18 BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION December 2011 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS .Type of Improvement: ADD - Addition ALT - Alteration REP - Repair FND - Foundation Only NEW -New OTH - Other type of construction Type of Use: RSF - Residential Single Family RDF - Residential Duplex RMF - Three or more residential RAC - Residential Accessory Building MIX - Mixed NON - Non - residential OTH - Other Page: 2 City of Iowa City Date : 1/3/2012 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: From From : 12/l/2011 12/31/2011 Bureau Report Total ADD /RMF permits: 1 Total Valuation : $17,000' BLDI I -00702 WILLIAM & JUDITH KNABE 1101 WEEBER CIR ADD RSF 1 0 $255,000 ADDITION AND REMODEL FOR SFD BLD 11 -00682 LINDA & LON MOELLER 1425 PHOENIX DR ADD RSF 0 0 $11,000 SCREEN PORCH ADDITION ON EXISTING DECK FOR SFD BLDI I -00707 BILL STEINBRECH 404 MAGOWAN AVE ADD RSF 2 0 $8,000 DORMER ADDITION FOR SFD ABOVE GARAGE SPACE Total ADD/RSF permits: 3 Total Valuation : $274,000 BLDI I -00736 WALDEN SQUARE INVS L C 755 MORMON TREK BLVD Type Type TENANT OFFICE REMODEL Permit Number Name Address [mpr Use Stories Units Valuation BLDI I -00713 MIDWEST FRAME & AXLE 3941 LIBERTY DR ADD NON 1 0 $20,000 STORAGE MEZZANINE ADDITION FOR REPAIR SHOP 500 E MARKET ST ALT NON RADIOLOGY REMODEL FOR HOSPITAL Total ADD/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation : $20,000 327 S GILBERT ST ALT NON HOOKAH BAR TENANT FINISH BLDI I -00708 SCOTT & JOANNA STRODE 2325 WILLOWBROOKE LN ADD RMF 2 0 $17,000 ADDITION FOR RMF UNIT OFFICE WALL Total ADD /RMF permits: 1 Total Valuation : $17,000' BLDI I -00702 WILLIAM & JUDITH KNABE 1101 WEEBER CIR ADD RSF 1 0 $255,000 ADDITION AND REMODEL FOR SFD BLD 11 -00682 LINDA & LON MOELLER 1425 PHOENIX DR ADD RSF 0 0 $11,000 SCREEN PORCH ADDITION ON EXISTING DECK FOR SFD BLDI I -00707 BILL STEINBRECH 404 MAGOWAN AVE ADD RSF 2 0 $8,000 DORMER ADDITION FOR SFD ABOVE GARAGE SPACE Total ADD/RSF permits: 3 Total Valuation : $274,000 BLDI I -00736 WALDEN SQUARE INVS L C 755 MORMON TREK BLVD ALT NON TENANT OFFICE REMODEL $16,800 0 0 $9,000 BLD11 -00714 RUSS SCHOENAUER 160 SOUTHGATE AVE ALT NON TENANT FINISH OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE 0 $22,000 BLDI I -00695 MERCY HOSPITAL 500 E MARKET ST ALT NON RADIOLOGY REMODEL FOR HOSPITAL BLDI I -00697 CENTER CITY LLC 327 S GILBERT ST ALT NON HOOKAH BAR TENANT FINISH BLDII -00711 CITY CARTON CO INC 3 E BENTON ST ALT NON OFFICE WALL BLDI I -00735 DISTRICT 1900 MORNINGSIDE DR ALT NON MOVE PARTITION IN STUDY HALL 0 0 $48,000 1 0 $33,000 0 0 $16,800 0 0 $9,000 0 0 $5,300 0 0 $2,800 Total ALT/NON permits: 6 Total Valuation : $114,900' BLDI I -00727 EJB LTD CO 415 S VAN BUREN ST WALL ALONG 2 SIDES OF EXTERIOR STAIRS ALT RMF 3 0 $6,000 Total ALT /RMF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $6,000' BLD11 -00649 CITY OF IOWA CITY 412 RONALDS ST Contruct half bath and remodel 2nd floor bath and kitchen BLDI I -00608 BEN REINKING 1412 E COURT ST MASTER BATH REMODEL FOR SFD BLDI I -00329 WAGNER MANAGEMENT LI 1033 S 7TH AVE REMODEL OF SFD ALT RSF 2 0 $39,040 ALT RSF 2 0 $26,315 ALT RSF 1 0 $22,000 Page : 3 City of Iowa City Date : 1/3/2012 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : From : From 12/1/2011 12/31/2011 Bureau Report Permit Number Name Address BLD11 -00746 CYNTHIA PARSONS & GARN 123 FERSONAVE KITCHEN AND BATHROOM REMODEL FOR SFD RSF BLDI I -00743 STEVE AND LINDA SCHRIEI 45 SUMAC CT BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD ALT BLD 11 -00704 IAN & KIM SCOTT 527 STUART CT CONVERT DINING ROOM TO LAUNDRY /MUD ROOM BLDII -00706 EVAN & JESSI DWYER 1801 MACKINAW DR BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD 0 BLDI I -00701 MIKE MCNAMARA 431 RENO ST KITCHEN REMODEL FOR SFD RSF BLDI I -00439 PEGGY K POWELL 1129 CHURCH ST BASEMENT BATHROOM FOR SFD ALT Total ALT /RSF permits: 9 Type Type Impr Use Stories Units Valuation ALT RSF 0 0 $15,000 ALT RSF 0 0 $12,000 ALT RSF 0 0 $5,000 ALT RSF 1 0 $5,000 ALT RSF 0 0 $3,000 ALT RSF 0 0 $2,000 Total Valuation : $129,355 BLDI I -00739 HANSON AUTOBODY 2462 FREEDOM CT NEW OTH 1 0 $5,000 FENCE AND STORAGE SHED FOR AUTOBODY SHOP Total NEW /OTH permits: 1 Total Valuation : $5,000 BLD08 -00202 PAUL CLOSE 61 REGALLN NEW RAC 1 0 $1,500 DETACHED MEMBRANE STRUCTURE STORAGE SHED FOR SFD Total NEW /RAC permits: 1 Total Valuation : $1,500 BLDI I -00616 ALLEN HOMES INC. 429 E BURLINGTON ST NEW RMF 3 14 $2,682,480 3 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ENCLOSED PARKING 1 ST STORY first floor, nw unit counterclockwise to ne unit: 451, 453, 455, 457, 459, 461, 463 second floor, nw unit counterclockwise to ne unit: 465, 467, 469, 471, 473, 475, 477 Total NEW/RMF permits: 1 Total Valuation : $2,682,480 BLD11 -00715 DOUGLAS W & JULIE R HOL 1170 MEADOWLARK DR NEW RSF SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE TREE REMOVAL LIMIT BLD11 -00731 ALLEN HOMES 3049 LOWER WEST BRAN( NEW RSF SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLDI I -00729 KW REALTY GROUP LLC 1654 LAKE SHORE DR NEW RSF SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLDII -00326 PENINSULA DEV CO LLC 731 WALKER CIR NEW RSF SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE 2 1 $372,403 2 1 $334,623 1 1 $243,351 2 1 $234,123 Total NEW/RSF permits: 4 Total Valuation : $1,184,500' BLD11 -00719 LINDER TIRE 632 S RIVERSIDE DR REP NON 1 0 $19,000 Repair damaged columns and replace steel roofing and siding Page: 4 City of Iowa City Date : 1/3/2012 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 12/1/2011 From : 12/31/2011 From Bureau Report TVe Tie Permit Number Name Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation Total REP /NON permits: 1 Total Valuation : $19,000 BLD11 -00674 ETC INVESTMENTS LLC 608 RONALDS ST REP RDF 2 0 $4,000 REPLACE LANDING AND STAIRS FOR DUPLEX UPPER UNIT Total REP /RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation : $4,000 BLDI I -00738 KELLY FAMILY PRTNRSHP 612 S DODGE ST REP RMF 2 0 $9,564 REPLACE EXTERIOR STAIRS FOR RMF BUILDING BLDI I -00710 IC RENTALS LC 529 IOWAAVE REP RMF 0 0 $800 ENTRY DOORS FOR APARTMENT BUILDING Total REP/RMF permits: 2 Total Valuation : $10,364 BLD11 -00685 LUKE HETTINGER 511 WESTWINDS DR REP RSF 0 0 $12,850 FIRE REPAIR OF LAUNDRY ROOM AREA FOR ZERO -LOT SFD BLDI I -00709 GERALD FLANAGAN 436 GRANT ST REP RSF 0 0 $500 REPLACE HANDRAILS FOR FRONT ENTRY Total REP /RSF permits: 2 Total Valuation : $13,350 GRAND TOTALS: PERMITS: 34 VALUATION: $4,481,449 v w V W fn C o v m O N o r J O r m co O (D (D P- N ' r (O (D r n F z O z W 0) 0 d' M r V W r M O o N n n n Mr M �}' 0014 N M W 0) 00. n •Y 0`-�r N a0 V 000 VN' r (MO O m LQ u) 0) v r Q co r Cli r 0 N M O W O n cli Q) O Cl) N Cl) Cl N (D O00 OCI rn 131 of N ao 00 V O V• O r r C) r (D r C) M O M y 0 00 O O 0) «') V: to E N 00 'o V (D a y N 00 Cl) r r N O r 0 r M LO 00 r co LO (D IV d E O n O 0) I, N «j V (O 00 M n 0) 0) 0) 00 N N > n! Oct(V V O O r Z n r O r O N 't 000 O r O N V r LO O O C O O n O O n N O N O co M M to O V (U"D N 000 (no 0) („) C M O •- 7 O O N N 00 T M N O 2o O 0) 7 O N N D d W r w O O N N M N O? 0 w E o v 0) o CD co � V n N On') M c0) N M O V' (D r rL o wr W r O W (D N to N N O M N W O N (MO 0 O � r^ cli 00 OV' Cl) n N O7 00 ccoo N 0D M M 7 Q N N 00 N n 0) n r co r to O r O r O r o M aD r O r W CO M C O Oct n (D M (D (7 (6 007 N (� ^ (�nD N 04 CC] CP 7 V' -2 ? c d O M O 0 r O r N N M N CD M r r N 0) 0 o p O (O (D Cl! O (V (n M (f1 M N ((j il N j (+) w D M M (N (j O N M � (O (D MO O M T(M (D Cl) M co N co 0 ONN MON �r O n N tO " O n O N M a0 CL 0) 00 00 6 N W n (M(7 (O' Q I-- LO C-4 )o O M N v v Cl) 0N) (0+) (MD M r O r r r N 0) y O O _ (O V' O N ~ LO V M N M N M M N N r r N N 0 0 M O U1 CQ a v (V ao LL N C) M 0 O N U7 LO (0 (D 7 10 n (D 00 V' N (O C rn n v co o C y ,y w y y � y 0) y 9 y E , ma`yE � € E -6 N d n a a a s � C c N a N a N a N a o N o m L D �o(E W - Fn `o 0 0o - oo`oEo ct�og 2 V ° 3 a 0 y a E E t m J w Z5 m 0 0 y 7 n a ca Na via ca -0 on �a yd EDaa E E = -0 E o ?^ ' -> E E LL E E a EOEaoDd> .d E (n E >M E° mD E E '� >c�Y E y E =» E > y >.�iima�U3a�N�JJ E E m E o (D T Z(13Z >0�- yZjZZ E E yZ_Z(�Z yZmZ OZ .� ZUZ `Z -Z '0) - -Z -Z 4) 0Z O Q'Q. F- F LL N al 7 Z 2Z 0) (0 3 y ?iS 0) N O O a� X +_. - a E U Z E y ('cj w U a N U O y O O O m w o rn o ° � Z > > Z U) a 0 t d O y E E E (� m o Z X o r U d V) o 2 C O � a v (n U) a) a� a) v Q > U) ❑ w N V N U +� m W er O E- ;-_ v 0.5 �+ m U >` a) } (n0 M I� (h C t0 R C) N r N W c) O N V IO O) N N (�O N O O co N N 00 n co M N 0 O •-- ti O N O N r N O N P- V7 0) r ` 'd' N OD O O O N N N r c00 O 0) 0�0 ° N m] . r E E E E E N D N u► (D N °'�_ a) a) j a) O m a) a1 ;� a aw N N a- `o a 7 `° m C �a'j a a 0 a o oa 'Y o .a o `o o m ° ° ° Vi_ °) ° O_ ° W 0 y3 0 0 E a) 3 Ca 0 o 3� C]] 0 a� N y- `m a f d a� m E a� 4- N a) v d E 15 . OLQ W o? a) a) o E ja a) n �) E a) n m E Q o E° n° a E to a E C a E Na E N.0 °i3L E Y E L >;' O O NL NL E.O.3L V a rn j J J E as E ° E °° E E� o > m NZ °as ° m' °� z U) z 2z z -z ZzQ F-�- zu>z z�zZ� Ez' z° Exz aNiz Nzmzz mz a� a� ° 00 u w a) axi ? m n E O U z m L > j 4) Z m N vi c°_3 o °) of 0 E 0 E 0 E uNi C o p 7 Z K � O .2 L U 'O 5 y U) O x O a t U u> cn a1 a) m a U ¢ > �n U) g Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING DRAFT IP19 Members Present: Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari, Jose Assouline, Steve Crane Members Absent: Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Matt Wolford, Philip Wolford, Jeff Edberg, David Hughes, Tim Busch, John Yeomans, Chuck McDonald, Daryl Smith, Eric Scott RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Approve Amendment #2 to listing agreement with Skogman Realty to extend the term of the listing agreement CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gardinier called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Mascari moved and Assouline seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the November 17 meeting. Motion passed 5 -0 PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: A. Airport Farming Operations — John Yeomans stated he had given Tharp a lease agreement for the packet. Yeomans discussed the details of the lease agreement Crane asked if the price was changing, Tharp noted that the base rent increased from $25,000 to $31,000. Yeomans mentioned that the rates at Iowa City were similar to the rates at the Cedar Rapids airport. B. Airport Commerce Park — Edberg mentioned that the listing agreement was due to expire and that he has signed the amendment to extend the agreement. Edberg stated the purchase agreement for Lots 16 and 17 had been approved by City Council. Edberg stated he had contacted the individual that made a previous offer on Lot 17 to discuss moving to a different lot and that he was going to meet Monday with him. Edberg said he would be suggesting Lot #12. Assouline asked about leasing the other lots and the vetting process for lease offers. Edberg responded to his questions. i. Consider a resolution approving amendment #2 to listing agreement with Skogman Realty — Mascari moved Horan and seconded resolution # A11- 27. Motion passed 5 -0. C. Privately Constructed and Owned Corporate Hangar — Tharp stated that he and Gardinier had been involved in some discussions with a group interested in building their own hangar at the airport. Tharp noted the Airport Commission needed to set some policy decisions regarding privately constructed facilities. Tharp noted that one of these is a policy regarding self - fueling systems. Tharp stated that as he had been Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 2 researching airports around the state. The pattern he saw was that if the airport had a full -time Fixed Base Operator then generally the self - fueling operations were not allowed. If there was not a full time FBO, they were treated on a case by case basis. Tharp stated that there was one underground storage tank on the field that was attached to a building leased by the University of Iowa. Tharp commented that as the Airport Commission considered whether to allow more of these systems, they need to focus on the liability issues associated with the facilities. Tharp noted that there are a number of regulations in play and having some controls over the handling would be critical. Tharp noted that if the Airport Commission were to allow these self - fueling facilities they should be above ground systems. Members discussed different options regarding the storage tanks. Mascari asked about the possible location of the hangar. Tharp responded that the best area available now is just east of the university hangar. Gardinier questioned whether the Commission wanted to set the precedent of allowing these tanks or supporting the FBO on the field. Horan asked Wolford about how much fuel is in a typical delivery. Wolford responded to his experience with fueling. Wolford mentioned that Jet Air would be willing to work with any potential group to provide fuel services. Wolford mentioned Jet Air has a similar operation with the airline operating out of the Burlington Airport. Members continued to discuss the options of supporting the FBO versus self - fueling. Horan asked about development in the south area regarding folks putting in facilities there. Tharp noted that there are plans in place for service roads to serve the south area until a time that traffic might justify a second facility. Gardinier stated that she would not like to see self - fueling systems. Mascari stated he agreed with Gardinier's position. Members agreed to a consensus not to allow self - fueling systems. Tharp mentioned the other item of concern was infrastructure to the area. Tharp noted that if there is a group that does lease ground getting taxiway infrastructure to the area would be something that needed to be done. Tharp noted that in the immediate future they would be able to work within the Hangar L project to extend the taxiway to the area. Crane asked about how much cost they'd be looking at. Tharp mentioned he had asked Eric Scott to put some costs together and stated the estimate is about $80,000 to build the taxiway out to the building. Mascari asked about road access to the area. Tharp mentioned that initially the entrance point would be the common gate by the maintenance shop. He mentioned that phase 2 of the Hangar L project does finish the area with a parking area for direct access from the south. Gardinier restated she wanted to express that the Commission would be happy to have these facilities at the airport. D. Hangar L — i. Consider a resolution setting public hearing for plans and specification for Phase 1 construction — Tharp stated he had the plans and specifications in hand. Crane moved and Assouline seconded resolution #A11 -28. Motion passed 5 -0. E. Terminal Building Brick Repair — i. Consider a resolution setting public hearing for plans and specifications for the Terminal Brick Rehabilitation Repair Project — Tharp stated he had the plans and specifications in hand. Mascari moved and Crane seconded resolution #A11 -29. Motion passed 5 -0. F. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM — i. Runway 7/25 & 12/30 — Hughes stated that they did finally get closure of the grants for the previous work. Tharp noted they did get their final payment from FAA. ii. Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated they were working with Dulek and the attorney for the Hargrave property to lower some light poles. Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 3 iii. 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Hughes stated they have hit winter shutdown. He stated the contractor needs to do some stabilization work to complete that process. Horan asked about when the project would be restarted. Hughes stated they'd be looking toward mid - March. Hughes stated the contractor has about 50 working days expired out of the 80 days allowed in the contract. a. Consider a resolution approving Task Order #8 with AECOM for design and construction services for Airport Electrical and Lighting Rehabilitation — Horan asked about what all was in the project. Tharp responded that the project would consist of LED light replacements for the entire airport's exterior lighting. Tharp noted that originally he had been working with the Public Works department but due to the work and the knowledge AECOM has from previous electrical work he wanted to pull it back and ask them for assistance. Horan moved and Assouline seconded resolution #A11 -29. Motion approved 5 -0. b. Consider a resolution approving Task Order #9 with AECOM for design services agreement for construction of Runway 7/25 parallel taxiway paving and lighting — Mascari moved and Crane seconded resolution #A11 -30. Motion approved 5 -0 G. 2011 Pavement Repairs i. Consider a Resolution Accepting Work for concrete replacement by All American Concrete - Hughes stated the repair work had been completed by All American concrete. Mascari stated he liked the work. Mascari moved and Horan seconded resolution #A11 -31. Motion approved 5 -0. H. FY2013 FAA Airport Improvement Program Application — Hughes handed out the summary sheets from the program application. Hughes stated the sheets go along with the comments from the last meeting. Gardinier asked about the Master Plan section and the process for it. Tharp noted this would be a large process for the 20 -year plan, with the last plan completed in 1996. Members discussed the application package items. Horan stated they need to begin planning for the south development now. Hughes stated that would also be a component of the master plan. I. Airport "Operations ": Tharp noted that there was some electrical repair work to still be done. L Strategic Plan - Implementation — No discussion. ii. Budget — Crane asked about the land rental account noting the revenue planned and paid to date did not appear to be in line. Tharp noted that the bulk of the account is the farm lease payment. iii. Management — a. FY2011 Annual Report — Tharp noted that he had placed a draft of the report into the packet for review. He noted that with the budget schedule set up they could approve the report with revisions in January. Gardinier asked if Tharp would send the report electronically. Tharp noted he would send the electronic file to everyone. b. Consider a resolution approving contract amendment to Airport Maintenance Agreement with Jet Air — Mascari asked what services Jet Air provides to which Tharp responded. Tharp stated the desire to extend the contract is two parts. Tharp noted that if the contract were not renewed at the end of the year, the Airport would be scrambling to provide for winter services in the middle of the season. Tharp noted that the other reason was to clean up and clarify some of the language in the contract to better clarify the responsibilities of each party. Members Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 4 discussed the extension. Mascari noted that the monthly maintenance generated by Jet Air should be completed by Tharp. Crane moved resolution #A11 -32 and seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 5 -0. c. Airport Operations Specialist Position 1. Evaluation Process - Tharp noted that he was due for evaluation in February and he put this on the agenda for the Commission to have an opportunity to discuss the evaluation process. Gardinier asked if Tharp would send the evaluation form to her and she would forward to members. J. FBO / Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air / Air Care — Matt Wolford handed out the maintenance activity list. Wolford noted the hangar door seals were completed prior to Thanksgiving. Wolford noted they were waiting for the tractor blade. Tharp noted he had talked with the equipment shop and that it was due yet within the week. Mascari asked about how the purchases work. Wolford noted they usually purchase via their business credit card and then give receipts to Tharp. Tharp noted that Jet Air does have some purchasing authority in the contract to allow them to purchase things on behalf of the airport. Wolford stated that they were working on some international aircraft sales. Philip Wolford stated they had sold 4 corporate jet aircraft recently. He stated that one went to Germany, but the others stayed locally. Philip Wolford mentioned that a number of previously frequent charter customers are looking at purchasing their own aircraft. Philip Woolford brought up the declared distances on the runway and how they impact the airport operations. Members discussed the runway distances with Wolford. Horan asked about the changes in the weather station. Tharp noted that the default website is set to the National Weather Service aviation site. Mascari stated that when the service was installed it was cutting edge, but now due to the other technology it wasn't as popular. Tharp noted the subscription cost was $2100 per year. ii. Iowa Flight Training Tharp noted that both instructors appeared to be flying a lot. Gardinier noted they had two simulators online for use. K. Subcommittee Reports Gardinier noted that no subcommittee was due to report. She noted that the infrastructure committee was due to report in January. L. Commission Members' Reports — Mascari thanked Dulek for her work on recent correspondence. M. Staff Report —Tharp noted that he had been in contact with the owner of Whirlybird Helicopters and that they were interested in having an opportunity to discuss with the Commission a return to operation. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: Members set the next meeting for January 19, 2012. ADJOURN: Gardinier moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7:40pm CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 5 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time N N N NAME TERM EXP. iv r�i o � 0) N 1 0) .1 � 3 can � ° N U, c\n Rick 03/01/13 X X X X X X X X X/E X X X X X X X Mascan Howard 03/01/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Horan Minnetta 03/01/15 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Gardinier Jose 03/02/12 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X Assouline Steve Crane 03/02/14 O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E X Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time ; IP20 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 14, 2011 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin, Will Jennings MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Eckstein STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holocek OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hanick, Judith Pasco, Michael Lensing, Mark Pries, Carolyn Gross, Crissy Canganelli, Clark Spencer, John Thomas RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Grenis, Sheerin, and Plagge, Jennings were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 17 & SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings moved to approve the minutes for August 17, 2011. Grenis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0 (Eckstein excused). Jennings moved to approve the minutes for September 14, 2011. Plagge seconded. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 2 of 8 A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0 (Eckstein excused). OTHER: A request submitted by Steve Streb to extend the term of a special exception (EXC11- 00007) to allow a wet -batch concrete manufacturing plant in the General Industrial (1 -1) zone on Independence Road, north of 420th Street and south of Liberty Drive. Walz stated that the applicant was not present at the meeting. The issue is that there has been a filing on the case and the applicant is asking that until the litigation is settled that he can have that time plus some additional time to secure financing and to get the plans ordered. Sheerin opened public hearing. Sheerin closed public hearing. Plagge stated that this seems like a reasonable request. Jennings noted that there were a couple of typos that needed to be corrected. Jennings moved to extend the term of the special exception EXC11 -00007 for 12 months. Grenis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0 (Eckstein excused). VARIANCE: VAR11- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a variance from the minimum lot area requirement for a duplex use in the RNS -12 zone located at 331 N Gilbert Street. Jennings recused himself for VAR11 -00001 because his primary residence is within 300 feet of the property. Jennings noted he has had a prior relationship with the applicant and has donated his time for fund raising. Walz told the Board the difference between a variance and a special exception. Staff is looking at the zoning and the burden that it places on the property that it cannot earn a reasonable rate of return and it cannot be used for a use that would be allowed in the zone. Walz stated that she was focusing on whether the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent with the zoning chapter and the Comprehensive Plan. Walz stated that the RNS -12 zone was set up for single -zones found in the older neighborhoods near downtown. Over time as the University grew there was more demand for rental units near campus and the single - family homes started to be converted into duplex and multi - family uses. This caused issues with the alleys becoming run down, parking issues and aesthetic issues. The City rezoned neighborhoods that had a single - family character which is the RNS -12 zone. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 3 of 8 That zone allows a multi - family use that is in compliance with the RM -12 they were grandfathered in. Under both zones RM -12 and RNS -12 a duplex use requires a 6,000 square feet of lot area. Walz stated that the applicant provided an aerial analysis that discussed some of the properties within 300 feet. The applicant stated that the large house on a small lot that it was not reasonable house to be converted into a single - family use. Staff looked at the lots that were within 300 square feet that were less than the 6,000 square feet and how the lots were being used. Walz pointed out on a map the lots that were being used for more than one unit, the properties that do not have a rental permit, and the single - family units that have rental permits. Of the 21 lots that are nonconforming 11 function as single - family units that meets the occupancy standard. In staff's view it is not unreasonable variance and there are houses that are functioning that way with a large house being on a small lot. Staff believes that this does not meet the RNS -12 standard. Walz stated that the applicant stated that the Shelter House building is in need of renovation. The property served as a shelter for over 25 years and allowed up to 29 roomers. The property is not unique and it is not untypical to have large houses on small lots in the North Side Neighborhood. Staff's view is the hardship is in the owners own making. Walz reminded the Board that the variance is not about if the property should remain a shelter or duplex it is whether the zoning so restricts the property that it cannot be reasonably used. On this property staff has to think if it is reasonable to expect a single - family rental or owner occupied use on a 4,000 square foot lot in a house that is a little over 2,000 square feet. Staff feels that the zoning analysis indicates that it is not unreasonable. The condition of the house is of the owners own making. Staff believes that granting the variance would be counter to the general purpose to the RNS -12 zone and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that granting special rights to one property based on characteristics shared by others would under mind the intent of the RNS - 12 zone. This then may lead to other special requests for special treatment. Staff is recommending denial. Grenis asked if there was a historic district in the vicinity. Walz stated that there was and pointed it out on the map. She stated that it would only affect the exterior of the property. Walz confirmed that the property is located within the historic district. Plagge asked when the RNS -12 zone was put in place. Walz stated it was in the early 1990's. Plagge asked when the shelter house tried to build a new facility. Holocek stated that it was in 2004. Sheerin asked if it was staff's position that it does not practically destroy the value of the property. Walz stated that the price that can be earned on the property is based on the condition of the house rather than the zoning of the house. There has been interest on the structure but the renovations that are needed are quite substantial. Grenis asked that if the size of the house in relation to the other houses is average or slightly above. Walz stated that quite a few of the houses are in the 1700 to 2000 square foot range. She thought that it was probably in the upper end but that there are other larger houses in the area. Grenis asked why this house wasn't included in the University program. Walz stated that the University did consider the house and it would have required too much renovation for the asking price. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 4 of 8 Sheerin asked if the applicant would like to speak. Kevin Hanick, 88 Hickory Heights Lane, Iowa City, IA stated that he is the applicant and the real- estate broker of the property. He corrected the report stating that the house went up for sale on January 7, 2011 and the original listing price was $200,000. Hanick stated that they have reduced the price to $169,000. There has been one offer that went to City staff in the request of the same thing in allowing more than three unrelated persons to live on the property. Since that discussion with the staff the offer has been dropped. Hanick stated that before the property was a shelter house it was used with multi - family zoning. The house was a heavily used property as a shelter house. There has been a new shelter house created in Iowa City and the question is now what to do with the property. Hanick stated that they have put in a legitimate open marketing effort for a year. Due to the limitation of the use there have not been any results in finding a buyer. Hanick discussed the pros of the house and stated that most of the work that does need to be done is cosmetic. Hanick stated that out of the 40 properties in the area there are only 4 that are single - family homes. The proposed duplex use will not change the look of the property. There is adequate off - street parking available. The house has a front and back stairwell so the converting would be a simple manor. This area is a heavy student area being that it is so close to campus. Hanick pointed out that this property is not a conversion from a single - family house and hasn't been for about 50 years. Sheerin asked about the shelter house possibly moving back to the property. Hanick stated it is because they need to do something with the property. He stated that the property would be an addition to the new shelter house. Sheerin asked if the shelter house considered doing any of the cosmetic renovations to the house. Hanick stated that there was talk but not really because there is unknown what it would be used for in the future. Grenis asked if Hanick believed that the majority of people that look at the place decide to not buy it because they cannot use it for more than a three - person household. Hanick confirmed that was correct. Grenis asked if any of the potential buyers were talking about tearing down the house and using the property for something else. Hanick stated he has never heard that. Grenis asked if in the seven years that they were moving out of the house if Hanick thought that the depreciation of the house has gone down. Hanick stated that he didn't know on that. There could have been up to 40 people living in the house for a night and over years of that the house has been used. He stated that it would be nice to have someone come in a buy it and make it into a duplex that can be used. Sheerin asked if it was Hanick's opinion that if the variance was not granted if it would destroy the value of the property. Hanick stated that he was not sure what the bottom is and they are currently at $40,000 below the assessed value. Grenis asked what the assessed value of the land. Hanick stated that the assessment is $200,430 of that the land value is $60,000 and the dwelling $140,430. Grenis asked if there have been any appraisals done on the property. Hanick stated that there has not been any done. Walz stated that there was a statement made about their only being four conforming uses. She clarified that that statement was incorrect in the zoning analysis there are items that are in peach and orange that are conforming. Walz clarified that a single - family use is one dwelling unit. There are a number of single - family uses in the neighborhood. Sheerin opened the public hearing. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Michael Lensing, 411 Fairchild Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he was involved with the Shelter House. He stated that the City has a great opportunity to take this house and make it an amazing single - family property. Lensing stated that it would be good for the University program. The house could be purchased by young professionals. There was discussion on how the zoning cannot restrict stating the property could only be sold not rented. Mark Pries, 1128 Danbigh, Iowa City, IA, stated that he was the pastor of the church in the area as well as owning two properties. Pries stated that he is on the Shelter House board. He stated that it was a puzzle on what to do with the house. He stated he was hoping that the Board could come up with an answer. Carolyn Gross, lives outside Iowa City, stated that they use to own a home two blocks from the Shelter House. She reminded everyone that before dorms were built students lived all over town. Gross feels that making it a duplex would not be taking it out of the historic realm. The use of this property was not by the owners it was for the community and the City. If the zoning is denied it is permitting all other uses other than what has been in the property and there are no other options other than leaving the property vacant. Grenis asked if the property is not used as a Shelter House with in the next month if they were no longer allowed to be a Shelter House. Gross stated that they have in writing from City staff stating that they would be able to use the property after the year expiration as a Shelter House. Holocek stated that she was unaware of what Gross had in writing but that there is a larger analysis to the zoning code regulations. Judith Pasco, 317 Fairchild Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she lives within the block of the property. She stated she is against the application. Pasco talked about the character of the neighborhood. She stated that she has no problem with students living around her house. The North Side Neighborhood has been a good area for the Shelter House. Pasco stated that the housing market has been bad lately and it is not because of the condition of the house. She told how her house was a rooming house when they purchased it and they voluntarily changed the zoning to be a single - family house so that in the future it would stay as it is. Clair Spencer, 413 N Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she lived one block north of the Shelter House. She feels that there is a market for that house. Spencer stated that there is a need to maintain the stability of the neighborhood. She stated she speaks against granting the variance. John Thomas, 509 Brown Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he was against the application. He agrees with the statement that staff believes granting special rights to one property based on characteristics that are shared by other properties in the neighborhood and would undermine the intent of the RNS -12 zone and may lead to further requests for special treatment. This variance would be a step in the wrong direction. Lensing responded to some of the commenters. He stated that a duplex is permitted within the zone and is harmonious with RNS -12 except for the lot size. Walz referred to the analysis and stated that the adjacent corners the houses are single - family uses. The Cities statement that it is of the owners own making doesn't mean that the owners of the property did the damage. The house was put into good use for many years and the City did Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 6 of 8 approve the Shelter House and was involved with it by granting money to it. The house should revert to a use that is allowed in the zone. Sheerin closed public hearing. Plagge stated that he is a resident of North Side Neighborhood. The City has financially supported the Shelter House. This is not a private property owner trying to convert the property back to a nonconforming use. The property was affiliated with the City and it was for a good cause and that needed to be taken into consideration. Grenis stated that this is a complex issue, it is unique in that it was a help to the community. The RNS -12 zone was developed to target these types of situations. Sheerin stated that this case is very difficult. This is an unusual property because of the way it was used and benefiting the community. Sheerin stated that nothing that she has heard in the testimony makes her believe that it will destroy the value of the property. It is the job of the Board of Adjustment to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan is followed and to make these house single - family uses and this application doesn't seem to follow it. Sheerin stated that it is important to think about that if the house doesn't sell and the intent to make it back into a Shelter House. Plagge move to approve VAR11 -00001 application for a variance of minimum lot size requirement for duplex use in the RNS -12 zone located at 331 North Gilbert Street. Grenis seconded. Plagge moved to approve due to it not being contrary to the public interest and the proposed variance will not threaten the neighborhood integrity nor will it have a substantial adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning chapter. It will not contravene with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Sheerin spoke her findings stating that the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity nor have a substantially adverse effect on the user value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. The proposed variance will in fact threaten the neighborhoods integrity and will substantially have an adverse effect on the user values of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. Because this could set the stage for similar requests from other properties that could have a higher value if allowed rights to a duplex to family use. The proposed variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning chapter and will contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as amended because it would set the stage for similar requests of the property. The goals of the Central District Plan include objectives focusing on achieving a healthy balance of rental and owner occupied housing in the districts of the older neighborhood. Sheerin stated her finding that allowing this variance would be contravention of that plan. The property in question could yield a reasonable return if only used for the purpose allow in the zone that the property is located. This is because any diminishment in value of the property is tied to the condition of the house which is in need in substantial renovation and not its RNS -12 zoning. The legal standard is that not granting the variance would practically destroy the value Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 7 of 8 of the property. Sheerin stated that she has not heard any testimony supporting the conclusion that not granting this variance would practically destroy the value of the property. The house could be sold for a reasonable value. The owner situation is not unique or particular to the property in question and the situation is shared with other land owners in the area. 21 properties have lot areas of less than 6,000 square feet and of these ten properties contain more than one dwelling unit. 11 are single unit properties with maximum unrelated occupancy of three persons. Having zoning of this property as a single - family dwelling owner occupied or rental would not be unusual in the neighborhood as more than half the lots less than 6,000 square feet comply with the zoning code in this regard. The hardship is of the land owner or applicants own making or that of a predecessor and title because even though the use was of a benefit to the community the reality is that having 21 roomers in the property over the course of 25 years has likely altered or degraded the house to such an extent that its sale price as a single - family property has been substantially reduced. Grenis concurred with Sheerin's findings. Plagge stated that in regards to part one not contrary to public interest it would move the neighborhood towards significant compliance and is not similar to other properties within the area to be harmful in any way shape or form. With the neighborhood integrity he stated that conformity would be furthered by occupancy dropping by approximately 20 persons to unnecessary hardship. The conversion of the house to a 29 person complex and dropping it down to a three person residency would significantly destroy the property value. The owner's situation is unique to the property and with the Cities contribution to the state of the house and its use and that there are no other shelter houses or nonprofit organizations in the area would mean that it would not perpetuate further requests or adjustment for variances. The hardship is not the land owners or applicants own making or that it is of a predecessor in title. The city contributed to the land state there and the law suit has provided undue delay on the sale and the renovation of the house. Because it was serving the public good and general homelessness that it is more of a societal problem than it is of the owner's part in solving it. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 1 -2 ( Sheerin, Grenis against). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Grenis moved to adjourn. Plagge seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 3 -0 vote (Jennings recused, Eckstein excused). MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL IP21 PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, David McMahon, Alicia Trimble STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Joyce Carroll, Marlin Ingalls, John Roffman, Matt Roffman RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 915 E. Washington Street Peterson stated that this is the same property for which the foundation was approved last month. She said the property is in the 900 block of Washington Street in the College Hill Conservation District. Peterson showed a view of the site. Peterson said the site plan is pretty much the same as a month ago. She said the only added things are a sidewalk from the front porch to the public sidewalk, a ramp or sidewalk to the parking in the back, and some indication of landscaping. Peterson said the setback is 15 feet from the sidewalk Peterson showed the basement plan, which is slightly changed from a month ago. She said the rear stairway has been changed to simplify the building footprint. Peterson said the new basement plan shows windows on the east and west sides, with window wells. Peterson said the floor plans have not changed much from November, with the rear stairs being one of the biggest changes. She showed the main floor and the upper floor plans. Peterson said the roof plan has been revised. She said it is a gable end roof with hip -type roofs over the porches. She said the design is in the Queen Anne style. Peterson said the materials would be the fiber cement board clapboard siding. She said there is product information in the packet for the ornamental shingles for siding at the gable end. Peterson said the applicant's drawings appear to show asphalt shingles but on wall surfaces it would really be the Hardie product, with the scallops, as shown on the last sheet of the handout. Peterson said the windows would be a vinyl window. She said she does not have information on the front door, the columns, or the material for the railing and skirting at the porch. Peterson showed the west side of the duplex. She said the window shown at the basement level would be mostly concealed. Peterson showed the line representing the finished grade. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 2 Peterson showed the back elevation. She said the grade is almost up to the top of the foundation at that point. Baldridge asked if there are then two entrances from the rear and one from the front. Peterson confirmed this. Michaud asked if the two lower windows are casements for egress, and if they would appear to be double hung, or if they are really double hung. Peterson said she did not know. Michaud said that one of them has to be an egress window, so she thought maybe both of them were casements with the appearance of double hung windows. Peterson said the packet refers to the Gerkin brand of windows. She said she has not determined if the windows meet all of the guidelines, as she has been getting drawings up to the last minute. Peterson said, referring to the guidelines, that in many ways the proposed project is in compliance. She said there are also still some details that staff feels are not worked out. Peterson said she is still receiving drawings, and that is why she is recommending this be deferred, or that it be approved with the condition that the chair and staff would continue to work with the applicant. Ackerson asked what the nature is of the discrepancies at this point. Peterson responded that there is a gable front, and she believes there would be about a twelve -inch overhang. She said one of her concerns is how the soffit is actually constructed in this location. Peterson said she also does not have information on the products for the columns or the railings. She said there are problems with the dimensions and detailing of trim boards around the windows. Peterson said the window trim is all a vinyl product, and she was uncertain whether that was acceptable. Wagner said it is acceptable to use fiber cement siding, but not vinyl siding, in this district. Miklo said this is a conservation district. Wagner said that if vinyl windows are acceptable, then vinyl siding would be acceptable by the same logic. Peterson read from the guidelines that wood and wood substitutes must be durable, accept paint, and retain the appearance and function of wood. Miklo said that based on previous cases that would mean cement board. Michaud said the Commission has come across a lot of vinyl that has failed. She said that a conservation district might be different for replacing windows, but this is new construction, so it would need to have very long -term durability. Michaud asked Peterson if she is saying the trim doesn't look right at the windows on the first floor level. Peterson said she was not sure about the proportions of the trim. Peterson said she has seen Queen Anne properties in the neighborhoods here where there is a continuous horizontal trim board and that it is also the window head. She said the trim board between the two floors of this project looks too wide. Michaud said that on the Victorians she has seen, she just doesn't remember seeing horizontal, lap siding between the two windows, and that is what doesn't look right about it to her. She stated that the connecting sill and the header are correct; it just looks strange to have that horizontal, lap siding between the two windows. Peterson said they could also just have their own sills and head trim. Peterson said the drawings look good with the trim lined up with the rear porch, and she wondered if it could line up at the front porch. She said there should be the same height of columns, front and back. Peterson asked the applicant if he had anything to add. John Roffman said he is the applicant. He stated that, regarding the front porch, he had looked at lining up the trim bands, but the second floor windows right now are only 42 inches tall and he would lose about a foot and one -half of window height if the trim bands lined up. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 3 John Roffman said the porch roof is shown at about a 4:12 pitch, which is about the minimum for a shingled roof. This minimum roof pitch allows him to maximize the window height above this roof. He said that lining up trim bands just doesn't work out. Peterson asked about the entablature that was added at the columns and how deep it would be. John Roffman said it is 12 inches. Michaud asked about the triple window on the left side and why the roof goes up higher. John Roffman said there is an offset in the porch. He said the porch is deeper on the east (left) side than it is on the other side. Michaud said that rather than flattening out, which would create a problem, this is going straight back. John Roffman confirmed this. Peterson said that if this is a flatter pitch, one would have to go to membrane roofing. Miklo said 12 inches seems too deep. He said another possibility would be to have it eight inches, and that would make up some of the difference. Ackerson said there are houses on both sides, and this new duplex will be on top of a rise from the street. He said he is not sure how many would even see that elevation, certainly not from that perspective. Miklo said the neighbors would see it from their windows. Michaud said she has just never seen this continuing pitch on a Victorian. Peterson said the houses on either side don't have the same detailing, so there isn't a clue there. Regarding the front elevation, Peterson said that typically older houses would have a window or a vent in the peak of the gable. She said that is something that might be appropriate here. John Roffman said that would be in the rafter space. Peterson said it would more likely be a vent. Michaud said that has been done before. Swaim stated that it would distinguish more between the two planes. Peterson pointed out that there are columns shown, but the column locations are not consistent at each of the porches. She said it needs to be considered whether full columns should be placed where the porch meets the building. Peterson said that historically it would have been an engaged half column, or a pilaster. Swaim said one issue is whether the Commission should defer this to get more specific details, vote on it as is, or leave it up to staff and the chair to work with the applicant to refine this. Miklo said if Commission members are generally comfortable with the direction this is going and the general concept, the Commission might want to turn it over to Peterson and the chair to decide. Miklo said if the Commission feels there are a lot of questions and is not quite happy with this, it could be deferred. Swaim asked if the fact that the foundation has changed slightly with the windows and the stairs would need any separate action. Miklo said it would not. Baldridge asked if it is finished space in the basement. John Roffman replied that it is not. Regarding the basement windows, he said they have to have a window for secondary egress. Michaud said that two would not be required, and John Roffman agreed but said he wanted more light for the basement. Peterson said last month the Commission said it would approve the basement if the applicant worked out the rear stairs, which has been done. She said the other change is the windows. John Roffman said that the window area actually was not shown well in the original drawing. He added that the foundation plan did not get any larger, and the change at the rear stair did not change the location of the back wall. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 4 Michaud said she was not clear about the difference between the narrower front windows and the wider side windows, and asked if they are separated by a wall. John Roffman said, no, they are in a bedroom, and if they need to be brought together, they could be brought together. John Roffman said they have to provide egress windows for the bedrooms. Regarding how the trim is finished off at the eave return on the gable ends, John Roffman said that if one looks at the Hardie brochure, the image in the upper left corner is how it would be. He called it a pigeon roost. Michaud asked John Roffman if he would be avoiding the pigeon roost or leaving it in. John Roffman replied that he would like to avoid it, but that is what it will be. Peterson said this is a traditional design, used in several styles. She stated that it is a classical way to resolve that overhang. Ackerson said he thinks it is very attractive. He said he is afraid that sometime down the road, however, someone will need to do something to keep critters off of this. Peterson said the roof has enclosed soffits, and on the gable end the roof is projecting a foot from the face of the gable. She said that if one has this condition, then one has to trim it, terminate it, somehow. Miklo stated that it is a pretty common feature, even in new construction, so he is not too concerned about problems with animals getting up there. He said that if it is not going to be designed this way, then the Commission needs to know what the alternative is, and either way the drawings need to be clear and understandable so we are sure it is buildable. Swaim said there are a fair number of details that are not worked out yet on this in terms of the Commission voting. Miklo said the two choices are to either defer this or approve it subject to Peterson and Trimble working out the details. Peterson pointed out that her report suggested deferral, but that was based on much different drawings. She said the new drawings are much closer to what the guidelines suggest so this is certainly a design the Commission could approve, with conditions. MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 915 E. Washington Street, pending final approval by staff and the chair. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 (Downing, McMahon, and Trimble absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: Peterson stated that this information is available in the packet and asked if anyone had additional comments. DISCUSS CITY PARK LOG CABINS Carroll, Program Supervisor of the Parks and Recreation Department, introduced herself. She said she has worked for Parks and Recreation for over 30 years and is in charge of the art program and most of the children's social activities. Carroll said that her history with the log cabins goes way back to when she was a student at The University. Carroll said that about a year and one -half ago, the County Historic Preservation Commission had a new education coordinator that she wanted to meet with, because there are some cooperative activities between the City and County. Carroll said that she and Meghan chose to meet at the cabins and right away realized there was no way to do any programming at the cabins because of their condition. Carroll said she talked to her supervisor, and they have been moving forward since. She said they have had some help from the Planning Department, including Christina Kuecker and Lauren Ditzler, who helped put together the material provided to the Commission, including an application to the State for a TAN visit, which they were given. Carroll introduced Marlin Ingalls, who is with the Office of the State Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 5 Archaeologist and has done a lot of research on the log cabins, and she said he knows a lot more about their physical history than she could ever know. Ingalls said that this has turned into one of his pet projects for two reasons. He said that this is quite an exceptional resource, and when one looks at the information and the long history and the tie -in of the rural settlers and historic life, the construction, the location and relocation, and the replication of trading posts, all of these elements really produced exceptional handmade structures. Ingalls said that one of the difficulties is that they are handmade buildings, and they are complicated. He said there is no stud wall framing in these buildings and no plaster; what you see is what you get, and that is what historic housing in Johnson County consisted of. Ingalls said he has participated in the evaluation and restoration of about ten other log cabins at this point. He said the last one he was involved in was a nearly 8,000- square foot log building at the Anamosa Golf Club. Ingalls said it was all log and was built by prisoners from the Anamosa Prison and followed the 1917 National Park Service guidelines. Ingalls said the City Park cabin is a single -pin cabin, and the other one is a double -pin cabin with a dog trot. He said these are replicating original cabins built in Johnson County and were built by Johnson County pioneers. Ingalls referred to photographs showing both the qualities and deficits of the log cabins. He said that log cabins invariably bend and sink and invariably need a certain level of maintenance. Ingalls said the deferred maintenance on these structures is one of the biggest killers of them. He said that since they are made primarily out of old growth timber, they have survived surprisingly well, and they are not as bad as they look. Ingalls said the cabins are imminently restorable. He said that it will take some focus and planning to proceed on this. Ingalls said the current plan is to do them both at the same time. He said it will save a lot of time and effort. Ingalls showed a photograph of the single pin cabin. He said it is a replica, although it fooled him, as it is a 1880s cabin rather than a 1840s cabin. Ingalls said the hewing, the notching, and the corner notching are really exceptional. Ingalls said that one of the problems with these log cabins is the dense tree canopy. The leaves drop and collect on the roof; wet leaves and deep shade accelerate deterioration of the wood shingles. Ingalls said that roof repair is a big priority, and that he would like to get 75 years out of these cabins after they are restored. Ingalls said they are pretty much untouched, which is good for their accurate restoration. Ingalls showed a photograph of the southwestern corner of the single pin cabin. He said it is a good example of the elements that had to be reconstructed when it was moved. Ingalls stated that what he sees on the bottom are reconstructed logs and reinserted logs. Above this, other logs have been re- fitted into the corners in order to stabilize the cabin. Ingalls also noted the broad ax and felling ax marks on the hewn beams. Ingalls said one of the other problems is the chinking. He said that chinking can act like a water /moisture sponges. Ingalls showed on the lower right foundation level log, both wet rot and dry rot, which are kind of pervasive through the whole cabins. Ingalls said these cabins are surprisingly sturdy, because of the density and the size of the logs that are in them. He said that one can lose an inch on the surface of them, and it doesn't really make much difference. Ingalls said he has even encountered several of these cabins that caught on fire, charred, and then had the charring scraped off and the surfaces redone, and they were just as solid as when they were put up. He stated that they are very durable buildings, if they are maintained well. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 6 Ingalls showed a slide of the cabin to demonstrate its horizontal look and its integrity, and dry rot and wet rot. He said that one of the factors in these cabins is that they really have integrity — integrity of material and integrity of their segregated location. Ingalls said they are over the 50 -year guideline for the National Register in this location, after previous relocations. He said that there is a little bit of a hodgepodge of things, but for the most part they have very high integrity. Ingalls said the exteriors are problematic in a few places. He said that he has dealt with several of these cabins where this porous - looking material has been restored using various infusion methods and reconstituting agents that keeps the original look intact. Ingalls said these are fairly common methods in restoration and are safe for the environment and for people. Ingalls showed a photograph of logs that will have to be replaced. He said the only real difficulty is where to get the logs, and in previous cabins, the DNR has been welcoming in providing the logs. Ingalls said they can either be hewn into shape or sawed into shape. He said that one would be using the original historic fabric of the building, and even the logs in the photograph can be restored to their original condition, although time and money may be prohibitive for that. Ingalls added that if the foundation is no good, it does not matter what is put on top of it. He said that since the foundations here are failing but are not failed, they can all be reutilized, except for a few elements. Ingalls said the cabins can be leveled up and straightened, but they will have to be capped to the new grade with concrete or some other material, and other elements will have to be renewed for both redoing the access to the cabin and keeping infiltration and cracking to a minimum. Ingalls showed an example of the chinking problem. He said that once there is an open crack, everything that can will go in there. Ingalls showed an overview of the cabins, demonstrating that the interiors are actually in very good shape. He said there is essentially nothing wrong with the interiors, except that in the two -pin cabin, there are some issues related to water infiltration in the walls due to roof failings, but that can be mitigated pretty readily. Ingalls said it will take very little effort to get it back into shape. Regarding windows, Ingalls said that some of the windows are from the 1850s, and some of the windows are from the 1880s. He said these buildings were an accretion of everyone's parts and pieces, and that's how these things were built. Ingalls said these were done in a very short period of time and moved into and functioned very well. Ingalls displayed a photograph showing one of the worst elements of this, due to the roof failure. He said there is water damage and mold, which is not a serious mold but is wet rot and dry rot, which is not particularly dangerous. Ingalls said there is not a great deal of mildew, but all that can be mitigated by boron infusion into the logs. He said that can be done a couple of times, and it will seal them up and prevent any more mold, mildew, and insect infestation for the next 75 years. Ingalls said that sometimes there is a log that looks good but isn't, and sometimes there is one that looks terrible but isn't. He said it is kind of a piece by piece thing, but there is actually no timber in the photograph that cannot be restored. Ingalls said the roof is a different situation. Ingalls said that most of the subsheathing to nail the shingles to is in good shape. He said that there is one section where some of the subsheathing will have to be removed when the roof is put back on, but the rafters and all the original material can be saved and used. Ingalls said it is possible to repurpose some buildings and rafters from other buildings to insert there, and he did not think anyone would know the difference. Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 7 Ingalls said the large windows there and on the other side were used when the Girl Scouts occupied this for 20 years, and the windows would pull down for celebrations in the park. He said there are windows on both sides of the building that would be usable during activities. Ingalls said the inspection of the underpinnings of the logs and the floor joists show that the floor joists are like rocks; one might think they would be rotted out, but they are perfectly fine. He said the sill plate logs can be jacked up. Ingalls said the ones to the left side that look terrible really are not that bad, and the ones on the right can be spliced. He said one would keep 80% of it and splice in 20% of it and lift it up onto the original pilings. Ingalls said the sway back in the middle where the dog trot goes through has sunk, because the pilings have sunk. He said that can be jacked up easily and quickly. Ingalls said the center dog trot needs to have the concrete pulled out, and the concrete foundations on the other side have also been subject to some sinking and will have to be capped on the surfaces a couple of inches just to level the whole thing out. Ingalls said this can be done in sections, but the roof is probably the most primary thing to do. He said it is better to get it level and do the roof than it would be to do the roof and get it level. Ingalls said those things kind of need to go on concurrently. Ingalls said the chimneys are in good shape, and he feels that a high percentage of the material can be reused and not much would have to be replaced. He said the cabin does have electricity and could be a great place for young people to use and have access to the upper City Park and get a little bit of a Living History Farm kind of approach to how things were 170 years ago. Ingalls said this is not as bad as it looks, has very high integrity, and is a real asset to the City in connecting time and place and the history of Johnson County with the first settlers. He said this really is the only real connection to all these great people that made the City what it has developed into. Ingalls said that with a little fundraising and planning, the building could be stabilized to make it viable for another 75 years. He said the Optimist Club, Girl Scouts, and Cub Scouts have expressed an interest in donating. Michaud asked about the function of the dog trot. Ingalls said that is wood that was set in there vertically with a railing on top to put in the screened partitions. He said he would like to see the screens kept if possible. Ingalls said the buildings are supposed to be kept as built and designed, in order to keep the highest integrity. Ingalls said that historically, dog trots were just open breezeways through buildings. He said that people came along later and screened them in, closed them in, or did other things. Ingalls said they were designed to be just open breezeways through the building. Carroll said that the paperwork for the grant has been filed. She said the State has found that the cabins are eligible for the National Register. Carroll said that besides finding a way to begin working on the cabins, she feels it would be wise to find a way to actually make application and nominate the cabins for the National Register. She said she has discovered that they do not need to be in historic condition in order to be nominated. Carroll said this might be something the Commission could help with. Ingalls said he had signed on to do a TAN assessment, as he has been on the State's Technical Advisory Network for quite a long time as an architectural historian and archaeologist. He said that going through the TAN process would not cost the City anything. Ingalls said they take whatever action is necessary, and that sets its formal eligibility, its assessment of potential eligibility, and gets it in the records, with the preliminary work done by an architectural historian who is noted on the list of people who review these log cabins. Ingalls said that is not terribly complicated, and once that procedure is completed, it sets this up for the National Register nomination. He said that a property does not have to be listed on the National Register Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 8 of Historic Places to get grants from the State. Ingalls said it just has to be listed as eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places. He said it is therefore worth it to get on the list of eligible properties, and this is clearly eligible. Carroll said she has already received information from the State Historical Society to proceed with a TAN evaluation. Ingalls said this is a resource that is not just one of those picnic areas with poles and a slab, but this is complex. He said it is historical, it's interactive, and it has teaching and learning and other aspects to it that a regular park shelter does not have. Ingalls said these buildings are unique, and not only are they rare, but they are getting increasingly rarer. Ingalls said that Gilbert's trading post has been gone for a long, long time. He said it was gone by the 1870s at least. Ingalls said this is actually the only real replica by the men who worked on that building. He said these were the people here in 1840 and they worked at the trading post and they knew Gilbert and they built this cabin. Ingalls said it was 40 years after the fact, but nonetheless, this is as close as it gets. Ingalls said this is a recreation done by men who had actually been there. He said one doesn't get any closer to history than that. Swaim asked what kind of role the Commission might play. Ingalls responded that certainly word of mouth and fundraising and all of that needs to be initiated and pushed along, and to just have the Commission say it finds this favorable is a step in the right direction. Ingalls said if there could be some kind of clear statement that this is already an asset, but it is an underutilized asset; it is unique, and it has great potential for these educational and recreational activities. He said that in itself would be a positive statement that would help move things forward and could get the word out to various people that this can happen. Miklo said that the TAN grant has already been approved, and the State has provided some funding to put a plan together to stabilize if not restore the cabins. He said the plan has been started, and the next step is to come up with the funds to implement the plan. Ingalls confirmed this and said that concurrently with the plan is for someone to write the National Register nomination. He said he wanted to move the TAN forward to get it moved through the system and get it on the record and outline the basic restoration procedures and objectives. Swaim asked if it would then be appropriate for the Commission to write a letter of support. She said she would be willing to draft such a letter. Miklo said the National Register nomination is what the Commission and City staff would need help with. Ingalls said it would be good to get something in the papers and before the public and then get written endorsements from the Optimists Club and the Girl Scouts. He said he did not think he needed anything in writing at this phase, although he would like to have that later, but he would like the Commission to notify the Parks and Recreation Department that it supports this and supports the plan. Miklo said another resource would be Friends of Historic Preservation, in terms of fundraising. Ingalls stated that if this is untended for another two or three years, one will not really be able to salvage it, except at a cost of about three times what it would cost to do it now. He said he had worked recently with an experienced local contractor who would be interested in this project. Swaim said it sounds very promising. She said it is clear this project is in good hands. Ingalls said it can be done. He provided an estimate from the contractor he had recently used. Ingalls said the first phase of redoing the roof, jacking it up, and leveling it comes to a total of $53,000. He said the next phase of the interior reconditioning would be $20,000, and the final large -scale log replacement is Historic Preservation Commission December 8, 2011 Page 9 $30,000, totaling around $100,000. Ingalls said the estimate is probably about $20,000 over what it would actually cost. He stated that both buildings can be rehabbed to operational use for a 50 to 75 -year lifespan for $80,000 +, but the initial $50,000 is critical. Ingalls said at that point the buildings will still be usable, they'll be level, they'll be stable, and they'll be reroofed. He said that chinking the buildings could be a Scout project. Ingalls said he intends to also appeal to the Girl Scout alumnae who used the buildings for 20 years. Ingalls said that Carroll is going to be the lead on this to coordinate it, but he would like to help her. He said he knows the contractors. Ingalls said the Commission might have connections with regard to fundraising and other issues. The consensus of the Commission was to give the project a show of support. Ingalls said he could perhaps be a point person with regard to writing a newspaper piece or getting people out there to get this in front of the public. Swaim thanked Ingalls and Carroll for the presentation and said they could count on the Commission for its support. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2011: MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's November 10, 2011 meeting, as written. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 (Downing, McMahon and Trimble absent). OTHER: Regarding the project where the synagogue is currently located on Washington and Johnson Streets, Miklo said he could not go into too much detail, because it will be a future agenda item. He said there is a rezoning proposal there, and the building will probably come down and be replaced with an apartment building. Miklo said the property is in a conservation district, so the Commission would have the task of approving the exterior design. He said the proposal for the rezoning will probably be before the Planning and Zoning Commission in January. Miklo said that even if it is not rezoned, there is likely to be an apartment building constructed on the site under the current zoning. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z N O� VO Z U Ow QW V M Q N WD N Z W W m �- aF- La R O j r x x x O x X X X x X X X X X X LLI X X X X r ti c X X w w X X X X X X X r CD x x x x o o x Q Q x x r X X O X X X X X O X X X X X X X X O X X O co X X p X X - x X - X x ti x x x X X 0 X X X X X X X X - - x LLJ O to x x x x x X X X X X CD X o x x x o x x x x x CD X X x o X X o 0 o X x N X X X O X X X r a X ui W co N M N M N M M N M d' N M �t N M N N M N N M � N M M N M N N co F- a Q Z Z w Y z O U) w U 0 M: ~ LL Q = �- Cl) W d Q J J O z Z O Z Q Z O Q O ZO = Q a p Q V J z C9 �_ Q Q Z a 2 Q U Q LLI m I- Y LL Z a E O 7 -00 N o w Z L U — X W •wC E ,Z) N a) E� � a) m -OQZ o a- Q u u w -S Z XOOZ ' IP22 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 6:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Cheryll Clamon, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Charles Drum, Michael McKay, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 2011 MINUTES: Zimmerman Smith moved to approve the minutes. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Long talked about the 93 homes that have been constructed with the CDBG Disaster funded Single Family New Homes program with another 15 homes that will be built in the next few months. The City just found out that there will be a round 4 of the program that will allow for another 32 homes to be constructed over the next 15 months. The price of the homes HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2011 PAGE 2 of 4 will have to be below $150,000. He discussed that the home buyer will receive 25% down payment assistance that is forgiven over five years. Long stated that VNA recently purchased a parcel of land near Sycamore Mall with CDBG funds. They will be constructing a new facility next year at that location. PUBLIC MEETING: DISCUSSION REGARDING FY13 AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS: Discuss Aid to Agencies Allocation Process Long discussed the Aid to Agencies process. Long asked Commission members to review the materials and to make recommendations for the funding process. Long stated that the Commission would need to come up with the allocation plan for the January meeting. Chappell stated that he felt that the ranking form used for the regular CDBG /HOME allocation process may not be the appropriate one to use for this process. He asked if staff can prioritize the priority levels of the applications into high, medium and low. McKay stated that the money is coming from Iowa City tax payers. He wanted to see if they could pick the applications that have the most impact on Iowa City residents. The Commission discussed ways to reformat the ranking form and came up with the following questions to ask each applicant prior to the next HCDC meeting: 1. Please list the counties and municipalities that you serve. Is there a state or federal organization that mandates your service area? 2. Where are your clients /consumers coming from? Please provide a breakdown by municipality /community or county (if from rural area). e.g. Iowa City, West Branch, rural Iowa County, etc... 3. Please provide a breakdown of the income of your clients /consumers by the following categories, if possible. Please see the attached income chart. a. 0 -30% b. 31 -50% c. 51 -80% d. >81 % 4. Briefly describe efforts to secure funding from other entities, municipalities, counties, etc... The questions will be incorporated in to a new ranking form for the allocation of funds at the January meeting. MONITORING REPORTS: • Successful Living — Rental Rehabilitation & Van Acquisition The rental rehabilitation project will begin shortly. Drum talked about Successful Living and they were able to purchase a 12 person van just before Thanksgiving HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2011 PAGE 3 of 4 and were able to pick up the clients to take them to a Thanksgiving dinner. The van will be used to transport clients to activities and appointments. Shelter House — Rental Rehabilitation & Operations The rehabilitation project is going well and is under budget. Iowa City Housing Authority — Tenant Based Rent Assistance The Iowa City Housing Authority said the TBRA program is about 50% complete. ADJOURNMENT: Chappell made a motion to adjourn. Clamon seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. z O 0 U F- Z W d 0 J W W O Z D 00 UN I) W CO 0w< S 0 11 Z O U) O U F- Z W a0 OW w� W W r' r Q N Z � = z H Oa U 0 z a Z N D N rn X jC: a) c c N aQZ° II II II w Y X O Z w x x x x x x x N 0 r Co W X 0 X X X X X X r N W W 0 X X X X O r T x x o x x x x o x rn r x x x x x x x o LIJ N ; X X X O X X X X x x X x x x x CD ; X X X X X X X X M ti x X X X X X X X N x x x x x x x IL � N �T M M N M � N W O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N - W rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn H J W J U J Q W � U W J W 2 Q Z W O J = in Q cvn a a - a V w z a O O z } W Z m U U O O C7 = N N rn X jC: a) c c N aQZ° II II II w Y X O Z MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION December 20, 2011 Lobby Conference Room PRELIMINARY 01 _U0_1� IP23 Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., Dianne Day, David B. Brown, Diane Finnerty, Harry Olmstead, Connie Goeb, Howard Cowen, Martha Lubaroff. Absent: Staff Present Others Present: Wangui Gathua. Stefanie Bowers. Andrew Alemao. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Day called the meeting to order at 18:01. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Andrew Alemao: This is more of a civil liberties issue than a human rights issue, but um we're actually going to show up at the City Council meeting and use the public there. But ah Gerard Mitchell actually advised me that like this meeting would be going on at six, so this would probably be a more sympathetic crowd to address this issue. Bowers: Before you get started can everyone who is going to speak give their name and last name. Alemao: I'm Andrew Alemao and I'm an Iowa City resident. I just wanted to address the issue of pot in Iowa City. I probably look like someone probably that this would effect and it does. Like maybe it affects some of you too, but since ah you're not students and you're upstanding figures in this town that you're not as worried about. But tomorrow I have to go to jail for 30 days for something that I did that was related to very small quantities amounts of marijuana. I've just been tired of getting hassled by the police in this town over a plant that was legal when this country was founded. In fact was absolutely mandated that if you own so much land in the 18th century, in the 13 colonies you were supposed to grow hemp. If I'm not mistaken I believe the constitution was actually written on hemp paper and I know that like the City Council can't you know reverse laws or whatever, but I do know that they have the power to influence police priorities. In places where they have done that already like San Francisco and Philadelphia they have saved their court system quite a bit of money every month by not prosecuting people. Instead people who get caught with marijuana get like the equivalent of a speeding ticket essentially. It happened to a friend of mine recently in Ohio who was in a band and they were touring and he got pulled over and thought he was going to get arrested and go to jail, and the tour would have to be like called off. Instead he was allowed to just pay a fine and show up to court the next day. This is great and he had no idea Ohio was like that you know. We can still keep doing what we've been doing, and ah so like he was thrilled. You know he was still; he paid $150 or $175 or whatever the fine was. It might have been more than that. He couldn't have been happier that that's how they handled it there. I think the fact that we spend a lot of money incarcerating non - violent people such as myself and other people who've been caught engaging in this sort of criminal activity. It just goes to show that we're not being fiscally responsible or socially responsible as we could be in this town that we consider to be progressive, or at least as progressive as a town in Iowa. I would like if anyone here has more direct connections with the City Council, if somehow this could be put on the agenda. I won't be able to show up for another 30 days or so, but I would definitely be interested in attending a meeting where this is discussed and I ah, if there's anything that anyone else would like to say or ask about it. I'd appreciate that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 2 of 9 Day: I guess I have a question maybe for you, is the Police Review Board an avenue here or does that not work that way. Bowers: You can give them a call. I don't have the number on me, but if you look either on line or in the phone book and look up the City Clerk. They are the staff of the Police Citizen's Review Board and I would talk to them about your rights and you can further decide whether you want to follow that up with an actual complaint. Alemao: I'm not accusing any specific officer of misconduct, it's just. Day: But just possibly policy or whatever. I mean I'm not sure. I'm just saying that that's a board that is closer to the Police Department. Alemao: I do feel like um students and especially like younger minorities at least that I've met in county jail. They feel like they're being victimized and that they're you know basically guilty of nothing more than life style crime. I do think that um based on my experience spending various amounts of time in the County Jail throughout the four, five years I've lived in this town now, that like it does seem like higher rates of minorities are in the County Jail. Walking around downtown Iowa City I don't see like a third of the people being like darker than me you know what I mean? In the County Jail they are you know like that mismatch I'm also concerned about, whether they're there for drugs or something else. I don't know. I don't believe that they're you know committing more crime. I think that there's something else at play here. I needed an audience to address this before I went down to the bed and breakfast on Capital Street tomorrow so thank you. Bowers: This isn't on the agenda, so really there shouldn't be a dialogue. That's not on the agenda so it's just public comment. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE November 15,2011 MEETING: Bowers pointed out that Commissioner Goeb was incorrectly referenced in the minutes by her former last name and therefore the minutes would need to be amended. Commissioner Olmstead moved to approve the amended minutes. Commissioner Lubaroff seconded. The motion passed 6 -0. (Townsend, Finnerty not present for vote) 2012 CHOICE EVENT Bowers updated Commissioners on the keynote speaker, date and location for the Choice Event 2012. Commissioner Olmstead moved to support with a $200 donation. Commissioner Day seconded. The motion failed 2 -6. (Townsend, Brown, Cowen, Finnerty, Goeb, Lubaroff in the negative) YOUTH AWARDS ADULT HONOREE Commissioner Brown reported that he spoke to Henri Harper, an incoming Commissioner for 2012, about assisting with this Award. Commissioners Olmstead and Goeb also will serve on the subcommittee. IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE Day. I read the minutes I believe or whatever that, but anyway they didn't really talk about the immigration stuff at the last one did they? I mean the City Council didn't take any further action, is that correct? Bowers: That's correct. My understanding as far as the ones that were agreed upon at the work session, there has subsequently been another staff memo sent out, which should be in your packet, that is asking Directors to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 3 of 9 gather information about what resources they have available concerning being a more welcoming Division /Department to people who may not originally be from this country, or who may not speak English as a first language. So that is the scope to my knowledge of what has went out to staff. If there is more I am not aware of it. Goeb: But they haven't really said yeah or nay so much to each. They've kind of just glossed over the little bit haven't they? Bowers: That I can't answer, but what I can tell you is I'm guessing once those, that information comes back from those Directors there would be another memo completed with that information that is sent to the City Council. I would assume that it would then be put on a work session for them to discuss, but whether that would include everything I don't know. It would probably be limited to that specific memo that was sent out. Townsend: One concern that I have was you know a meeting, the City Council meeting. I walked away with that feeling that they were saying that the Human Rights Commission would be handling a lot of things in the future, and I guess my concern about that is I think we did a very nice job of handling things what are recommendations, and I'm just wondering what more can we do? What kind of power do we have? You know what I'm saying, like what more can we do like actually putting it out and implementing it. Is that what you're talking about or? Yeah in terms of a role for us ah everything is just pretty vague, sort of like anything that comes along you know we can handle it, but I'm feeling that if we handled things and make recommendations, we don't go anyplace. So I mean I was hoping we would come out of that meeting with us getting more from our recommendations than we got. What we got from our recommendations then I'm just feeling like is there much more we can do. Goeb: One thing that occurred to me after that was that since everything was still kind of just Jell -O. I mean it was just not anything specific. I was wondering with how many new Council Members? Three? Whether you know since they haven't decided anything you want to go back in and hit it again. I mean I don't know exactly what, how those three Council Members might look at it, but maybe it's just enough, and with the election behind them or whatever to try to get a little more teeth into it and say okay obviously the old Council wasn't too thrilled about the recommendations as a whole, and we'd like to make another pitch to the new Council and see if there was any movement in how they as a body thought about it. Just an idea. Day: I think I took away maybe a little different perspective, in that obviously they put a lot of it back on the Human Rights Commission. However they did not, the only two things or maybe three that they really rejected was the ordinance, the proclamation, and any kind of further work with the Police Department or education. I mean that's in general. The other they either said oh that's nice, oh you can do that. I'm saying okay. So mean it's not what we wanted and the City Council is not taking in my opinion ah a leadership role at this point. Maybe timing with elections is part of it. I have a few parting ideas because I don't think it was a total waste of time. I think that some things have to be spoken several times and repeated frequently. One, so I have a couple of recommendations myself since this is my last meeting. One is that we try to take up again the education part of our job, which is having forums on and I would suggest maybe immigration rights or immigrant rights from a human rights standpoint, which can encompass a lot of different areas. Again information, make a special effort to get Council members there, to have different parts of the community there that can express what the reality is in different areas of the City that I think some of the Council members or Councilors may or may not be aware of. So um and how immigration or "undocumented immigrants" how do they actually impact Iowa City in a positive way and a negative way, and concentrate on the how that situation impacts Iowa City specifically. So I think if we deal with it more specifics instead of broad concepts that we can achieve more. Another thing is they did agree to have this Immigrant Review Committee, and I think that is the main stay as far as keeping any actions going, is not necessarily I mean I don't think the Human Rights Commission can spend all their time on this. But I think a broader base with one or two Commissioners, a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 4 of 9 large representation from the Hispanic community or maybe other people in the area that want to come in where that can again be a vehicle, a sounding board, and that Committee can become I think the kind of work horse to continue some of this. Not necessarily just the Commission and they did agree to that, that that would be a good way to assess if there is a problem. So I guess I would like to see progress on that, just take them at their word and start forming that, like as soon as you can within a month, or at least get a skeleton crew going to being working on that. Maybe check with the CRC, the different religious communities, different that new immigration group to get a good representation of the way I see this is training residents of Iowa City that are not White Protestant individuals, to take more leadership positions. So I can see where there is a lot to be done with that, with that Review Committee. The other thing is I looked all over for that memo from the City Manager where he is saying to the Departments to start taking a survey of, as far as the signage. The way I interpreted was the signage that's available and also what kinds of ID are asked for. Those are very two specific things that I think can have a big impact on the community, and I think its within our purview to ask the City Manager that if we came up with a group of three or four or five Latinos or others who felt there were other languages that needed to be represented, that they work with the Directors of all the different agencies. That they are allowed to go in and say hmm you know, let's work together. I think we need a sign. I don't know what that means or I, where does the signage need to be and what does the signage have to be? Where is it located? I mean we all know English so how can we determine what signage needs to be there. For what forms of ID? So that we get a core group that follows through with the City, and that also gets, to me it gets a broader base of people comfortable with working with the City, which is not there at this point. The final thing I think we could do is that this Review Committee could possibly start hosting a couple of meetings with two or three or four, well two or three under the quorum of the Councilors, just private coffee visitation kinds of things to inform them on a more informal basis instead of a work session or a Council Meeting on what different attitudes are towards the population. All those things can be done I think with a much broader base than the Commission. So ah those are things I took from it, that I think are specific things that can be done in a, something you can put in your hand and handle as opposed to trying to get a new ordinance or a philosophical thing, which would be great. But maybe you get some of this done and then maybe the other will work its way in. So those are my comments. I don't know if you want to take any action on this. Olmstead: I think that ah if we put the Review Committee into place that shows the spirit of what the Council was asking for, and that gives us a little bit better leverage to go back to them at a future date for other things. So I would ah like to see us start discussing putting an Immigration Review Committee together and Dianne I'm going to put you on the spot. I know you're going off, but I'm wondering if you'd consider being a temporary chair of that Committee if we were to get it going. Day: It could be an option, but I think and I think if my idea of that Committee Review Board or whatever they want to be called, is I would like to see that be the leadership be from the especially the immigrant community to a certain extent and not necessarily a Commissioner from the Human Rights Commission or me or anybody. But to get it started maybe a couple of months or something if I could help that would be fine, unless one of the Commissioners wants to. Brown: Do we have that power to do that, to create that kind of Board? Bowers: It's just a subcommittee, so it's not a creation really. Goeb: We didn't need their permission before to do that I don't believe so. Day: But they specifically stated in there that they didn't see any problem with that, and that the purpose of that, the scope of it, was to determine if there was any problem in the City. I mean they said that. Am I correct on that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20,2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 5 of 9 Cowen: So with this subcommittee would be review or underneath our jurisdiction so they have to come to us to talk and tell us what's happening? Is that right? Bowers: My understanding of a subcommittee is kind of similar to the subcommittees on the Commission currently so they would yes have to come back to the bigger Commission and then it would have to go from there. Cowen: So a subcommittee can consist of non - Commissioners? Bowers: That's correct Finnerty: The one thing I took away, several things, but one thing that I'm very excited about is it seems like there's increased activism in town to put pressure on the Council to take some action. In some ways as a Commissioner I just want to get out of the way of that and support more grassroots efforts and kind of like a formal subcommittee. On the other hand they, that's . I kind of feel the same way and I'm not sure what additional actions we can take as a Commission, but there are at least two groups that are coming up that will be more grassroots activism that I've very excited about. So more strategizing campaign because that's what I've heard from Committee Members is the Commission did its job and the community could have and should have put moderate pressure on the Council to understand that it's not just our recommendations of the Commission and connected to the community recommendations . I think that's an exciting thing. I think there are some people in the community that are angry and renewed energy to do some things, which is really great. Day. So are you saying more than leave it up to them and the Human Rights Commission take a lesser or drop? Finnerty: I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm kind of with Orville a little bit about; I'm not sure what else we can do. think creating the Committee is one thing that it's an interesting model for us to talk about and how we could do it so there's a natural linkage. So I think that's one of the possibilities I understand that that might be really great. Which the subcommittee and I also think, you know I'd be interested in revisiting whether we take back municipal ordinance next time around or take back a resolution of the different event. I don't think they are dead issues the ones they didn't have Day: I don't either, but the things that they agreed on to me personally are that there are a lot of things that City Council is responsible for, and if there's not continued pressure, it could be a year from. Things take precedence and I think our role is from that standpoint to follow through and those are ways I suggested that we could follow through on the things that they agreed on. Goeb: I would agree. I think at least we need to follow through on a subcommittee thing because I think we've pushed this and we don't want to just fold the tent you know and walk away. If we as a Commission are serious about this in terms of it being a big issue, it seems to be a big you know, it will be a big continuing issue, but I think the key is getting much more support from the folks that are affected directly by this. I mean we can't keep talking for people and not have them come behind us and support us. Day: I know, but I think that's what it is. Goeb: Yeah and I think the subcommittee could do that, but I don't you know, I just am not familiar enough to know if there are three or four people that will stand up and do that and be part of a subcommittee and really be able to communicate with us, and thus with the Council in terms of identifying specific things and continuing to apply pressure and bringing up issues. I think the Council and I kind of feel the same way, I'm not sure that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20,2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 6 of 9 we provided enough, well obviously we didn't provide enough you know specific evidence of things happening or testimony. You know enough weight behind it to move them to make, to think oh yeah these are our constituents that are unhappy about this, and it's not just the Commission that are in their own bubble or however they might think it is. So I would think it would, I would prefer to pursue it in some form as opposed to just saying okay we've done what we can do and let the community do it. I just think we have an obligation. We said we'd take it up and I don't think it's, I don't think we should drop it now. Finnerty: If we did I think it'd be creative ways of doing it to link to the emergent that are happening. Goeb: Yeah we could eventually get out of it, but I don't think now is the time to do it. Day: Well we have the connection there, so it's a partnership between the Human Rights Commission, the subcommittee that whole new group which are all different agencies. It's labor, it's the CRC, it's the school system and people from the University that all are attending this meeting and we need to stay in contact with them, get this harnessed into funneling through to say to the City Council I think the message is you agreed to a couple of things. We need to look at signs. We need to look at language. We need to look at identification and say let's help you get this done. If we bring people in or say when just gentle nudges just to keep it clear. That's up to you as far as Human Rights Commission. Those are just my proposals, what my feelings are. Townsend: I was thinking in terms of future efforts we might do like if we have another subcommittee it might prove advantageous if that before we present to the City Council, that we meet with the attorney or whoever takes cares of the codes and the law, and see what we're going to recommend and check to see if there is already anything in place for that. If there is something, you know if there's nothing in place then we go. If there is something in place then we look at it and see, you know should we take that and make recommendations as to how it might be improved, or if we feel that that's not functional then we make a recommendation that's given the aspects that we feel will get the best results. A second thing that kind of bugs me doing this whole process that I think we need to look at for future efforts is that, and I've said this before. I think our churches have more contact. Our churches, our social workers have more contact with the population than we're trying to you know get services improved for you know. They know exactly what's going on. We're up there talking about what's happening that's impacting them, but like somebody said earlier that's us talking. I mean we really maybe need to get more actual input you know in terms of what is really negatively impacting these groups. So and maybe we can get them, but if they don't do it then we need to have the ministers or somebody who can get up and speak and not feel that they're going to be at risk of speaking out, but I feel uncomfortable you know out here waving the wand and the flag and it's just us. Finnerty: The point I would make I think are recommendations were tied to the CRC, which is that group and to kind of immigrant communities that all know of. The part for me that I think is one of the most difficult things is there was never an opportunity for Council to hear public dialogue on this. The way it was addressed is it was a closed joint working session where we were representing at the table because we were the only ones that could speak at that , and then that happened and then they had their working session where we couldn't speak and neither could the public. Then it went on the consent agenda at the Council Meeting, so at every step public dialogue was closed out. Had there been a Council Meeting for example where these issues were debated, I absolutely believe we could have gotten community voices there to speak and to speak eloquently and to speak passionately. That was deemed by the Councilors to speak eloquently about the experiences and the need for such things, and there was never that opportunity by the process they chose. There was never that opportunity. Day: Could the Commission host an educational informational meeting addressing that and very publicly ask the Councilors to attend? You're still working right within their framework. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Townsend: But I think also it's like you know we had an invitation to sit in on the work session where only we could have dialogue, but then you know at the Council Meetings when there is an open session I think where you can get up and speak. Finnerty: Only on items not on the agenda, so like the one that where they were dealing with on the there was a place for public comment for items not on the agenda. So that was a possibility so it would have to be at a separate meeting I guess, the next one to bring it back up. I mean I think it was a pretty interesting process. Townsend: I just feel that it needs to be out there. If the Council Meetings are set up in such a way that public can't get the dialogue, there needs to be _. You know maybe the ministers and other groups need to go to the press or something like that, but I feel more comfortable if somebody other than us you know were pushing it. We have a very unique and very limited role, and I don't think that's ever going to be, give us enough distance to get our point across and the point is going make a difference. It's got to be some other components tied into it. Goeb: We're speaking of it at least third hand. I mean we're telling the Council its, what immigrants have told the churches, which they've told us and such, and I know it's always tough you know to stick your neck out and it shouldn't be tough for the Ministers and the Social Workers and such. I mean because it's their job or it wouldn't be as tough, but I think it's also time for immigrants to come forward too and give direct testimony to it because again we can talk and it's disconnected. I think the Committee might be a way to do that, to get at least some a group together and build up some confidence to do that. Olmstead: I was going to say basically what you said. I would see the Review Committee as being an avenue which leadership can be asked and the community to come forth and serve and report the ideas back to us. Finnerty: I think for me and maybe we just let it sit at this meeting and see what happens with the Councilors coming in, is if there's a way to develop that is not a committee structure, kind of like this kind of a model of sit around the table and meet at a certain time, but make it as a linkage to some of the emergent groups. That would be really powerful and have that connection like a communication channel versus a um, cause I think there is some emerging leadership. It may not look like sitting around the table and having a conversation. It may look like something a bit different, that um it would be great for us to kind of keep our eyes in touch with them. Goeb: Can you share the immerging groups? Who are the immerging groups? Finnerty: The one Dianne was talking about. There is an immigration roundtable group that's being talked about. Day: We've had two meetings. They are scheduled every third Monday, I think. Finnerty: It's a partnership between the faith community, labor. Day: University people, public schools. Goeb: And it's called the Immigration Roundtable? Is that what it is, or does it have a name? Finnerty: I think the two people are Sally Hartman who stepped up from the society, and then also Robin Clark from the Iowa Labor Center so far. I didn't go to the last meeting. Day They pretty much led it as well, but it was pretty strong _ last time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 8 of 9 Finnerty: Then there are some new community organizing models in town that are making connections as well. Organizing in immigrant and Latino communities' Goeb: You two have been attending these or hearing about them? Olmstead: I went to that first one. Day:The other thing I think that group could utilize maybe is more information on those models because there is a structure right there. I mean I don't know that much about it, but it could be a structure for like that group. Finnerty: The national models or something? Day: Yes that we had in our recommendations for the Committee or community based so. Day. Any other action on this tonight then? Finnerty: I would say that I appreciate you going all out. All the leadership you've been pulling from the area for a long time on these issues, and the connections particularly the CRC, the Sanctuary City Committee, just that the time. I don't know how much time you've put into this, but also commitment and so all the recommendations written out I hope you know we'll remember where you are. None of this would have happened without you. FACES OF IOWA CITY Bowers reported the flier is completed and a press release is forthcoming with a tentative date of January 2012. JUVENILE JUSTICE Commissioner Finnerty and Commissioner Townsend will meet again to continue to plan this upcoming program which will have 3 parts. In coming Commissioner Harper will also assist. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS UPDATE Commissioner Olmstead notified that a conference for faculty on human rights is underway that will focus on how faculty can incorporate human rights into curriculum. STAFF REPORTS Bowers reported there are currently 18 complaints on file in the office. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Townsend moved to adjourn. Commissioner Olmstead seconded. The motion passed 8 -0 at 18:56. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 9 of 9 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 IMaptinn natpl 1118 TER 3/15 M NAME EXP. 1/1/12 Dianne Day 1/1/12 Wangui Gathua 12/20 1/1/12 Martha Lubaroff X 1/1/13 Howard Cowen X 1/1/13 Constance Goeb X Harry 1/1/13 Olmstead O/E (8 -1 -2010) O/E Orville 1/1/14 Townsend, X Sr. O/E 1/1/14 Diane Finnerty X 1/1/14 David B. Brown O/E X Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 IMaptinn natpl 1118 2/15 3/15 4/12 5/17 6121 7/19 8/16 9/20 1o/18 11/15 12/20 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X X O/E O/E O/E O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting /No Quorum R = Resigned - = Not a Member This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. I P24 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn Street. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn Street. Miklo explained that these boundary issues came to the attention of the Commission with the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan proposal at Linn and Bloomington Streets. Concern was raised by the Commission at that time about implications for these properties on the west side of Linn St. and north side of Bloomington. Since the Central District Plan calls out preservation of historic properties as a goal and as all three of these properties qualify for the National Register of Historic Places, the Commission had asked that these properties be removed from the Northside Marketplace. City Council had the same idea and has asked that this change to the Comprehensive Plan be initiated to make it clear that these properties aren't included in Northside Marketplace so no commercial expansion would take place in this direction. The proposed amendment would move the boundary of the Northside Marketplace from the west side of these three properties to the east side. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 5 Freerks opened the public hearing. There was none. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks said that this doesn't seem to be a controversial proposal, as both the Commission and City Council are in favor of it. Eastham stated that he's in favor of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of these properties in the plan as it stands now doesn't conform with the idea of preserving neighborhood structures. Since these properties are eligible for historic designation, replacing them with commercial properties at some time in the future is not a useful step. Weitzel said that this is something that the Commission discussed at length with City Council, so it's not a surprise to see it come up. He stated that the majority of other historical properties in the Northside Marketplace are commercial, so commercial designation is not necessarily incompatible with its historic use, but in this case because these properties are residential it makes sense to take them out of the Northside Marketplace. Freerks agreed that as the plan stands now, it might prompt others to think this is a place where the Commission wants commercial development and that isn't the case. Weitzel moved to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn Street Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 28th, 2011, and December 1st, 2011: Payne moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. OTHER: Miklo explained that City Council had a public hearing for rezoning for the property at 911 N Governor Street, an application that the Commission recommended approval of. After the first hearing there was a vote, and majority of City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance. At the second meeting, the majority of City Council indicated that they were not going to approve the second reading. As the zoning code requires, when there's an indication that City Council is not going to accept the Commission's recommendation, they offer the opportunity for a joint meeting with the Commission to discuss the subject and see if either group can be persuaded to change their minds. Miklo asked the Commission to consider whether they want to have a joint meeting to discuss the rezoning at 911 N Governor Street. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 5 Eastham recused himself from the discussion. Freerks asked if the rezoning is dead right now. Miklo explained that before City Council takes a vote on the second reading, the Commission has the opportunity to meet with them, and after that meeting City Council would vote. He said that if the Commission chooses not to meet, City Council most likely will vote it down. He explained that at a second meeting a number of neighbors spoke, raised objections and concerns, and the majority of the City Council decided that they would not have the second reading without first offering to have a joint meeting with the Commission. Freerks said she thought that the Commission didn't see a final plan on the application. She asked if the developer is taking it back and if there were signs from City Council that with alterations it would be accepted. Miklo stated that the Commission recommendation was for a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing site distance and set -back but it didn't tie development to a specific plan. The maximum number of units that could be placed on the property in terms of zoning would be 18 but there was no plan showing how those could physically fit on the property. It depends on what City Council decides in the end whether the developer will come forward with a design or submit a second application with a specific plan or walk away. Payne stated that at the first reading the developer commented that if he couldn't develop it with the 18 units, it wouldn't be economically feasible. Freerks said that's something they often hear, and they aren't sure if 18 units really could be built on that site. Payne asked that with the way it's zoned now, could they put commercial below and put 18 units above. Miklo explained that it's currently zoned Commercial Office, which requires that the ground floor be office use. It's questionable if a second floor could be added to the existing building for residential use. The developer had said that would be a challenge. Miklo said it's questionable if there would be a market in that location for office. Freerks said she's torn about this one. This idea could work, but there could be other ideas that could work. But the building has been sitting empty for some time. Koppes agreed with Freerks that there's zoning in place that would allow something else to be done. It's not like it's incorrectly zoned. Weitzel said he thought opinions of the Commission weren't fully taken into account at the last meeting with City Council about the Commission's recommendation for the rezoning at Bloomington and Linn Streets. Koppes said she thinks at the last meeting City Council had their minds made up and that this one might be different because they changed their minds once on it, and might be persuaded to again. She asked about the nature of the neighbors' comments. Miklo said concerns were traffic, density and the issues of rental properties similar to those heard on other applications. Freerks thinks eventually it will be redeveloped. She's willing to pass on this one. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 5 Koppes urged that the results of the last meeting with City Council not sway the decision on this one. Koppes thinks 18 units would be a lot right there. Freerks thinks there would be a number of ways to configure that property to make it work but doesn't know exactly what the right density is. Miklo said the lesson to be learned here is that in some cases, staff, City Council and the Commission are reluctant to approve rezoning without a concept plan, but it seems that when a concept plan isn't asked for, projects tend not to move forward because of the uncertainty of what might develop if the rezoning is approved. Freerks thinks there's sense of security with a concept plan. She is not opposed to redeveloping that property but doesn't know that it's a strong enough case to spend time with City Council. At the end of the discussion, there was not a majority of the Commission who wanted to meet with City Council. Freerks presented certificates of appreciation to Wally Plahutnik, retired, and Michelle Payne, retiring, commission members. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. N th XX X r r N X X X X X I X r X w X X X X TXXXXX ;IX oIXIXIXIXIOII X o X X X X X X x X XIXIXIXIXIX N X X O X X X XI O � � X X X X 0 0 X X X X X X X X Cl) N 9� - - X XXXXXDX O z z O O H �w W � �XXXX00 w w LLI XXXXXX MI- 1Ixlxlxlxlxlx NI -1 XIx XIDIX X NI- llxlxlxlxlxlx cn w co CO co N U') U) M �-X0000000 w U Q Y F- m�Z U= W W 15 W w d w a P z= �wcnwa> Q- Q>- QROQ�w zowwYaa3 co X X X X X X X X X x X i X V- ti oxxxXX_I X N XXXXXX X a� N x X X X X X X co co LO X X D X- X X V-xxxxx0X ti � DXxxxxx Co N_1 XXXXXX N T- M_1 XXXXXX 0 N xxxxXx T- �wco(DmNtntnM X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w J w J J 2 z x w ?� 00 w a�cn z U = W W W wOf - waz=F- 2wcnwa> -a- a>- awoa�w zawu.Yaa� E O 7 'O O O U) z 7 U O� X LU a) C N c c E Q) O Q z d Q II II II n w� xOOz w Y E O 7 'O O O U) z 7 U O� X LU a) C N c c E Q) O Q z d Q II II II n w� xOOz w Y IP25 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL Members present: Jan Finlayson, Rick Fosse, Terry Robinson (for Mike Moran), DaLayne Williamson, Patrick Carney Not present: Mark Seabold, Susie Thurmond Staff Present: Marcia Bollinger, Jeff Davidson Public Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval to the City Council to accept the donation of three BookMark sculptures to the City of Iowa City ensuring that donors understand that the sculptures will not be maintained indefinitely and have a finite lifespan. CALL TO ORDER Finlayson called the meeting to order at 3:30pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA No new business. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPT 1ST, 2011 MEETING MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the September 1 st, 2011 meeting minutes as presented. Finlayson seconded. Motion passed 5:0 CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE DONATION OF THREE BOOKMARK SCULPTURES TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY. Bollinger distributed a memo that had been sent to the City Council that discussed the donation of 3 BookMark statues that will be displayed on City right -of -way. Bollinger explained that one of the BookMarks; Treasure Island will remain at its current location on the Sculptor's Showcase pad on the pedestrian mall, Windows and Worlds will be place on Iowa Avenue adjacent to the Tower Place parking ramp and Literary Life in Iowa City will be located in front of City Hall. Fosse expressed concern regarding potential damage to decorative concrete. Ongoing maintenance was expressed as a concern and recommended that all donors understand that the sculptures will not maintained indefinitely and have a finite lifespan. MOTION: Finlayson moved to recommend acceptance of the Bookmarks with the stipulation that donors understand the statues will not be maintained indefinitely. Williamson seconded. Motion passed 5:0. Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, December 1, 2011 REVIEW OF CITY HIGH DONATION STATION ART PROPOSAL — SUSIE THURMOND (ART TEACHER AND CITY HIGH ART CLUB) Bollinger stated that Susie Thurmond was not able to attend the meeting but sent a sketch to her so the committee could have something to review. The concern was expressed regarding the design as the snake's body encircles the post that the parking meter head would be sitting on. As the post is not provided to the artists to work on, orchestration of the design would be difficult. Fosse also suggested the snake may be scary to some younger children and wondered if there was a message that was intended. The delicate components to the design that could be easily broken off were also a concern. Bollinger suggested she would have further conversation s with Thurmond to see if there was some flexibility in the design and when that would available for the commission to review. Discussion also occurred regarding the general program and how it would be expanded. UPDATE ON PUBLIC ART PROGRAM BUDGET Davidson provided an overview of the Public Art program over the years since the program started; seeing a steady, substantial decrease in available funds. The budget process for Fiscal Year 2013 has begun and a budget for the public art program was not distributed for review and submission for consideration. In response, a very pared back program budget was submitted for consideration that includes Donation Station Art Project, Poetry in Public, Public Art in Private Spaces, a mural project, Kidztent during Artsfest and ongoing maintenance for about $2700 per year. This proposal will be review by the City Council starting in January. Input to the City Council is certainly welcome and Davidson suggested that input would best be provided about the end of December. Fosse asked about already approved projects such as the Grant Wood Neighborhood Art project and Bollinger stated that money is still in the current budget and will be carried over and available when the project is completed this spring. FAREWELL AND THANKS TO DALAYNE WILLIAMSON AND PATRICK CARNEY Finlayson presented Certificates of Appreciation to both Williamson and Carney who are ending their terms on the committee. Everyone expressed their thanks for their dedication and support. Minutes created by Marcia Bollinger. v v E O U O Ln Q t a U 7 n. O N Q) cu u N a V, V1 7 L H 8 � zs U ° U Ll ~ O � N C V O N E O .d U U � >� Ln u y rA En En Qn O Q O II II II x O O O 1� 1^ 1� ✓V O � O N a1 M N 01 O O rn I' N It M N Q) .-. - 4 r, .--4 .71 N• O O O O O O O O O O b O O C cl a� ct .� ■c z �A3ti�ac�� O N E O .d U U � >� Ln u y rA En En Qn O Q O II II II x O O Preliminary Minutes IP26 December 2011 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 ROOM 208, IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Sara Maiers, Daniel Benton, Rose Hanson, Chuck Felling, Merce Bern-Klug, Michael Lensing Members Absent: None Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman Others Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Honohan chaired the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM November 17, 2011 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the November 17, 2011 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 510. Maiers/Benton. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will attend a City Council meeting on January 1&. Lensing and Benton will attend the Board of Supervisors on January e. STEERING COUNCIL REPORT: Felling reported that the Steering Council talked about the community wide Blue Zone's effort. Iowa City, North Liberty and Coralville are applying to become one of 10 communities selected to participate in the Blue Zones project. Blue Zones are areas that are designated to make it easier for people to improve their longevity. Buhman is attending the Blue Zone meetings and assisting in the application process. Preliminary Minutes December 2011 REVENUE COMMITTEE REPORT: Kopping reported that she will be meeting with Dianne Day to begin setting up focus group and informational meetings before the next Commission meeting. Kopping would like to have the membership understand the budgeting issues and to see if they have additional ideas on bringing in revenue. The Commission considered different ways to discuss the budgeting concerns and raising participant cost sharing with Senior Center members. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: Felling inquired about progress on the front sign. Kopping reported that the city is looking into a city wide logo and the Senior Center is holding off on a permanent decision until she finds out more about the city wide logo. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Felling and Maiers agreed to be the nominating committee for the Commission. Maiers commented that this is Merce Bern -bugs final meeting with the Senior Center Commission and thanked her for her service. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 510. Maiers/Hanson. i 1e IZQOx n9miin If u ZZDD"O O O cr cr ;;3 3 3m 1 a° slo mh 00 a3 N N o' m 25- 3� 9 _3 N � m N 0 m (D oZi O m Q° N m W CD W W N N N -& X m X X X= m o X m x x m s x .� m OR ' o) X m X X X I m X m X X X s m OD x X X m X X CA O m O m 0 X X X X m m m x x x x x x x 1 a° slo mh 00 a3 N N o' m 25- 3� 9 _3 N � m N i Eidlly. CPAs & BUSINESS ADVISORS December 14, 2011 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for the year ended June 30, 2011. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A -133, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated April 14, 2011. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Significant Audit Findings Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City of Iowa City, Iowa, are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the City changed accounting policies related to fund balance by adopting Statement of Governmental Accounting Standards (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, in 2011. No other accounting policies were adopted, and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2011. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were: Management's estimate of incurred but not reported health, workers' compensation, liability, and long- term disability insurance liabilities are based on third -party administrator's calculations and estimates. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop incurred but not reported liabilities in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. www.eidebailly.com 3999 Pennsylvania Ave., Ste. 100 1 Dubuque, IA 52002 -2273 1 T 563.556.1790 1 F 563.557.7842 1 EOE To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa Page 2 Management's estimate of other postemployment benefits liability is based on a calculation of actuarially determined contributions for health insurance benefits. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop other postemployment benefits liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. There were no such misstatements noted in performing the audit. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated December 14, 2011. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City's financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor's opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa Page 3 Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. This information is intended solely for the use of the Mayor, City Council, and management of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Sincerely, EIDE BAILLY LLP CPAs & Business Advisors A"� A/ L7' n CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 3O, 2011 The homes featured on the cover of this report have been restored through the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership, a cooperative effort between the City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa. Other partners include Friends of Historic Preservation, The Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association, Iowa City Housing Authority, Iowa City Area Association of Realtors, Restore/ Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity, Hawkeye Title Services, First American Bank, Hills Bank and Trust Co, MidWestOne Bank, University of Iowa Community Credit Union and US Bank. The program preserves and builds upon the unique character of residential neighborhoods adjacent to the University of Iowa campus and downtown Iowa City by ensuring that these neighborhoods remain vital, safe, affordable and attractive places to live and work. Using a combination of funds from I -Jobs, City of Iowa City, University of Iowa and local lenders, the City purchased 26 rental properties to renovate and restore to affordable owner - occupied homes. After renovations are complete, homes are sold to income - qualified buyers who agree to keep the property owner - occupied for 20 years. If the homebuyer is an employee of the University of Iowa, they may be eligible for downpayment assistance. � r -�W An- CITY OF IMA CITY cu�VCWJuDGI 3065 IOwR51NFA5 -R MPE IIW-2S'M--FIr INItiTIYE 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 PREPARED BY: FINANCE DEPARTMENT CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA r� r i CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TABLE OF CONTENTS June 30, 2011 Page INTRODUCTORY SECTION Tableof contents ................................................................................................. ............................... 1 Letterof transmittal ............................................................................................. ............................... 3 Cityorganizational chart ..................................................................................... ............................... 10 Cityofficials ........................................................................................................ ............................... 11 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting .................... ............................... 12 FINANCIAL SECTION INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT .......................................................... ............................... MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ..................................... ............................... BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Government -wide financial statements Statementof net assets .................................................................................. ............................... Statementof activities ................................................................................... ............................... Fund financial statements Balance sheet — governmental funds ............................................................. ............................... Reconciliation of the balance sheet of the governmental funds to the statement of net assets .... Statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances — governmental funds ....... Reconciliation of the statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances of governmental funds to the statement of activities ...................................... ............................... Statement of net assets — proprietary funds .................................................. ............................... Statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in fund net assets — proprietary funds ................ Statement of cash flows — proprietary funds ................................................. ............................... Statement of fiduciary assets and liabilities .................................................. ............................... Notes to financial statements ........................................................................... ............................... REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Budgetary comparison schedule — budget and actual — all governmental funds and enterprise ... funds — budgetary basis ...................................................... ............................... Budgetary comparison schedule — budget to GAAP reconciliation .... ............................... Note to required supplementary information — budgetary reporting .... ............................... Schedule of Funding Progress for Health and Dental Plans ................. ............................... COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS Combining balance sheet — nonmajor governmental funds ............................. ............................... Combining statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances — nonmajor governmentalfunds ....................................................................................... ............................... Combining statement of net assets — nonmajor enterprise funds ..................... ............................... Combining statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in fund net assets — nonmajor enterprisefunds ............................................................................................. ............................... Combining statement of cash flows — nonmajor enterprise funds ................... ............................... Combining statement of net assets — internal service funds ............................ ............................... Combining statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in fund net assets — internal service funds.............................................................................................................. ............................... Combining statement of cash flows — internal service funds ........................... ............................... Statement of changes in assets and liabilities — agency funds ......................... ............................... 1 13 15 26 28 30 32 33 35 36 39 40 42 43 LI R 87 90 91 92 94 95 96 98 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TABLE OF CONTENTS June 30, 2011 Page STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) Netassets by component ..................................................................................... ............................... 101 Changesin net assets ........................................................................................... ............................... 102 Fund balances — governmental funds .................................................................. ............................... 104 Changes in fund balances — governmental funds ................................................ ............................... 105 General government tax revenues by source ....................................................... ............................... 106 Assessed and taxable value of property ............................................................... ............................... 107 Property tax rates — direct and overlapping governments ................................... ............................... 108 Property tax budgets and collections ................................................................... ............................... 109 Principaltaxpayers .............................................................................................. ............................... 110 Principal water system customers ....................................................................... ............................... 112 Sales history and total water charges ................................................................... ............................... 113 Principal sewer system customers ....................................................................... ............................... 114 Sales history and total sewer charges .................................................................. ............................... 115 Ratios of outstanding debt by type ...................................................................... ............................... 116 Ratios of general obligation bonded debt to assessed value and net bonded debt per capita ............. 117 Ratio of annual debt service expenditures for general bonded debt to total general governmental expendit ures...................................................................................................... ............................... 118 Computation of direct and overlapping debt ....................................................... ............................... 119 Legal debt margin information ............................................................................ ............................... 120 General obligation debt annual maturity schedule .............................................. ............................... 121 Schedule of revenue bond coverage .................................................................... ............................... 122 Revenue debt annual maturity schedule .............................................................. ............................... 123 Revenue debt annual maturity by funding source ............................................... ............................... 124 Demographic and economic statistics ................................................................. ............................... 126 Principalemployers ............................................................................................. ............................... 127 Full -time equivalent city government employees by function ............................ ............................... 128 Operating indicators by function ......................................................................... ............................... 130 Capitalassets by function .................................................................................... ............................... 132 COMPLIANCE SECTION Report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.. 135 Report on compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major program and on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A- 133 ................................................................................................................................................... 137 Schedule of expenditures of federal awards ........................................................ ............................... 139 Notes to the schedule of expenditures of federal awards .................................... ............................... 144 Schedule of findings and questioned costs .......................................................... ............................... 145 E December 14, 2011 To the Citizens, Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and City Manager City of Iowa City, Iowa 1 � i AMOS CITY OF IOWA CITY The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the City of Iowa City, Iowa (the City) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 is submitted herewith in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Code of Iowa. The City's Finance Department prepared this report. Responsibility for both the accuracy of the data presented and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rest with the City. I believe the information, as presented, is accurate in all material respects and presented in a manner designed to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of the City. All disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the City's financial affairs have been included. This report consists of management's representation concerning the finances of the City of Iowa City. Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government's assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the City's financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City's comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects. The CAFR reflects all funds of the City in accordance with standards set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). In 1999, GASB adopted Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements — Management's Discussion and Analysis — For State and Local Governments. The final effective date for the implementation of GASB No. 34 for the City of Iowa City was June 30, 2003. This report complies with those standards. This statement significantly changes governmental financial reporting in order to bring it closer to a private sector model. The City implemented GASB Statement #54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions effective with these June 30, 2011 financial statements. Fund balances for the governmental funds are reported in classifications that comprise a hierarchy based on the extent to which the government honors constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in those funds can be spent. The classifications include: nonspendable amounts that are not in spendable form or the City is legally or contractually required to be maintained intact; restricted amounts contain restraint on their use externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments, or imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation; committed amounts can only be used for specific purposes imposed by formal action of the government's highest level of decision - making authority; assigned amounts 3 are intended to be used for specific purposes; and the unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the General Fund. Chapter 11 of the Code of Iowa requires an annual audit to be performed. The independent public accounting firm of Fide Bailly LLP was selected by the City. In addition to meeting the requirements set forth in Chapter 11, the audit was also designed to meet the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1996 and related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133, Audits ofStates, Local Governments andNon- Profit Organizations. While, the financial statements are the responsibility of the City, the responsibility of the auditor is to express an opinion on the City's financial statements based on their audit. The goal of the independent audit is to provide reasonable assurance that the City's financial statements for the fiscal year ended, June 30, 2011 are free of material misstatement. The audit is conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and involves examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement preparation. The independent auditor concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unqualified opinion that the City of Iowa City's financial statements for the fiscal year ended, June 30, 2011, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditors' report on the basic financial statements and combining and individual fund statements and schedules is included in the financial section of this report. As a recipient of federal financial assistance, the City is responsible for ensuring that adequate internal controls are in place to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to these federal programs. These internal accounting and administrative controls are subject to periodic evaluation by the City's management and the City is required to undergo an annual single audit in conformity with the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1996 and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133, Audits of State, Local Governments and Non- Profit Organizations. Information related to this single audit, including the schedules of federal financial assistance, findings and questioned costs, and independent auditors' reports on the internal accounting and administrative controls and compliance with applicable laws and regulations are included in the compliance section of this report. GAAP require that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD &A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD &A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City's MD &A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors. Profile of the Government The City of Iowa City was incorporated April 6, 1853. The City is governed by a seven member Council; each member serves a four -year term. Elections are held every two years allowing for continuation in office of at least three members at each biennial election. The Council members are elected at large, but three members are nominated from specific districts, and the four other members are nominated at large. The Council elects the Mayor from its own members for a two - year term. The City Council is the legislative body and makes all policy determinations for the City through the enactment of ordinances and resolutions. It also adopts a budget to determine how the City will obtain and spend its funds. The Council appoints members of boards, commissions and cornmittees. The City Manager is the chief administrative officer for the City and is appointed by the City Council. The City Manager implements policy decisions of the City Council and enforces City ordinances. In addition, the City Manager appoints and directly supervises the directors of the City's operating departments and supervises the administration of the City's personnel system. The Manager supervises 565 full -tune and 74 part -tune permanent municipal employees and 356 temporary employees, including a police force of 79 sworn personnel and a fire department of 64 firefighters. The City provides a full range of services including police and fire protection, construction and maintenance of roads, streets and infrastructure, inspection and licensing functions, maintenance of grounds and buildings, municipal airport, library, recreational activities, and cultural events. The City owns and operates its water supply and distribution system and sewage collection and treatment system with secondary treatment also provided. Virtually the entire City has separate storm and sanitary sewer systems. The City operates a municipal off -street and on -street parking system in the downtown area. The City also operates a transit system. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City's financial planning and control. All departments of the City are required to submit requests for appropriation to the City Manager in October. The City Manager uses these requests as the starting point for developing a proposed budget. The City Manager then presents this proposed budget to the Council for review in December. The Council is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed budget and to adopt a final budget no later than March 15. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function (e.g., Public Safety), and department (e.g., Police). The City adopts a three -year financial plan that includes both operations and capital improvements. This three -year plan permits a more comprehensive review of the City's financial condition, allowing analysis of the current and future needs and requirements. During preparation of the plan, careful review is made of property tax levy rates, utility and user fee requirements, ending cash balances by fund, debt service obligations, bond financing needs, capital outlay for equipment purchases and major capital improvement projects. The state requires at least a one -year operating budget. While legal spending control is exercised at a state mandated function level, management control is set at the Department Manager level. Encumbrance accounting is utilized in all funds for budgetary control. Appropriations that are not encumbered lapse at the end of the year. Information Useful in Assessing the Government's Economic Condition The City's economic strength is based upon education, medical services, and diversified manufacturing. The University of Iowa and the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics is the City's largest employer with over 26,000 employees. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics is the largest university -owned teaching medical center in the United States. The City also has a significant number of private employers who have a history of providing stable and increasing employment in the cornmunity. The relative stability of the University of Iowa, coupled with the City's multi- sector base of industrial and cmrumercial interests, has helped insulate the City from the significant negative economic impacts related to unemployment. The City continues to see sustained production in our major local industries, such as ACT and NCS Pearson. Continued economic development efforts involving the Iowa City and Coralville Chambers of Cornmerce, local private interests, the University of Iowa and other surrounding cmrumunities through participation as members of the Iowa City Area Development Group, have proved positive with the retention and expansion of businesses. s In addition, the Iowa's Technology Corridor is a seven - county alliance surrounding Iowa City and has been identified as one of the major growth areas for new business development in the State of Iowa. This Corridor gives employers and workforce access to a region uniquely Iowan, founded with a manufacturing heritage, but actively seeking new frontiers and opportunities in information technology, biotechnology and bioprocessing, renewable energy, and educational services. Continued developments within Iowa City and the region have a favorable impact upon the City's economy. There have been budget challenges faced by the State of Iowa; however, the City's economy as a whole continues to grow. The major employers have had only minimal reductions in their workforce size as evidence in the unemployment rate for Iowa City, which continues to remain low at 4.8% for the month of June 2011, as compared to 6.0% for the State of Iowa, and 9.2% for the national average. The City has experienced modest increases in assessed property valuations. The rate of new housing construction increased in comparison to the prior year. This consisted of 108 new single - family houses in 2010, as compared to 127 in 2009; multi - family dwelling units added to the tax rolls for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased to 88, compared to 81 in 2009; and a mixed commercial and residential development added in 2010 that included 16 residential units. Altogether these additions totaled $43,957,000 in FY10, an increase of $2,807,000 from prior year. This, along with the low unemployment rate, continues to be indicative of the City's relative economic stability. According to the 2010 census, the population of Iowa City is 67,892. This is an increase of 5,672 or 9.1% as compared to the 2000 census. In response to national economic recession, the City has been able to utilize state and federal stimulus programs that were designed to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery, assist people impacted by the recession, provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency, and stabilize state and local government budgets. While Iowa City's housing market and unemployment have not felt the impact as greatly as other areas of the country, the City has been able to take advantage of stimulus funds to complete projects and strengthen the local economy. Iowa City applied for funds totaling $58,575,000 and has been approved for $11,487,000. Current projects funded with stimulus funds include the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership, a joint project between the City and the University of Iowa to ensure the neighborhoods around the university remain vital, safe, affordable, and attractive places to live and work for both renters and homeowners by acquiring and rehabilitating homes near the University of Iowa campus for resale as affordable owner- occupied housing. The South Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion and relocation and demolition of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant and construction of a fourth fire station are additional projects funded through stimulus programs. There are many signs that the City remains healthy and vibrant with great promise for the future. The University of Iowa continues to add new buildings and facilities. The City continues to see sustained production in major local industries. Industrial and commercial interests within the community continue to thrive. Major Initiatives Iowa City continues to deal with the recovery efforts from the flood experienced in 2008. The City of Iowa City was among several cities in Iowa that received a Presidential Disaster declaration, which brought the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) technical and C financial assistance to Iowa City. These on -going efforts include expansion of the South Wastewater Treatment Plant and demolition of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant, elevating Dubuque Street and rebuilding Park Road Bridge, constructing levees to prevent future flooding, as well as, rebuilding the City's Animal Shelter. In addition, the City received $23,293,000 in Hazard Mitigation Grants and Conum mity Development Block Grants and is in the process of acquiring properties in the flood - impacted neighborhoods. The City is developing a general industrial park on the southeast side. This project involves annexing and rezoning 180 acres of land and building the street, water, and sewer infrastructure needed to support industrial businesses. This project is estimated to cost $7,300,000 and will be funded with cash on hand, bonds, grants and Tax Increment Financing (TIF). This project is scheduled to be completed in phases, with the land being "shovel ready" for industries to build. The City of Iowa City is in the planning process of constructing a mixed -use parking facility adjacent to downtown Iowa City. The mixed -use parking facility will include three components: parking facility consisting of approximately 600 parking spaces, commercial space of approximately 25,000 — 35,000 square feet, and 25 - 75 workforce housing units. The City is hoping to work with a private partner to develop the coni mercial and housing spaces. As this is still in the planning phase, the cost of this project is unknown, but it is anticipated that the parking facility will be financed with bonds and the commercial and housing space will be funded by the private developer in conjunction with the City. The City anticipates establishing an urban renewal area for the purposes of allowing Tax Increment Financing of the commercial and residential space. The City has received grants totaling $3,950,000 to construct new single family homes in Iowa City to replace homes lost during the 2008 flood. These funds can be used to assist the homebuyer with the downpayment of up to 25% of the home cost. A total of 77 new homes were constructed in the first two rounds of the Single Family New Construction (SFNC) Program and round three is currently in progress and will include an additional 31 homes in Iowa City by December 31, 2012. The City and the University of Iowa have joined together in a cooperative effort to acquire and rehabilitate 26 homes in the neighborhoods surrounding the University of Iowa Campus to ensure the neighborhoods remain vital, safe, affordable, and attractive places to live and work for both renters and homeowners. The City has secured a $1,250,000 state I -JOBS grant to help fund the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership. Upcoming projects for the City include Moss Green Urban Village, Towncrest Urban Renewal, and Riverfront Crossing Development. The City has established an urban renewal area for the development of Moss Green Urban Village, a 243 -acre, 18 -lot office research and mixed -use subdivision on the northeast edge of the city. The Towncrest Urban Renewal Plan was developed to revitalize the Towncrest commercial district in ways that would serve existing businesses while also drawing new retailers, service providers, and consumers to the area. The costs for Towncrest Renewal are estimated at $1,400,000 and will be covered through TIF. The Riverfront Crossing Development Plan is an initiative to revitalize the area south of Iowa City's downtown area. It will be a mixed -use zoning district that will allow for commercial and residential development with identified costs estimated at $800,000 and additional expenses anticipated. A TIF district is being considered for this project. This project will include purchasing and rehabilitating the train depot, which relates to the recent announceiment of a $230,000,000 federal grant that will be used to develop passenger rail services from Chicago to Iowa City, pending matching State funds. Long -term Financial Planning In preparing the financial plan for the three years ending June 30, 2015, the process of budget balancing has been difficult. With the continued tax limitations imposed by the state (specifically the residential rollback factor), increased federal and state regulations and mandates, rising costs, including retirement funding, and fewer opportunities for grants and outside funding sources, the municipal service needs for our growing community are becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy. In balancing the budget for the three -year period, the City attempted to maintain service levels, wherever practical. In addition, our planning has been directed at maintaining our current fiscal strength and avoiding any erosion of that fiscal position, including the City's Aaa bond rating. A continuing major objective in the three -year financial plan is to maintain or increase the City's cash reserve position. In addition, procedures were adopted to allocate unassigned fund balances between the contingency and working capital. The contingency balance is available during the fiscal year for unanticipated and unbudgeted expenditures, while the working capital is used for the General Fund since property tax revenues are received only twice a year. The City is committed to drawing from the contingency balance only in emergency situations. This unassigned fund balance allocation along with specific budgeting techniques has allowed the City to increase or maintain fund balances over the past year. The City continues to pursue cooperative efforts with other local governments. Joint funding, purchasing, planning and other efforts allow the City to meet mandates for new and improved services in the future at the most reasonable cost. Joint cooperation currently encompasses regional transportation planning, human services, solid waste management planning, a hazardous materials response program, an enhanced 911 emergency communications system, commmunity relations, joint operation of an animal control facility and an indoor swimming pool facility, and joint economic development efforts. While such cooperative efforts are not new in concept, the City expects to enter into more agreements with neighboring governmental subdivisions, as well as with the University of Iowa. Awards and Acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting (the Certificate) to the City of Iowa City, Iowa for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. The Certificate is the highest form of recognition for excellence in state and local financial reporting. In order to be awarded the Certificate, a governmental unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, whose contents conform to program standards. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report must satisfy both accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and applicable legal requirements. The Certificate is valid for a period of one year only. The City has received the Certificate for the last twenty -six consecutive years. I believe our current report continues to conform to the Certificate requirements and I am submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. E Responsibility and Acknowledgments The Department of Finance prepared the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Iowa City, Iowa for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, The City Council, as required by law, is responsible for the complete and accurate preparation of the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. I believe that the information presented is accurate in all material respects and that this report fairly presents the financial position and results of operations of the various funds of the City. The preparation of this report on a timely basis could not have been accomplished without the efficient and dedicated services of the entire staff of the City s Finance Department. I would like to express my appreciation to all members of the department who assisted and contributed to its preparation. I want to especially recognize the contributions of the City's Controller, Robin Marshall, Assistant Controller, Sara Sproule, Internal Auditor, Nickolas Schaul, Senior Accountant, Justin Armatis and Payroll Accountant, Chris Hurlbert. Also, I thank the Mayor, members of the City Council and the City Manager for their interest and support in planning and conducting the financial operations of the City in a dedicated, responsible, and progressive manner. Respectfully submitted, evin O'Malley Director of Finance � e 2 0 0 � § : A \/�US 2 0 « -! - �\ \ \ \\ \\/ ) / \ c�\ i ] r E $ 0 A m A« wu � \) ) ) no-020-12 \ \ () ) J- ! 4 u� _ _ /\ � [)f - °" � `( 7(u) � k§ ( k § > ! j° > ) t k$ uk ! k a! a!E - ) 4 /� , _00 \ \ ! ! )E - \ k 0 0 (9 : ■ ° U _ ;�� : ,4, 5 k §k) j\ .9,= \ }_ } / « ® j \} !� -W ) / ]E ! a§ ! r \ \\ \ \ \ j j } ƒ} \ 0 ( 22 E!' {( { o « ° ! ; |0 10 ) °) a £ £J Mayor Council Member and Mayor Pro tem Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member City Manager City Clerk City Attorney CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA LISTING OF CITY OFFICIALS June 30, 2011 ELECTED OFFICIALS Matt Hayek Ross Wilburn Regenia Bailey Connie Champion Terry Dickens Susan Mims Mike Wright APPOINTED OFFICIALS Thomas Markus Marian K. Karr Eleanor Dilkes DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS Assistant City Manager Director of Housing and Inspection Services Library Director Director of Planning & Community Development Director of Public Works Director of Transportation Services Senior Center Coordinator Fire Chief Parks and Recreation Director Director of Finance Chief of Police 11 Dale E. Helling Douglas W. Boothroy Susan Craig Jeff Davidson Rick Fosse Chris O'Brien Linda Kopping Andrew Rocca Mike Moran Kevin O'Malley Sam Hargadine Term Expires January 2, 2012 January 2, 2012 January 2, 2012 January 2, 2014 January 2, 2014 January 2, 2014 January 2, 2012 Date of Hire December 1, 2010 May 21, 1979 March 18, 1996 August 16, 1975 September 22, 1975 July 28, 1975 January 26, 1981 February 22, 1984 December, 29, 1997 March 20, 1995 July 14, 1978 September 26, 1983 August 19, 1985 August 29, 2005 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Iowa City Iowa For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. President Executive Director 12 EideBailly CTAi b. N 1;1w:FS9 AL%111S 5 Ludependent Auditor's Report To the Horwrable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa We hove audited the accompanying financial iswwwr. of the gnveremental activities, the business -type activities, each major fend, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Iowa City, lows, as of And fnr the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of eoutcots. These financial 9latentents are die responsibility of the management of the City uC Iowu City, Iowa. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial stuturoanu based oil our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United Status of America and the standards applicable to financial audits uontuinud in Guvernmenl Auditing Siundurds, issued by the C omptrollur G,.nural of the UniWd Stoles. Those standards require tlwt we plan and perform the audit W ubtttin reasotmble assurance about whether the financial statements are free of Material tnisstatement. An audit includes examining, oat a test hasis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and the significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall f<nuneial slatctttnnt presentation. We believe that our audit providus areasonable busis for our opinions. In our upiaioin, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in ell materiat respects, the respective futmrcial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the Aggregate remaining Lund information of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as of Juno 30, 2011, and the respective changes in financial position, and cash flows, whcm uppliutbic, lltervaf for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally aceepted in the United States of America. AN dvwribed in Note 1 to the financial sraterttttntry the City adopted the provisions of GASH Statement No. 54, Fumi Ralanan. RepnrNsg and Goverxmental Fund 1 ype Dgffiritioxs, in 2011. In accordance with Government Auditing Mandards, we have also issued our report dated December 14, 2011, on our considurutiun of tltn City's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its uompliunce with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contras", and grant agreements and other matters, The purpose of that report is rn deserihe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that resting, and not to provide an opinion on internal contrul over financial reporting or on compliance. That rcpert is un intugnil pert OC art audit perforated in accordance with Government Auditing Mundwxfx rind should be considered itt assessing the results of our audit. 13 www.cidcbvilly.com 3999 Fnnneykria Ave., 51a. 1 4ft I DuhuyuY, l4 2200&Y273 1 T553.S58,179P I F553.557.7B42 I floe Accounntng principles generally accepted in the United States of Amcrica require that the manugcmcnl's discussion and analysis and other required suppicrrrcntary infurmation, as listed in t}le table of ooutenns, he presented to supplement the basic financial statumcnls. Such infonnation, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Aoard, who rcrosiders it to be an vssunliul purl of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, &.Nm rnic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in Accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United Staley of America, which consisted of inquiries of managcmcut about the mcthsxly ofpmpuring doe Infornliatiors and comparing the information for consistency with rnunugouwTit's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other ltnuwiedge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do nut exprnss un upinio1 or provide any assurance on the infarmat.ian hceause the limited procedures do not provide as with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions tun the Cmanyial staterrrents that collectively comprise the City's financial stakni tts as u whviv. Tile inlruductory section, combining nonrnnjor fund financial statcmcnts, and Ati ialiM section are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a rcquirnd part of the financial statements. The Accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A -133, 4ndi t q fStatea; Local Governments, acrd Nan - Profit Organizafians, and is also not a required part of the financial statements. Tho combining nunirru4jur furid rime ncial Statements and the schedule of expenditures of federal uw", ore the responsibility of ntanagentent and were derived from and ru:latc dirratly lu the underlying accounting and other records used in prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional pmeedures, including comparing and reconciling such infurmuliun directly to the underlying accounting and other retards used to prupmv the Gnuuuyiul stulewents or to the financial statements themselves, and othu-r addiOunal ptooedares in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United $lutes of America. In our opinion, the informAti[m is fairly stated in all maturial [rasped& in ralatiorr to the financial statements as a whole. The inrroductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and aucoCdingly, we de not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them. 4 0,A, &,,C /- T Dubuquc, Iowa Dcccrober 14, 2011 14 Management's Discussion and Analysis As management of the City of Iowa City, we present this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. This narrative is intended to be used in conjunction with additional information that is included in the letter of transmittal, which can be found on pages 3 — 9 of this report. Financial Highlights • The assets of the City of Iowa City exceeded its liabilities at the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 by $459,843,000 (net assets). Of this amount, $97,894,000 (unrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to its citizens and creditors. • The City's total net assets increased by $34,160,000 during the fiscal year. Governmental activities increased by $22,207,000 and business -type activities increased by $11,953,000. • At the close of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $69,220,000, an increase of $18,489,000 in comparison with the prior year. Of this total amount, approximately $14,190,000 or 20% was unassigned and is available for spending at the City's discretion. • At the end of the current fiscal year, the City's unassigned fund balance for the General Fund was $15,931,000 or 34% of total General Fund expenditures. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial statements. The City's basic financial statements are comprised of three components: 1) government -wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements; and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government -wide Financial Statements: The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances in a manner similar to a private - sector business. The statement of net assets presents information on all of the City's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the City's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government -wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business -type activities). The governmental activities of the City include Public Safety, Public Works (roads, traffic controls, and transit), Culture and Recreation, Community and Economic Development, General Government, and Interest on long -term debt. The business -type activities of the City include Airport, Cable Television, Housing Authority, Parking, Sanitation, Stormwater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, and Water. 15 The government -wide financial statements may be found on pages 26 — 29 of this report Fund Financial Statements: A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance - related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmental Funds: Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same function reported as governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. However, unlike the government -wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near -term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near -term financing requirements and is typically the basis that is used in developing the next annual budget. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government -wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison. The City has five major governmental funds: General Fund, Employee Benefits Fund, Community Development Block Grant Fund, Other Shared Revenue and Grants Fund, and Debt Service Fund. Information is presented separately in the governmental funds balance sheet and in the governmental funds statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for these major funds. Data from all other non -major governmental funds is combined into a single aggregated presentation and are referenced under a single column as "Other Governmental Funds ". Individual fund data on each of these non -major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for all governmental funds as required by state statute. Budget comparisons have been provided for the Governmental funds and the Enterprise funds, to demonstrate compliance with the adopted budget. The basic governmental funds financial statements can be found on pages 30 — 35 of this report. Proprietary Funds: The City maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business -type activities in the government -wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its Airport, Cable Television, Housing Authority, Parking, Sanitation, Stormwater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, and Water activities. Internal Service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City's various functions. The City has four Internal Service Funds: Equipment Maintenance, Central Services, Loss Reserve, and Information Technology. Because these services predominantly benefit governmental rather than business- type functions, they have been included within governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. Proprietary funds financial statements provide the same type of information as the government -wide financial statements, only in more detail. Parking, Wastewater Treatment, Water, Sanitation, and Housing Authority Funds are considered to be major funds and are reported individually throughout the report. The other three non -major enterprise funds are grouped together for reporting purposes and listed under a single heading "Other Enterprise Funds ". Detailed information for each of the non -major funds is provided in the combining statements on pages 90 — 92. Individual fund data for the Internal Service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found on pages 36 — 41 of this report. 16 Fiduciary Funds: Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not available to support the City's own programs and therefore are not reflected in the government -wide financial statements. The City has two fiduciary funds: Project Green and Library Foundation, which are maintained as agency funds. The basic fiduciary funds financial statements can be found on page 42. Notes to Financial Statements: The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government -wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found on pages 43 -78 of this report. Other Information: The combining statements referred to in the above paragraphs in connection with non- major governmental funds, non -major enterprise funds, and internal service funds are presented immediately following the notes. Government -wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City, assets exceeded liabilities by $459,843,000 at the close of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. By far, the largest portion of the City's net assets reflect its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, building, machinery and equipment, improvements other than buildings, and infrastructure), less any related debt to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to its citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other resources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. City of Iowa City's Net Assets June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) 17 Governmental Business -type activities activities 'total 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 Current and other assets $ 161,648 $ 142,590 $ 100,399 $ 100,458 $ 262,047 $ 243,048 Capital assets 184,036 173,071 265,165 255,613 449,201 428,684 Total Assets 345,684 315,661 365,564 356,071 711,248 671,732 Long -term liabilities outstanding 82,352 75,466 91,812 95,080 174,164 170,546 Current and other liabilities 71,356 70,426 5,885 5,077 77,241 75,503 Total Liabilities 153,708 145,892 97,697 100,157 251,405 246,049 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 123,935 111,703 186,177 172,601 310,112 284,304 Restricted 31,179 25,588 20,658 17,588 51,837 43,176 Unrestricted 36,862 32,478 61,032 65,725 97,894 98,203 Total Net Assets $ 191,976 $ 169,769 $ 267,867 $ 255,914 $ 459,843 $ 425,683 17 A portion of the City's net assets, $51,837,000 or 11.3 %, represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of the unrestricted net assets, $97,894,000 or 21.3 %, may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to its citizens and creditors. At the end of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net assets, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business -type activities. Governmental Activities: Governmental activities increased the City's net assets by $22,207,000. The increase in net assets of governmental activities is primarily due to receiving grants to fund expenditures in capital assets for flood recovery and mitigation and community development projects and collection of a local option sales tax to be used to fund future capital improvement projects. The following is a more detailed review of FYI 1's operation. City of Iowa City's Changes in Net Assets (amounts expressed in thous ands) m Governmental Business -type activities activities Total 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 Revenues: Program Revenues: Charges for services $ 8,199 $ 7,388 $ 36,334 $ 35,943 $ 44,533 $ 43,331 Operatinggnms and contributions 13,517 15,554 7,448 7,777 20,965 23,331 Capital grants and contributions 6,048 8,291 4,145 6,570 10,193 14,861 General Revenues: Property taxes 48,011 49,467 - - 48,011 49,467 Road use tax 6,068 5,525 - - 6,068 5,525 Local option sales tax 8,911 8,141 - - 8,911 8,141 Other taxes 2,464 1,535 - - 2,464 1,535 Earnings on investments 1,539 1,766 954 1,311 2,493 3,077 Gain on disposal of capital assets 761 - 314 230 1,075 230 Other 6,230 3,893 381 464 6,611 4,357 Total revenues 101,748 101,560 49,576 52,295 151,324 153,855 Expenses: Public safety 18,867 19,955 - - 18,867 19,955 Public works 19,145 16,806 - - 19,145 16,806 Culture and recreation 10,811 12,238 - - 10,811 12,238 Community and economic development 16,501 16,913 - - 16,501 16,913 General government 7,356 7,549 - - 7,356 7,549 Interest on long -term debt 2,841 2,970 - - 2,841 2,970 Wastewater treatment - - 10,971 11,274 10,971 11,274 Water - - 8,523 8,309 8,523 8,309 Sanitation - - 7,461 7,705 7,461 7,705 Housing authority - - 7,448 7,838 7,448 7,838 Parking - - 4,135 4,536 4,135 4,536 Airport - - 1,049 724 1,049 724 Stonnwater - - 1,418 1,187 1,418 1,187 Cable television - - 638 645 638 645 Total expenses 75,521 76,431 41,643 42,218 117,164 118,649 Change innet assets before transfers 26,227 25,129 7,933 10,077 34,160 35,206 Transfers (4,020) (625) 4,020 625 - - Change in net assets 22,207 24,504 11,953 10,702 34,160 35,206 Net assets beginning of year 169,769 145,265 255,914 245,212 425,683 390,477 Net assets end of year $ 191,976 $ 169,769 $ 267,867 $ 255,914 $ 459,843 $ 425,683 m The total revenues for governmental activities for FYI were $101,748,000. Governmental activities are primarily funded through taxes, $65,454,000 or 64.3 %, and grants and contributions, $19,565,000 or 19.2 %. Grants and contributions decreased from prior year by $4,280,000 as the City received less funding from federal ARRA grants. However, the City continued to receive state I -JOBS grants, and Community Development Block Grants used to fund capital projects and flood mitigation. Expenses for governmental activities totaled $75,521,000. Governmental activities are tracked by function including Public Safety, Public Works, Community and Economic Development, Culture and Recreation, and General Government. In FYI 1, Public Works accounted for the highest portion of governmental expenses, $19,145,000 or 25.4 %, and increased over the prior year due to large street improvement projects to help develop areas on the southeastern edge of the City. Public Safety, $18,867,000 or 25.0 %, and Community and Economic Development, $16,501,000 or 21.8 %, made up another large portion of governmental expenses and each decreased from the prior year due fewer flood recovery and mitigation projects. Business -type Activities: Business -type activities increased the City's total net assets by $11,953,000. The increases in net assets were primarily in the Wastewater, Parking, and Water funds and are due to an increase in capital assets not funded with debt. The City has been able to utilize federal and state grants to fund flood recovery and mitigation projects rather than have to issue new debt to pay for these projects. For all business- type activities, revenues exceeded expenses by $7,933,000. Revenues for business -type activities totaled $49,576,000. The primary revenue source for business -type activities is charges for services, $36,334,000 or 73.3 %. In addition for FYI 1, the City's business type - activities had a significant portion of their revenues from grants and contributions used to help fund capital and flood recovery projects for business -type activities, $11,593,000 or 23.4 %. This is a decrease of $2,754,000 from the prior year due to fewer flood mitigation projects and completion of federal ARRA grant fund projects. The total expenses for business -type activities in FYI l were $41,643,000. Wastewater Treatment represented the highest portion of business -type activities, $10,971,000 or 26.3 %, with Water, $8,523,000 or 20.5 %, Sanitation, $7,461,000 or 17.9 %, and Housing Authority, $7,448,000 or 17.9 %, making up the remainder of the majority of business -type activities expenses. The graphs on the following pages represent a breakdown of revenue by source and expenditures by program area for governmental and business -type activities. 19 Governmental Activities FY2011 Revenue by Source Misc. Other Taxes Other Charges for 9% services 17% 8% Property taxes 47% Grants and Contributions 19% Business -Type Activities FY2011 Revenue by Source Grants and Misc. Other Contributions 3% 24% Charges for services 73% 9 y F_; L R O Governmental Activities FY2011 Expenditures by Program Area (amounts expressed in thousands) 24,000 22,000 Public Public Safety Works 20,000 Community and 18,000 Econ Dev 16,000 Culture and 14,000 Recreation 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Program Area Business -Type Activities FY2011 Expenditures by Program Area (amounts expressed in thousands) 14,000 Wastewater 12,000 Treatment 10,000 Housing Water Authority 8,000 Sanitation Govt Interest Expense 6,000 Parking 4,000 Stormwater 2,000 Airport 0 ■ . Cahl =V Program Area R1 Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance- related legal requirements. Governmental Funds: The financial reporting focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near -term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information may be /is useful in assessing the City's financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. The City implemented GASB Statement #54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions effective with the June 30, 2011 financial statements. Fund balances for the governmental funds are reported in classifications that comprise a hierarchy based on the extent to which the government honors constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in those funds can be spent. As of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $69,220,000, an increase of $18,489,000 in comparison with the prior year. Of this total amount, $14,190,000 constitutes unassigned fund balance, which is available to use as working capital for the General Fund since property tax revenues are received only twice a year and the remainder is available to meet the future needs of the City. The remainder of the fund balance is not available for new spending because of constraints imposed externally by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or constraints imposed internally on the specific purposes for which these amounts can be spent. The restricted fund balance of $51,157,000 or 73.9% contains external restraints on its use. The assigned fund balance of $3,542,000 or 5.1% has been identified by the City to be used for specific purposes. The nonspendable fund balance is $331,000 or 0.5 %, which the City is contractually required to maintain intact or cannot be spent because it is in a nonspendable format, such as inventories. The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the City. As of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the unassigned fund balance of the General Fund was $15,931,000 while General Fund's total fund balance was $36,072,000. As a measure of the General Fund's liquidity, it may be useful to compare both unassigned fund balance and total fund balance to total fund expenditures. Unassigned fund balance represents 33.9% of total General Fund expenditures of $47,028,000, while total fund balance represents 76.7% of that same amount. The fund balance of the City's General Fund increased by $9,565,000 during the current fiscal year. This was due to collection of a local option sales tax that took effect in FY10 to be used to fund future capital improvement projects. This tax will be collected through FYI 3. The Bridge, Street, and Traffic Control Construction Fund had a deficit fund balance of ($1,741,000) as compared to a deficit balance of ($1,207,000) in the prior period. This fund accounts for transactions relating to the acquisition or construction of major streets, bridges, and traffic control facilities. The deficit is due to capital expenditures. The City anticipates receiving funds from the Iowa Department of Transportation. If not, bonds will be issued in FYI to cover the capital expenditures. The Other Construction Fund accounts for the construction or replacement of other City general fixed assets, such as administrative buildings with various funding sources, including general obligation bonds, intergovernmental revenues, and contributions. This fund balance increased by $6,273,000 during the fiscal year due to bond proceeds that will be used to fund upcoming capital improvement projects. Proprietary Funds: The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government -wide financial statements, but in more detail. The ending net assets of the enterprise funds were $258,788,000, an increase in net asset of $10,779,000. This was primarily due to capital contributions of federal and state grants to fund capital improvement projects to help with flood recovery and mitigation and transfer of business -type capital assets from 22 governmental capital project funds. Of the enterprise funds' net assets, $186,177,000 is invested in capital assets, net of related debt. Unrestricted net assets totaled $51,953,000, a decrease of $5,867,000 compared to the previous year due to additional funds being classified as restricted by bond ordinance or grant agreements. The Internal Service funds showed net assets totaling $26,115,000 as of June 30, 2011, an increase of $3,669,000 primarily due to an operating income in the Loss Reserve Fund as claims were Tess than anticipated. Budgetary Highlights The City presents budgetary information as allowed by GASB Statement No. 41. Budgets are based on nine functional areas as required by state statute, not by fund or fund type. The City had two budget amendments during the fiscal year. These amendments increased budgeted revenues by $53,450,000 or 37.3% and the expenditure budget by $116,569,000 or 71.0% to a total of $280,670,000. These increases were due primarily to capital projects in governmental and business -type funds because of timing of completion of projects, ongoing recovery from the flood of 2008 and the associated grants, and an advance refunding of general obligation bonds to reduce total future debt service payments. Capital Assets and Debt Administration Capital Assets: The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business -type activities as of June 30, 2011 amounts to $449,201,000, net of accumulated depreciation. This investment in capital assets, including land, buildings, improvements other than buildings, equipment, streets, bridges, trails, wastewater and water systems, and other infrastructure represents the value of resources utilized to provide services to its citizens. The City's investment in capital assets for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 increased by $10,965,000 for governmental activities compared to the prior year and increased by $9,552,000 for business - type activities over the prior year. The following table reflects the $449,201,000 investment in capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation. Land Buildings Improvements other than buildings Machinery and equiprrent Infrastructure Construction in progress Total City of Iowa City's Capital Assets (net of depreciation) (amounts expressed in thousands) Governmental Activities 2011 2010 Business -type Activities 2011 2010 Total 2011 2010 $ 23,887 $ 21,838 $ 25,824 $ 25,847 $ 49,711 $ 47,685 44,748 45,041 69,146 72,293 113,894 117,334 3,584 3,580 6,561 6,846 10,145 10,426 16,647 15,908 8,070 8,773 24,717 24,681 79,162 80,863 136,031 130,545 215,193 211,408 16,008 5,841 19,533 11,309 35,541 17,150 $ 184,036 $ 173,071 $ 265,165 $ 255,613 $ 449,201 $ 428,684 Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following: • Completion of several airport projects included runway design, grading, lighting, paving, and runway extension. Total project costs for prior years and current year were capitalized for $6,279,000. 23 • Continued work on the South Wastewater Plant Expansion. This project will relocate the North Wastewater Treatment Plant and consolidate operations into the South Wastewater Treatment Plant through expansion of south plant facilities and demolition of the north plant facilities. Funding for the project includes $22,000,000 in federal EDA grants, $13,546,000 in local options sales tax, $5,500,000 in I -JOBS grant monies, $5,000,000 in CDBG Public Infrastructure grants, as well as, $1,890,000 from Wastewater user fees. Expenses totaling $2,780,000 were moved into construction in progress at the end of FY11. This project is scheduled to be complete in FY 14. • Completed work on the Inverted Siphon Sewer Project to construct a horizontal directional drilled inverted siphon sewer, inlet and outlet structures, sanitary manholes, and sanitary sewer. Expenses of $1,176,000 were capitalized. • Continued construction on a new landfill cell. $3,482,000 in FYI expenses were added to prior years' expenses for a total of $5,375,000 in construction in progress at the end of the fiscal year. • Work continued on the construction of the Eastside Recycling Center. Additional expenses for FYI l of $3,661,000 were added to prior years' for a total in construction in progress at fiscal year -end of $4,197,000. • Construction continues on a fourth fire station. FYI l expenses of $3,968,000 were added to prior year expenses for a total of $4,309,000 in construction in progress at the end of the fiscal year. The new fire station has since been completed and began providing emergency services in October 2011. • A variety of street and bridge construction projects in residential and new industrial areas and replacement and expansion of existing infrastructure amounted to $10,713,000. This includes the Sycamore Street — Highway 6 to the City Limits project at $2,500,000 and $3,672,000 for the 420th Street — Highway 6 to Taft project to accommodate the 420th Street Industrial Park. Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 5 to the financial statements. Debt Administration: At the end of the fiscal year, the City had total bonded debt outstanding of $155,540,000. Of this amount, $80,575,000 comprises debt backed by the full faith and credit of the City. However, $3,146,000 or 3.9% of the general obligation bonds is debt that serves enterprise funds and is abated by their charges for services and $5,965,000 or 7.4% of these bonds is debt that will be paid with Tax Increment Financing revenues. $74,965,000 represents revenue bonds secured solely by specific revenue sources. City of Iowa City's Outstanding Debt General Obligation and Revenue Bonds (amounts expressed in thousands) Governmental Business -type Activities Activities 2011 2010 2011 2010 General obligation bonds $ 77,429 T 71,300 $ 3,146 $ 3,750 Revenue bonds - - 74,965 78,335 Total $ 77,429 $ 71,300 $ 78,111 $ 82,085 Total 2011 2010 $ 80,575 $ 75,050 74,965 78,335 $ 155,540 $ 153,385 The City did issue $27,095,000 of General Obligation bonds during FYI 1. However, during the current fiscal year the City's total bonded debt still decreased by $2,155,000. The City continues to have the same excellent bond rating on its General Obligation bonds that it has had for the past several years. This rating is given to those bonds judged to be of the best quality and carrying the smallest degree of investment risks. The City's bond ratings by Moody's Investors Services, Inc. as of June 30, 2011 were as follows: General obligation bonds Aaa Parking revenue bonds A Wastewater treatment revenue bonds A Water revenue bonds A 24 The City continues to operate well under the State debt capacity debt limitations. State statute limits the amount of General Obligation Debt outstanding to 5% of the assessed value of all taxable property in Iowa City. The current debt limitation for the City is $222,655,000. With outstanding General Obligation Debt applicable to this limit of $80,575,000 we are utilizing 36.2% of this limit. More detailed information on debt administration is provided in Note 6 of the financial statements. Economic Factors and Next Year's Budget and Rates In May 2009, the voters of Iowa City approved a one cent local option sales tax. Collection of this tax began July 1, 2009 and will continue for four years. In FYI I, the City collected $8,912,000 in local option sales tax. The City Council has indicated that the priorities for use of this sales tax will be capital projects for the elevation of Dubuque Street, including the reconstruction of Park Road Bridge, and the expansion of the South Wastewater Plant and demolition of the North Wastewater Plant. Sales tax proceeds are used to provide local match for available state and federal funding and to reduce our reliance on property tax and increased user fees that would otherwise be needed to fund such projects. During the 2009 session, the Iowa State Legislature passed a law allowing cities to utilize franchise fee tax as a revenue alternative to property tax. The Iowa City Council passed a local franchise fee tax of I% on natural gas and electricity that became effective April 1, 2010. This revenue is being utilized to support additional public safety initiatives, including operating a fourth fire station. In FYI 1, the City collected $868,000 in local franchise fee. The City expects continued constraints by the State's property tax formula. The rollback on residential properties negatively affects the City's general operating funds and without the potential for new revenue sources, like those mentioned above, the City's opportunities for new initiatives are limited. The Council has established a balanced budget in the General Fund for FY12 that strives to maintain current service delivery levels. The tax levy rate per $1,000 of taxable valuation for FY12 is provided below: General Levy $ 8.100 Debt Service Levy 4.649 Employee Benefits Levy 3.526 Transit Levy 0.950 Liability Insurance Levy 0.347 Library Levy 0.270 Total City Levy $ 17.842 Requests for Information This report is designed to provide a general overview of the City of Iowa City's finances for all of those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report, or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to City of Iowa City, Finance Department, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA, 52240. 25 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Assets Equity in pooled cash and investments Receivables: Property tax Accounts and unbilled usage Interest Notes Internal balances Due from other governments Prepaid insurance Inventories Assets held for resale Restricted assets: Equity in pooled cash and investments Capital assets: Land and construction in progress Other capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) Total assets Liabilities Accounts payable Contracts payable Accrued liabilities Interest payable Deposits Due to other governments Notes payable Unearned revenue Noncurrent liabilities: Due within one year: Employee vested benefits Bonds payable Due in more than one year: Employee vested benefits Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation Notes Payable Bonds payable Landfill closure /post - closure liability Total liabilities go Governmental Business -type Activities Activities Total $ 60,873 $ 44,743 $ 105,616 49,879 - 49,879 311 2,975 3,286 228 764 992 16,135 883 17,018 (11,128) 11,128 - 9,308 3,111 12,419 6 280 6 779 394 1,173 1,974 - 1,974 33,283 36,401 69,684 39,895 144,141 45,357 219,808 85,252 363,949 345,684 365,564 711,248 2,068 455 2,523 1,886 2,316 4,202 3,409 476 3,885 261 1,505 1,766 883 749 1,632 2,901 104 3,005 1,616 - 1,616 58,851 280 59,131 1,181 290 1,471 11,959 6,989 18,948 992 229 1,221 1,705 550 2,255 211 - 211 65,785 71,999 137,784 - 11,755 11,755 153,708 97,697 251,405 (continued) CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS (continued) June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Total net assets $ 191,976 $ 267,867 $ 459,843 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 27 Governmental Business -type Activities Activities Total Net Assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 123,935 $ 186,177 $ 310,112 Restricted for or by: Employee benefits 2,532 - 2,532 Capital projects 13,312 - 13,312 Debt service 13,151 - 13,151 Assets held for resale 1,974 - 1,974 Other purposes 210 - 210 Bond ordinance - 16,219 16,219 State statute 1,004 1,004 Grant agreement - 3,435 3,435 Unrestricted 36,862 61,032 97,894 Total net assets $ 191,976 $ 267,867 $ 459,843 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 27 Functions /Programs: Expenses Governmental activities: CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Program Revenues Operating Capital Charges Grants and Grants and for Services Contributions Contributions Public safety $ 18,867 $ 3,279 $ 154 $ 1,321 Public works 19,145 1,117 1,754 2,579 Culture and recreation 10,811 872 - 364 Community and economic development 16,501 - 11,609 1,784 General government 7,356 2,931 - - Interest on long -term debt 2,841 - - - Total governmental activities 75,521 8,199 13,517 6,048 Business -type activities: Wastewater Treatment 10,971 12,836 2,394 Water 8,523 8,054 - 973 Sanitation 7,461 8,259 10 - Housing Authority 7,448 208 7,438 11 Parking 4,135 5,234 - 269 Airport 1,049 293 - 358 Stormwater 1,418 641 - 140 Cable television 638 809 - - Total business -type activities 41,643 36,334 7,448 4,145 Total $ 117,164 S 44,533 $ 20,965 $ 10,193 General revenues: Property taxes, levied for general purposes Road use tax Hotel/motel tax Gas and electric tax Local option sales tax Utility franchise tax Earnings on investments Gain on disposal of capital assets Miscellaneous Transfers Total general revenues and transfers Changes in net assets Net assets beginning of year Net assets end of year The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 28 Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Assets Govemmental Business -type Activities Activities Total $ (14,113) $ $ (14,113) (13,695) (13,695) (9,575) (9,575) (3,108) (3,108) (4,425) (4,425) (2,841) (2,841) (47,757) (47,757) - 4,259 4,259 - 504 504 - 808 808 - 209 209 - 1,368 1,368 - (398) (398) - (637) (637) - 171 171 - 6,284 6,284 (47,757) 6,284 (41,473) 48,011 - 48,011 6,068 - 6,068 776 - 776 820 - 820 8,911 - 8,911 868 - 868 1,539 954 2,493 761 314 1,075 6,230 381 6,611 (4,020) 4,020 - 69,964 5,669 75,633 22,207 11,953 34,160 169,769 255,914 425,683 S 191976 S 2671867 459,843 29 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) 30 Special Revenue Community Other Development Shared Other Employee Block Revenue and Debt Governmental General Benefits Grant Grants Service Funds Total Assets Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 21,516 $ 2,478 $ 1,928 $ - $ 12,227 $ 2,067 $ 40,216 Receivables: Property tax 26,965 9,834 - - 13,080 - 49,879 Accounts and unbilled usage 221 - - 18 - 72 311 Interest 82 - 4 - 78 25 189 Notes 376 - 12,657 1,529 1,573 - 16,135 Advances to other funds 444 - 18 - 197 - 659 Due from other governments 5,119 197 8 1,715 - 2,172 9,211 Inventories 262 - - - - - 262 Assets held for resale 195 - - 1,614 - 165 1,974 Restricted assets: Equity in pooled cash and investments 16.'_40 - 52 16,991 33,283 Total assets 5 71.4'_0 5 1'_.509 S 14.615 5 4.938 5 37.155 5 21,492 $ 152,119 (continued) 30 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA BALANCE SHEET (continued) GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) The notes to the fna cial statements are an integral part of this statement. 31 Special Revenue Community Other Development Shared Other Employee Block Revenue and Debt Governmental General Benefits Grant Grants Service Funds Total Liabilities and Fund Balances Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 1,132 $ 1 $ 5 $ 163 $ 17 $ 256 $ 1,574 Contracts payable - - - - - 1,886 1,886 Accrued liabilities 1,683 3 10 131 - 57 1,884 Advances from other funds 2,067 - - 641 - - 2,708 Due to other governments 19 - - 48 - 2,834 2,901 Interest payable - - - 14 - - 14 Notes payable - - - 1,616 - - 1,616 Deferred revenue 29,569 9,973 12,675 1,830 13,987 1,399 69,433 Liabilities payable from restricted assets, Deposits 878 4 1 883 Total liabilities 35,348 9,977 12,690 4,447 14,004 6,433 82,899 Fund balances, Nonspendable 331 - - - - - 331 Restricted 16,268 2,532 1.925 481 13,151 16,800 51,157 Assigned 3,542 - - - - - 3,542 Unassigned 15,931 - - (1,741) 14,190 Total fund balances 36,072 - I.9' z 4�1 13,151 15,059 69,220 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 71,420 $ 1X309 S 4.61 S 4.931 S 27.155 S 21,492 $ 152,119 The notes to the fna cial statements are an integral part of this statement. 31 CITY OF IOWA CITY RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Total governmental fund balances $ 69,220 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the internal service funds are included in governmental activities in the statement of net assets. 26,115 Prepaid insurance benefits future periods and is included in governmental activities in the statement of net assets. Other long -term assets are not available to pay for current period expenditures and therefore are deferred in the funds: Notes, grants and other receivables - Earned but unavailable 10,582 Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current financial resources and therefore are not reported in the funds. 177,077 Accrued compensated absences are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. (2,059) Accrued post employment benefit obligations are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. (1,684) Bonds payable are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. (77,744) Notes payable are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. (211) Accrued interest on bonds (247) Internal balance due to integration of internal service funds (9,079) Total net assets of governmental activities $ 191,976 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 32 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Revenues Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Use of money and property Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures Current: Public safety Public works Culture and recreation Community and economic development General government Debt service: Principal Interest Capital outlay Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Issuance of debt Issuance of refunding debt Sale of capital assets Insurance Recoveries Premium on issuance of bonds Payment to refunded bond escrow Transfers in Transfers out Total other financing sources and (uses) Net change in fund balances Fund Balances, Beginning Fund Balances, Ending For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Special Revenue 9,651 $ - $ Community Other 59,387 Development Shared Other Employee Block Revenue and Debt Governmental General Benefits Grant Grants Service Funds Total $ 36,533 $ 9,651 $ - $ - $ 12,079 $ 1,124 $ 59,387 1,412 - - - - - 1,412 4,570 - 1,509 19,306 - 4,485 29,870 2,335 154 - 26 - - 2,515 1,215 - 5 59 177 23 1,479 4,640 33 2,307 207 562 7,749 50,705 9,838 3,821 19,598 12,256 6,194 102,412 18,149 168 - - - 400 18,717 7,127 - - 5,404 - 2,235 14,766 11,743 - - - - 755 12,498 1,127 - 1,814 4,761 - 1,176 8,878 7,078 427 - - 51 139 7,695 - - - - 10,386 - 10,386 - - - - 2,889 - 2,889 1,804 2 8,058 12,009 21,873 47,028 595 1,816 18,223 13,326 16,714 97,702 3,677 9,243 2,005 1,375 (1,070) (10,520) 4,710 - - - - - 16,165 16,165 - - - - 10,930 - 10,930 130 - - 715 - - 845 427 - - - - 167 594 - - - - 213 181 394 - - - - (11,085) - (11,085) 8,659 - - 838 211 8,950 18,658 (3,328) (8,835) (80) (1,774) (8,705) (22,722) 5,888 (8,835) (80) (221) 269 16,758 13,779 9,565 408 1,925 1,154 (801) 6,238 18,489 26,507 2,124 (673) 13,952 8.821 50,731 $ 36 072 $ 2 532 $ 1 925 $ 481 $ 13 151 $ I � 119 $ 69 220 The notes to the financial.statements are an integral part of this .statement. 33 34 CITY OF IOWA CITY RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Net change in fund balances - total governmental funds Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures while governmental activities report depreciation expense to allocate those expenditures over the life of the asset. Capital outlays and contributed capital assets exceeded depreciation expense in the current year as follows: Expenditures for capital assets Capital assets contributed Depreciation expense Bond lrroceeJ, arc reported as other ivauciug sources in governmental funds and Ihu1 Comri hute to the chance i u I Lind helunce. In the statement of net assns. holk ever. is>uin_ dchl i uci ong -term liabilities and does not affect the sratnnau of 1CL11 ilie,. Simi lark. repayment of principal is an expenditure in the govcnuneur d I imJ> hm I ALICCs I he liability in the statement of net assets. Debt issued Discount / (premium) on bonds issued Repayments of debt Amortization of premium Because some revenues will not be collected for several months after the City's year end, they are not considered available revenues and are deferred in the governmental funds. Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds: Change in accrued compensated absences Change in accrued post employment benefit obligations Change in accrued interest on debt In the statement of activities, only the gain on the sale of the capital assets is recognized, whereas in the governmental funds, the proceeds from the sale increased financial resources. Thus, the change in net assets differs from the change in fund balance by the cost of the capital asset sold. Prepaid items in the governmental funds have been recorded as expenditures when paid. However, the statement of activities will report these items as expenses in the period that the corresponding net asset is exhausted. Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities to individual funds. The net revenue of certain activities of internal service funds is reported with governmental activities. Change in net assets of governmental activities The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 35 $ 15,699 454 (6,112) $ 18,489 10,041 (27,095) 112 20,966 65 (5,952) (2,344) (6g) (346) (17) (84) (7) 2.495 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) 0 Governmental Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities - Other Internal Wastewater Housing Enterprise Service Parking Treatment Water Sanitation Authority Funds Total Funds Assets Current assets: Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 5,928 $ 12,882 $ 9,607 $ 9,968 $ 3,834 $ 2,524 $ 44,743 $ 20,657 Receivables: Accounts and unbilled usage 23 1,311 792 577 17 255 2,975 - Interest 17 258 394 50 40 5 764 39 Notes - - - - 883 - 883 - Advances to other funds - - - 4,325 - - 4,325 - Due from other governments 269 1,459 1,046 12 20 305 3,111 97 Inventories - - 394 - - - 394 517 Total current assets 6,237 15,910 12,233 14,932 4,794 3,089 57,195 21,310 Noncurrent assets: Restricted assets: Equity in pooled cash and investments 1,521 12,002 4,665 14,660 3,435 118 36,401 - Capital assets: Land 6,798 758 6,296 1,787 732 9,453 25,824 45 Buildings 24,927 59,611 23,865 908 5,601 4,796 119,708 821 Improvements other than buildings 328 7,371 2,351 144 9 357 10,560 50 Machinery and equipment 812 9,835 10,458 415 121 665 22,306 15,396 Infrastructure - 88,810 50,590 11,298 - 47,365 198,063 1,094 Accumulated depreciation (14,825) (66,781) (23,350) (9,837) (3,752) (12,284) (130,829) (10,823) Construction in progress 1,278 4,597 1,198 9,635 - 2,825 19,533 376 Total noncurrent assets 20,839 116,203 76,073 29,010 6,146 53,295 301,566 6,959 Total assets 27,076 132,113 88,306 43,942 10,940 56,384 358,761 28,269 (continued) 0 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS (continued) PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of imcinal.ct' icc fcud acti � itics related to enterprise funds. Net assets of business -type activities The notes to the financial statements are an integral par[ ofthis statement. 37 9.079 $ 267.867 Governmental Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities - Other Internal Wastewater Housing Enterprise Service Parking Treatment Water Sanitation Authority Funds Total Funds Liabilities Content liabilities: Accounts payable $ 86 $ 64 $ 128 $ 26 $ 15 $ 136 $ 455 $ 494 Contracts payable 725 553 157 743 - 138 2,316 - Accrued liabilities 77 88 119 118 39 35 476 1,525 Employee vested benefits 49 48 76 75 25 17 290 64 Due to other governments - - 21 66 17 - 104 - Defented revenue 280 - - - - - 280 - Interest payable 173 881 451 - - - 1,505 - Bonded debt payable (net of unamortized discounts) 502 4,674 1,813 - - - 6,989 - Totalcurrenthabihties 1,892 6,308 2,765 1,028 96 326 12,415 2,083 Noncurrent liabilities: Liabilities payable from restricted assets: Deposits 1 - 410 14 315 9 749 - Advances from other funds 795 - - - 18 1,463 2,276 - Employee vested benefits 35 39 63 60 18 14 229 50 Bonded debt payable (net of unamortized discounts) 8,222 40,928 22,849 - - - 71,999 - Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation 117 108 117 145 37 26 550 21 Landfill closure/postclosure liability - - - 11,755 - - 11,755 - Total noncurrent liabilities 9,170 41,075 23,439 11,974 388 1,512 87,558 71 Total liabilities 11,062 47,383 26,204 13,002 484 1,838 99,973 2,154 Net Assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 10,594 58,599 46,746 14,350 2,711 53,177 186,177 6,959 Restricted by bond ordinance 1,347 11,120 3,752 - - - 16,219 - Restricted by state statute - - - 1,004 - - 1,004 - Restricted by grant agreement - - - - 3,435 - 3,435 - Umestricted 4,073 15,011 11,604 15,586 4,310 1,369 51,953 19,156 Total net assets $16,014 $84,730 $ 62,102 $ 30,940 $10,456 $54,546 258,788 $ 26,115 Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of imcinal.ct' icc fcud acti � itics related to enterprise funds. Net assets of business -type activities The notes to the financial statements are an integral par[ ofthis statement. 37 9.079 $ 267.867 IN CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS Operating Revenues: Charges for services Miscellaneous Total operating revenues Operating Expenses: Personal services Commodities Services and charges Depreciation Total operating expenses Operating income (loss) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Gam (loss) on disposal of capital assets Insurance Recoveries Operating grants Interest income Interest expense Total nonoperatmg revenues (expenses) For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Income (loss) before capital contributions and transfers 1,153 2,043 (372) 522 314 (1,025) 2,635 3,604 Capital contributions Transfers in Transfers out Change in net assets Net Assets, Beginning Net Assets, Ending 269 2,394 973 - 11 498 4,145 - - 1,716 795 277 80 2,055 4,923 345 (171) (336) (114) (73) (230) (924) (280) 1,422 5,982 1,060 685 332 1,298 10,779 14,592 78,748 61,042 30,255 10,124 53,248 $ 16.014 $84730 $62.102 $30.940 $10.456 $54.546 Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds. 1,174 Change in net assets of business -type activities $ 11,953 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. M 3,669 �� 114C $ 26.115 Governmental Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities - Other Internal Wastewater Housing Enterprise Service Parking Treatment Water Sanitation Authority Funds Total Funds $ 5,234 $12,836 $ 8,054 $ 8,259 $ 208 $ 1,743 $ 36,334 $ 17,374 104 63 42 48 122 379 8 5,338 12,899 8,096 8,307 330 1,743 36,713 17,382 1,662 1,961 2,407 2,573 957 668 10,228 2,117 75 895 929 210 18 423 2,550 2,533 1,183 2,621 2,128 4,968 6,382 592 17,874 7,917 2,920 5,477 5,464 7,751 7,357 1,683 30,652 12,567 908 4,017 2,230 261 137 1,447 9,000 1,404 3,828 9,494 7,694 8,012 7,494 3,130 39,652 13,971 1,510 3,405 402 295 7,164) 1,387) (2,939) 3,411 - (40) - - - 354 314 132 2 2 - - - 10 7,438 - 7,448 - 51 382 256 217 40 8 954 61 (408) 1,704) (1,032) - - - (3,144) - 357 (1,362) 774 227 7,478 362 5,574 193 Income (loss) before capital contributions and transfers 1,153 2,043 (372) 522 314 (1,025) 2,635 3,604 Capital contributions Transfers in Transfers out Change in net assets Net Assets, Beginning Net Assets, Ending 269 2,394 973 - 11 498 4,145 - - 1,716 795 277 80 2,055 4,923 345 (171) (336) (114) (73) (230) (924) (280) 1,422 5,982 1,060 685 332 1,298 10,779 14,592 78,748 61,042 30,255 10,124 53,248 $ 16.014 $84730 $62.102 $30.940 $10.456 $54.546 Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds. 1,174 Change in net assets of business -type activities $ 11,953 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. M 3,669 �� 114C $ 26.115 Cash Flows From Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users Payments to suppliers Payments to employees Net cash flows from operating activities Cash Flows From Noneapital Financing Activities Grain received Trawler, from other funds Tran,ers in other funds Repayment/(payment) of notes receivable Advances to other funds Repayment of advances from other funds Net cash flows from noncapital financing activities Cash Flows From Capital and Related Financing Activities Capital grants received Acquisition and construction of property and equipment Proceeds from sale of property Proceeds from insurance recoveries Principal paid on bonded debt inter,t paid on bonded debt Net cash flows from capital and related financing acti cities Cash Flows From Investing Activities Intenn.t on investments Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning Cash and Cash Equivalents, Ending CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Governmental Business -type Activities- Enterprise Funds Activities - Other Internal Wastewater Housing Enterprise Service Parking Treatment Water Sanitation Authority Funds Total Funds $ 5,338 $ 12,817 $ 8,116 $ 8,529 $ 440 $ 1,728 $36,968 $ 17,381 (1,192) (3,543) (3,079) (4,689) (6,406) (1,017) (19,926) (10,707) (1,600) (1,914) (2,375) (2,528) (936) (675) 1( 0,028) (2,991) 2,546 7,360 2,662 1,312 (6,902) 36 7,014 3,683 - - 27 4 7,466 - 7,497 - - 1,716 795 277 80 2,055 4,923 345 - (171) (336) (114) (73) (230) (924) (280) - - - - 114 - 114 - - - - (9) - - (9) - (728) (42) (770) (728) 1,545 486 158 7,587 1,783 10,831 65 - 1,355 17 5 11 357 1,745 - (699) (4,051) (2,508) (6,900) (11) (2,942) (17,111) (2,422) - 9 - - - 377 386 142 2 2 (420) (1,841) (1,714) - - - (3,975) - (455) (2,055) (1,044) - - - (3,554) - (1,574) (6,583) (5,247) (6,895) - (2,208) 2( 2,507) (2,280) 42 302 140 208 29 7 728 49 286 2,624 (1,959) (5,217) 714 (382) (3,934) 1,517 7,163 22,260 16,231 29,845 6,555 3,024 85,078 19,140 $ 7,449 $ 24,884 S 14,272 S 24,628 S -269 S 2,642 S81,144 S X657 (continued) 40 Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash Rows from operating activities: Operating income (loss) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation expense Changes in Receivables: Accounts and unbilled usage Due from other governments Inventories Accounts payable Accrued liabilities Employee vested benefits Due to other governments Deposits Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation Landfill closure/postclosure liability Total adjustments Net cash flows from operating activities Noneash Investing, Capital, and Financing Activities: Contributions of capital assets from government and others CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS (continued) PROPRIETARY FUNDS For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Governmental Business -type Activities- Enterprise Funds Activities- Other Internal Wastewater Housing Enterprise Service Parking Treatment Water Sanitation Authority Funds Total Funds S 1,510 S 3,405 S 402 S 295 S (7,164) S(1,387) S (2,939) S 3,411 908 4,017 2,230 261 137 1,447 9,000 1,404 1 (83) 3 198 25 (15) 129 24 - 1 1 24 (2) - 24 (25) - - 24 - - - 24 (194) 66 (27) (35) (102) (7) (2) (107) (63) 4 t0 t0 7 - 6 37 (875) 6 (6) 6 (10) 1 (1) (4) 5 - - (11) (4) 1 - (14) - (1) - 16 - 87 - 102 - 52 43 16 48 20 (12) 167 (4) - - - 595 - - 595 - 1,036 3,955 2,260 1,017 262 1,423 9,953 272 S 2,546 S 7,360 S 2,662 S 1,312 S (6,902) S 36 S 7,014 S 3,683 S - S 157 S 67 S - S - S 140 S 364 S The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 41 CITY OF IOWA CITY STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Assets Agency Funds Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 208 Accounts receivable 9 Interest receivable 1 Total assets $ 218 Liabilities Accrued liabilities $ 11 Due to agency 207 Total liabilities $ 218 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 42 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2011 1. Accounting Policies The City of Iowa City, Iowa, (the City) was incorporated April 6, 1853, and operates under the Council/Manager form of government. The City provides a broad range of services to its citizens including general government, a mass transportation system, public safety, streets, parks, and cultural facilities. It also operates an airport, parking facilities, water treatment, wastewater treatment, stormwater collection, sanitation collection and disposal (including landfill operations), cable television, and a housing authority. The financial statements of the City have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) as applied to governmental units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard - setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The more significant accounting policies of the City are described below. The Reporting Entity For financial reporting purposes, the City includes all of its funds, organizations, agencies, boards, commissions, and authorities. The City has also considered all potential component units for which it is financially accountable, and other organizations for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the City are such that exclusion would cause the City's financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board has set forth criteria to be considered in determining financial accountability. These criteria include appointing a voting majority of an organization's governing body, and (1) the ability of the City to impose its will on that organization or (2) the potential for the organization to provide specific benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the City. There were no component units required to be included. Government -Wide and Fund Financial Statements The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the primary government. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business -type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported as general revenues. As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are charges between the City's water and sewer function and various other functions of the government. Eliminations of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. 43 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. Description of Funds These financial statements include all funds owned or administered by the City or for which the City acts as custodian. The City maintains its records on a modified cash basis of accounting under which only cash receipts, cash disbursements and encumbrances, investments, and bonded debt are recorded. These modified cash basis accounting records have been adjusted to the accrual or modified accrual basis, as necessary, to prepare the accompanying financial statements in accordance with GAAP. The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The fund categories are governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary. Each fund is accounted for by providing a separate set of self - balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, net assets, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. The individual funds account for the governmental resources allocated to them for the purpose of carrying on specific activities in accordance with laws, regulations, or other restrictions. Basis of Accounting The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its "measurement focus." The government -wide financial statements and proprietary funds are accounted for on the flow of economic resources measurement focus and use the accrual basis of accounting. Agency funds do not have a measurement focus and use the accrual basis of accounting. Under the accrual method, revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred. The City applies all applicable Financial Accounting Standards Board pronouncements issued on or before November 30, 1989, except those that conflict with GASB pronouncements, in accounting and reporting for these funds. All governmental funds are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus, which generally includes only current assets and current liabilities on the balance sheet. The modified accrual basis of accounting is used for these funds. Under the modified accrual basis, revenue is recognized when susceptible to accrual, which is in the period in which it becomes both available (collectible within the current period or soon thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period) and measurable (the amount of the transaction can be determined). Revenue accrued includes property taxes, intergovernmental revenue, and interest earned on investments (if they are collected within 60 days after the year -end). Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred. Principal and interest on long -term debt, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. The City reports the following major governmental funds The General Fund is the City's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. 44 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 The Employee Benefits Fund is used to account for the employee benefits related to those employees who are paid through governmental fund types, which are funded by a separate property tax levy. The Community Development Block Grant Fund accounts for revenue from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant programs. The Other Shared Revenue and Grants Fund accounts for revenue from various sources, primarily road use tax monies from the State of Iowa and reimbursable programs funded by federal and state grants. The Debt Service Fund accounts for the accumulation of resources for the payment of general long -term debt principal, interest, and related costs. The City reports the following major proprietary funds The Parking Fund is used to account for the operation and maintenance of the "on" and "off' street public parking facilities. The Wastewater Treatment Fund is used to account for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment facility and sanitary sewer system. The Water Fund is used to account for the operation and maintenance of the water system. The Sanitation Fund is used to account for the operation and maintenance of the solid waste collection system and landfill. The Housing Authority Fund is used to account for the operations and activities of the City's low and moderate income housing assistance and public housing programs. Additionally, the City reports internal service funds to account for goods and services provided by one department to other City departments on a cost reimbursement basis. The funds in this category are the Equipment Maintenance Fund, Central Services Fund, Loss Reserve Fund, and the Information Technology Fund The City also reports fiduciary funds which are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government -wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City's own programs. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. The City has two fiduciary funds which are maintained as agency funds, with no attempt to create an ongoing fund balance. The funds in this category are Project Green, which accounts for donations that are received to plant and develop yards and lawns, both public and private, within Iowa City, and the Library Foundation, which accounts for donations that are made to support the library development office. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from non - operating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the City's enterprise funds and of the City's internal service funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and 45 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as non - operating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the government's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. Uses of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue, expenditures and expenses, as appropriate, during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Material estimates that are particularly susceptible to significant change in the near -term relate to the determination of landfill closure and post - closure care costs, total capacity of the landfill at closure, and calculation of the costs of claims incurred, but not reported. Cash and Investments The City maintains one primary demand deposit account through which the majority of its cash resources are processed. Substantially all investment activity is carried on by the City in an investment pool, except for those funds required to maintain their investments separately. The earnings on the pooled investments are allocated to the funds on a systematic basis. All investments are stated at fair value except for the Iowa Public Agency Investment Trust (IPAIT) which is valued at amortized cost pursuant to Rule 2a -7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. For the purpose of the Statement of Cash Flows, restricted and nonrestricted investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. Receivables and Revenue Recognition Property tax receivable is recognized in governmental funds on the levy or lien date, which is the date that the tax asking is certified by the City to the County Board of Supervisors. Current year delinquent property tax receivable represents unpaid taxes from the current year. The succeeding year property tax receivable represents taxes certified by the City to be collected in the next fiscal year for the purposes set out in the budget for the next fiscal year. By statute, the City is required to certify its budget to the County Auditor by March 15 of each year for the subsequent fiscal year. However, by statute, the tax asking and budget certification for the following fiscal year becomes effective on the first day of that year. Although the succeeding year property tax receivable has been recorded, the related revenue is deferred in both the government -wide and fund financial statements and will not be recognized as revenue until the year for which it is levied. Federal and state grants are recorded as receivables and the revenue is recognized during the period in which the City fulfills the requirements for receiving the grant awards, as long as the susceptible to accrual criteria are met. Income from investments in all fund types and from charges for services in proprietary fund types is recognized when earned. Licenses and permits, fines and forfeitures, fees and refunds, charges for services (in governmental fund types), miscellaneous, and other revenues are recorded as revenue when received in cash because they are generally not measurable until actually received. 46 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Inventories Inventories are recognized only in those funds in which they are material to the extent of affecting operations. For the City, these are the General Fund, Water Fund, and the Equipment Maintenance Fund. Inventories included in the governmental funds are valued at cost using the first -in, first out (FIFO) method. The costs of governmental fund inventories are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. Inventories of materials and supplies in the enterprise funds are determined by actual count and priced on the FIFO method. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include property, buildings, equipment, and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, water mains, and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or business -type activities columns in the government -wide financial statements. The City follows the policy of not capitalizing an asset with an initial, individual cost of less than $50,000 for infrastructure assets and $5,000 for remaining assets. Such assets are recorded at original purchase cost or at fair value at the date of donation when received as donated properties. Depreciation is computed using the straight -line method over the following estimated useful lives: Infrastructure 3 — 100 years Buildings and structures 20 — 50 years Improvements other than buildings 10 — 50 years Vehicles 2 — 20 years Other equipment 5 — 30 years Bond Premiums and Discounts Debt issued at a premium or discount is recorded net of the unamortized premium or discount. In the governmental funds, premiums and discounts are recorded entirely as other financing sources or uses in the year of issuance. In the proprietary funds and the government -wide statements, they are amortized over the life of the bonds. Compensated Absences Permanent City employees accumulate vacation and sick leave hours for subsequent use or for payment upon death, resignation, or retirement. The City pays its employees (except firefighters) one -half of the accumulated sick leave at the time of termination on the basis of the employee's then effective hourly base salary, provided that the dollar amount of the payment may be up to, but not exceed, the amount that an employee would be paid if the employee had terminated on June 28, 1985. Employees hired on or after June 29, 1985, are not eligible for payment of accumulated sick leave upon termination, death, or retirement. Pensions The provision for pension cost is recorded on the accrual basis (based on statutorily determined contribution rates), and the City's policy is to fund pension costs as they accrue. 47 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Landfill Closing Costs Costs expected to be incurred in ultimately closing the present landfill site are being systematically provided for through charges to expense over the estimated useful life of the landfill on the basis of capacity used (see Note 7). Budgetary and Legal Appropriation and Amendment Policies The City prepares and adopts an annual function budget, as prescribed by Iowa statutes, for all funds except internal service and agency funds. This is formalized in a separate budgetary report, the Financial Plan. This budget is adopted on or before March 15 of each year to become effective July 1, and constitutes the City's appropriation for each program and purpose specified therein until amended. The adopted budget must include the following: a. Expenditures for each function: Public safety Public works Health and social services Culture and recreation Community and economic development General government Debt service Capital projects Business - type /enterprise b. The amount to be raised by property taxation c. Income from sources other than property taxation d. Transfers in and transfers out The legal level of control (the level at which expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations) is the function level for all funds combined, rather than at the individual fund level. Management can transfer appropriations within a function, within a fund type, and between fund types, without the approval of the governing body so long as the total budget by function area will not be exceeded. It is necessary, therefore, to aggregate the expenditures of the budgeted activities within the governmental fund types with the expenditures of the budgeted activities within the enterprise funds on a function basis, and to compare such function totals to function budgeted totals in order to demonstrate legal compliance with the budget. The City's budget for revenue focuses on the individual fund revenue rather than on aggregated fund totals. The City formally adopts budgets for several funds that are not required by state law to be included in the annual function budget. Annual operating budgets are adopted for the internal service funds for management control purposes. Such budgets, however, are not legally required to be adopted under state statutes. These budgets are adopted and amended at the same time and in the same manner as the City's annual function budget. 48 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 A City budget for the current fiscal year may be amended for any of the following purposes as prescribed by Iowa statute: a. To permit the appropriation and expenditure of unexpended, unencumbered cash balances on hand at the end of the preceding fiscal year. b. To permit the appropriation and expenditure of amounts anticipated being available from sources other than property taxation. c. To permit transfers between funds. d. To permit transfers between programs. A budget amendment must be prepared and adopted in the same manner as the original budget. The City's budget was amended as prescribed, and the effects of those amendments are shown in the accompanying budgetary comparison schedule. The original budget was increased by $53,450,000 in revenues and other financing sources and by $116,569,000 in expenditures and other financing uses. Appropriations as adopted or amended, and not encumbered, lapse at the end of the fiscal year. As allowed by GASB Statement No. 41, Budgetary Comparison Schedules — Perspective Differences, the City presents budgetary comparison schedules as required supplementary information based on the program structure of nine functional areas as required by state statute for its legally adopted budget. Restricted Assets Assets within the individual funds, which can be designated by the City Council for any use within the fund's purpose, are considered to be unrestricted assets. Assets, which are restricted for specific uses by bonded debt requirements, grant provisions, or other requirements, are classified as restricted assets. Liabilities, which are payable from restricted assets, are classified as such. Classification of Fund Balances The City has changed accounting policies due to the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. This statement redefines the elements of fund balance in governmental funds and more clearly describes the different types of governmental funds. Accordingly, the beginning fund balance of certain governmental funds has been restated. 2. Compliance and Accountability At June 30, 2011 the Capital Project Fund for bridge, street, and traffic control construction reported a deficit fund balance of $1,741,000. The deficit is due to capital expenditures. The City anticipates receiving funds from the Iowa Department of Transportation. If not, bonds will be issued in 2012 to cover the capital expenditures. 49 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 3. Cash and Pooled Investments The City's deposits in banks at June 30, 2011 were entirely covered by federal depository insurance, national credit union administration, or by the State Sinking Fund in accordance with Chapter 12C of the Code of Iowa. This chapter provides for additional assessments against the depositories to insure there will be no loss of public funds. The City is authorized by statute to invest public funds in obligations of the United States government, its agencies and instrumentalities; certificates of deposit or other evidences of deposit at federally insured Iowa depository institutions approved by City Council and secured pursuant to the limitations set forth in Chapter 12C of the Code of Iowa; prime eligible bankers acceptances; certain high rated commercial paper; perfected repurchase agreements; Iowa Public Agency Investment Trust (IPAIT); certain registered open —end management investment companies registered with the Securities & Exchange Commission under the federal Investment Company Act of 1940; certain joint investment trusts; and warrants or improvement certificates of a drainage district. Investments are stated at fair value. In addition, the City had investments in the Iowa Public Agency Investment Trust, which are valued at an amortized cost of $57,609,225 pursuant to Rule 2a -7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Interest rate risk. The City's investment policy limits the investment of general and operating funds to one year, unless a temporary extension of maturities is approved by the City Council. In such cases, the average maturity of each fund's portfolio shall not exceed 397 days. Funds not identified as operating funds may be invested in instruments whose maturities do not exceed five years at the time of purchase. Credit risk. State law limits investments to commercial paper and corporate bonds to the top two ratings issued by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. It is the City's policy to comply with rating restrictions. The investment in Iowa Public Agency Investment Trust is not rated by Moody's Investors service as it is a state security that is backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing government and is not subject to credit risk. Concentration of credit risk The City investment policy limits the amount that may be invested in any one issuer to a maximum amount approved by the City Council. The aforementioned Iowa Public Agency Investment Trust (IPAIT) represents an investment in a pool managed by others. IPAIT is a common trust established under Iowa law pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 28E in 1987 to enable eligible Iowa public agencies to safely and effectively invest their available operating and reserve funds. IPAIT is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The IPAIT portfolios have followed established money market mutual fund investment parameters designed to maintain a $1 per unit net asset value since inception and were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Due to legal and budgetary reasons, the General Fund is assigned a portion of the investment earnings associated with other funds. These funds are the employee benefits, other shared revenue, and sanitation funds. -M CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 4. Interfund Balances and Transfers Interfund balances for the year ended June 30, 2011, consisted of the following: Advances from Community Interfund balances at June 30, 2011, include advances due to /from other funds. Advances to /from other funds represent amounts for construction loans, land and negative cash balance funding. $1,418,879 of the $1,462,780 advances to the Nonmajor Enterprise Funds and $631,473 of the $795,399 advance to the Parking Fund are not expected to be repaid within the next year. $1,945,901 of the $2,066,571 advances to the General Fund and $186,234 of the $197,297 advance to the Other Shared Revenue and Grants Fund are not expected to be repaid within the next year. None of the $18,000 advance to Housing Authority is expected to be repaid within the next year. The $444,162 advance to the Other Shared Revenue and Grants Fund is expected to be repaid within the next year. 51 Development Debt General Block Grant Service Sanitation Total Advances to: General $ - $ $ - $ 2,066,571 $ 2,066,571 Other Shared Revenue and Grants 444,162 197,297 - 641,459 Parking - - 795,399 795,399 It ousingAuthority - 18,000 - - 18,000 Nonmajor Enterprise - - - 1,462,780 1,462,780 Total $ 444,162 $ 18,000 $ 197,297 $ 4,324,750 $ 4,984,209 Interfund balances at June 30, 2011, include advances due to /from other funds. Advances to /from other funds represent amounts for construction loans, land and negative cash balance funding. $1,418,879 of the $1,462,780 advances to the Nonmajor Enterprise Funds and $631,473 of the $795,399 advance to the Parking Fund are not expected to be repaid within the next year. $1,945,901 of the $2,066,571 advances to the General Fund and $186,234 of the $197,297 advance to the Other Shared Revenue and Grants Fund are not expected to be repaid within the next year. None of the $18,000 advance to Housing Authority is expected to be repaid within the next year. The $444,162 advance to the Other Shared Revenue and Grants Fund is expected to be repaid within the next year. 51 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Interfund transfers for the year ended June 30, 2011, consisted of the following (continued) Transfers are used to move revenues and bond proceeds from the fund that State statutes or the budget requires to collect them to the fund that the State statutes or the budget requires to expend them. 52 Transfer frmn Other Cmmnunity Shared Employee Development Revenue and Nomnajor General Benefits Block Grant Giants Govermnental Tmnsfer to General $ - $ 8,435,816 $ - $ 68,900 $ 4,776 Debt service 108,862 - - 101,129 671 Other shared revenue andgrarrts 169,680 398,954 - - 269,270 Nonnajorgovermnenta1 1,973,586 - - 1,492,386 4,823,948 Wastewater treatment 950,387 - - 109,792 655,544 Water 197 - - - 794,789 Sanitation - - - - - Housing Authority - - 80,314 - - Nomnajor enterprise 100,000 - - - 1,955,216 Internal Service 25,640 - - 1,530 201,126 Total Transfer to $ 3,328,352 $ 8,834,770 $ 80,314 $ 1,773,737 $ 8,705,340 (continued) Transfers are used to move revenues and bond proceeds from the fund that State statutes or the budget requires to collect them to the fund that the State statutes or the budget requires to expend them. 52 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Transfer from Wastewater Housing Nommjor Irtemal Total Treatrnent Water Sanitation Authority Enterprise Service Transfer frmn $ 20,438 $ 20,438 $ - $ 43,000 $ 65,219 $ - $ 8,658,587 - - - - - - 210,662 - - - - - - 837,904 150,000 315,187 - 30,000 164,80 - 8,949,915 - - - - - - 1,715,723 - - - - - - 794,986 - - - - - 276,812 276,812 - - - - - - 80,314 - - - - - - 3,055,216 - - 114,169 - - 3,375 345,840 $ 170,438 $ 335,625 $ 114,169 $ 73,000 $ 230,027 $ 280,187 $ 23,925,959 53 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 5. Capital Assets Capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2011, was as follows: Acquisitions Beginning and Disposals and Balance July 1, 2010 Transfers Transfers tame 30, 2011 Govermnental activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land $ 21,837,937 $ 2,049,535 $ - $ 23,887,472 Construction in progress 5,841,271 12,053,462 1,886,979 16,007,754 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 27,679,208 14,102,997 1,886,979 39,895,226 Capital assets, being depreciated Buildings 62,514,109 1,389,008 Improvements other than buildings 5,371,583 221,075 Machinery and equipment 42,207,488 4,073,278 Infrastructure 106,108,526 674,819 Total capital assets being depreciated 216 ,201,706 6,358,180 Less accuunu fated depreciation for 207,965 1,460,037 1,668,002 63,695,152 5,592,658 44,820,729 106,783,345 220,891,884 Buildings 17,472,931 1,609,095 134,046 18,947,980 Improvements other than buildings 1,792,263 217,163 - 2,009,426 Machinery and equipment 26,299,477 3,313,263 1,439,214 28,173,526 Infrastructure 25,245,478 2,375,760 - 27,621,238 Total accurnulated depreciation 70,810,149 7,515,281 1,573,260 76,752,170 Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 145,391,557 (1,157,101) 94,742 144,139,714 Govemnental activities capital assets, net $ 173,070,765 $ 12,945,896 $ 1,981,721 $ 184,034,940 54 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 55 Acquisitions Beginning and Disposals and Balance July 1, 2010 Transfers Transfers June 30, 2011 Business -type activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land $ 25,847,097 $ - $ 23,292 $ 25,823,805 Construction in progress 11,308,754 16,380,887 8,156,501 19,533,140 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 37,155,851 16,380,887 8,179,793 45,356,945 Capital assets, being depreciated: Buildings 119,681,841 83,175 58,250 119,706,766 Improvements other than buildings 10,397,761 162,090 - 10,559,851 Machinery and equipment 22,115,791 427,250 236,107 22,306,934 Infrastructure 189,682,707 9,726,668 1,345,720 198,063,655 Total capital assets being depreciated 341,878,100 10,399,183 1,640,077 350,637,206 Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings 47,389,364 3,230,401 58,250 50,561,515 Improvements other than buildings 3,551,829 447,146 - 3,998,975 Machinery and equipment 13,342,442 1,081,540 187,212 14,236,770 Infrastructure 59,138,083 4,240,629 1,345,720 62,031-99n— Total accumulated depreciation 123,421,718 8,999,716 1,591,182 130,830,252 Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 218,456,382 1,399,467 48,895 219,806,954 Business -type activities capital assets, net $ 255,612,233 $ 17,780,354 $ 8,228,688 $ 265,163,899 Depreciation expense was charged to functions as follows: Govermnental activities: Public safety $ 654,399 Public works 3,152,191 Culture and recreation 1,993,435 Community and economic development 37,061 General govemment 274,735 Intemalservice funds 1,403,460 Total depreciation expense - govermnental activities $ 7,515,281 Business -type activities: Parking $ 907,606 Wastewater treatment 4,017,155 Water 2,230,328 Sanitation 261,204 Housing authority 136,622 Nomnajor enterprise 1,446,801 Total depreciation expense - business -type activities $ 8,999,716 55 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 6. Long Term Debt Changes in Debt for Bonds Bond debt activity for the year ended June 30, 2011, was as follows: Governmental activities: General obligation bonds Plus: Unamortized Premium (Discounts) Business -type activities: General obligation bonds Less: Unamortized Discounts Total general obligation bonds Revenue bonds Plus: Unamortized Premium Total revenue bonds General Obligation Bonds July 1, 2010 Issues Retirements Due Within June 30, 2011 One Year $ 71,299,622 $ 27,095,000 $ 20,965,840 $ 77,428,782 $ 11,892,143 492,115 (111,985) 64,955 315,175 66,512 $ 71,791,737 $ 26,983,015 $ 21,030,795 $ 77,743,957 $ 11,958,655 $ 3,750,378 $ - $ 604,160 $ 3,146,218 $ 622,857 19,211 - 3,842 15,369 3,842 3,731,167 - 600,318 3,130,849 619,015 78,335,000 - 3,370,000 74,965,000 6,315,000 946,888 - 54,582 892,306 54,582 79,281,888 - 3,424,582 75,857,306 6,369,582 83.013.055 $ - $ 4.024.900 $ 78.988.155 $ 6988.597 Various issues of general obligation bonds totaling $80,575,000 are outstanding as of June 30, 2011. The bonds have interest rates ranging from 0.65% to 5.6% and mature in varying annual amounts ranging from $100,000 to $2,195,000 per issue, with the final maturities due in the year ending June 30, 2023. Interest and principal payments on all general obligation bonds, except tax abated portions recorded in the enterprise funds, are accounted for through the Debt Service Fund. Portions of several general obligation bond issues have been used to acquire or expand the enterprise fund facilities. In some instances, revenue generated by the enterprise funds is used to pay the general long- term debt principal and interest. The liability for those bonds that are expected to be paid by enterprise funds is included in those funds. -M CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Annual debt service requirements to maturity for general obligation bonds are as follows: Fiscal Year Ending Governmental Activities June 30 Principal 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 -2021 2022 -2026 Total $ 11,892,143 10,838,446 10,173,445 9,759,748 9,140,000 24,340,000 1,285,000 Interest $ 3,069,732 2,173,336 1,853,080 1,524,617 1,208,933 2,461,131 104,405 Business -tvne Activities Principal Interest $ 622,857 $ 119,247 641,554 96,592 636,555 71,997 655,252 47,435 295,000 22,125 295,000 11,063 $ 77,428,782 $ 12,395,234 $ 3,146,218 $ 368,459 On June 8, 2011, the City issued $10,930,000 of general obligation refunding bonds to provide resources to purchase U.S. Government State and Local Government Series securities for the purpose of generating resources for all future debt service payments of $10,580,000 of general obligation bonds. As a result, the refunded general obligation bonds are considered to be defeased and the liability has been removed from the governmental activities column of the statement of net assets. The advance refunding was undertaken to reduce total future debt service payments. The result of the transaction is a reduction of $1,018,250 in future debt service payments and an economic gain of $900,103. The City had defeased general obligation debt totaling $10,580,00 that was still outstanding as of June 30, 2011. Revenue Bonds As of June 30, 2011, the following unmatured revenue bond issues are outstanding: Original issue amount Interest rates Annual maturities Amount outstanding Wastewater Parking_ Treatment Water 9,110,000 3.0 %to 5.0% 500,000 to 770,000 8,690,000 57 $ 48,020,000 $ 3.0 %to 5.0% $ 290,000 to $ $ 2,750,000 $ $ 44,685,000 $ 25,365,000 2.0% to 4.65% 360,000 to 835,000 21,590,000 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Revenue bond debt service requirements to maturity are as follows: Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 -2021 2022 -2026 Bus Ines s -b Principal $ 6,315,000 6,625,000 5,075,000 5,255,000 5,475,000 30,185,000 16,035,000 Activities Interest $ 2,893,609 2,688,717 2,498,788 2,319,945 2,118,836 7,041,844 1,520,869 $ '4,965,000 $ 21,082,608 The revenue bond ordinances required that wastewater treatment, parking system, and water revenues be set aside into separate and special accounts as they are received. The use and the amounts to be included in the accounts are as follows: (a) Revenue Bond and Interest Sinking Reserve (b) Revenue Debt Service Reserve Amount sufficient to pay current bond and interest maturities. Amount required to be deposited in the Revenue Bond and Interest Reserve until the reserve fund equals: Parking Revenue and Water Revenue bonds — maximum debt service due on the bonds in any succeeding fiscal year. Wastewater Revenue bonds — 125% of the average principal and interest payments over the life of all the Wastewater Revenue bonds. (c) Improvement Reserve $20,000 per month until the reserve balance equals or exceeds $2,000,000 for Wastewater Revenue bonds and $5,000 per month until the reserve balance equals or exceeds $450,000 for Water Revenue bonds, with no further deposits once the minimum balance is reached. If the reserve falls below the required minimum, monthly transfers in the aforementioned amounts will resume. 37 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Summary of Bond Issues General obligation and revenue bonds payable at June 30, 2011, are comprised of the following issues: Revenue Bonds: Refimded Parking Bonds (6) Refimded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (7) Refimded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (8) Refimded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (9) Water Bonds Refimded Water Bonds (10) Refimded Water Bonds (11) Total Revenue Bonds Date of r�Q „P Amount Date of Final Issue General Obligation Bonds: Rates Multi- Purpose and Library June 30, 2011 Construction May 2002 Refimded Muki- Purpose (1) Oct. 2002 Multi- Purpose Nov. 2003 Taxable -Urban Renewal Mar. 2004 Multi- Purpose Mar. 2005 Multi- Purpose Jun 2006 Multi- Purpose Jun 2006 Refinded Water 2.5-3.6 Construction (2) Sep. 2006 Multi- Purpose May 2007 Multi- Purpose June 2008 Refimded Multi- Purpose (3) Oct. 2008 Multi- Purpose June 2009 Taxable- Housing Improvements June 2009 Refimded Multi- Purpose (4) June 2009 Multi- Purpose Aug. 201C Multi- Purpose June 2011 Taxable- Housing Improvements June 2011 Relinded Multi- Purpose and 580,000 Library Construction (5) June 2011 Total General Obligation Bonds Revenue Bonds: Refimded Parking Bonds (6) Refimded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (7) Refimded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (8) Refimded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (9) Water Bonds Refimded Water Bonds (10) Refimded Water Bonds (11) Total Revenue Bonds Date of r�Q „P Amount Interest Final Outstanding Issued Rates Maturity June 30, 2011 7/20 Oct. 2002 8,500,000 $ 29,100,000 3.5-5.0 7/22 6/12 $ 2,195,000 10,600,000 2.5-4.0 7/24 6/15 1,700,000 5,570,000 2.5-3.6 7/25 6/14 1,680,000 7,305,000 4.0-5.4 6/23 5,965,000 7,020,000 3.0-4.0 6115 3,110,000 6,265,000 3.625-4.0 6/16 3,495,000 1,000,000 5.5-5.6 6/16 580,000 3,350,000 3.6-3.75 6/17 1,800,000 8,870,000 3.75 6/17 5,710,000 9,150,000 3.25-3.75 6/18 6,710,000 17,005,000 3.0-3.75 6/18 11,300,000 6,685,000 2.5-4.0 6/19 5,475,000 505,000 1.5 - 3.0 6/14 305,000 5,840,000 2.0-4.0 6/16 4,270,000 7,420,000 2.0-2.75 6/20 6,605,000 7,925,000 2.0-3.625 6/21 7,925,000 820,000 0.65- 1.1 6/13 820,000 10,930,000 2.0-3.625 6/21 10,930,000 $ 80,575,000 Amount Interest Final Outstanding Issued Rates Maturity June 30, 2010 Nov. 2009 $ 9,110,000 3.0-5.0 Oct. 2008 24,280,000 3.0-5.0 7/24 $ 8,690,000 7/22 21,205,000 May 2009 8,660,000 3.5-5.0 7/25 Apr. 2010 15,080,000 3.0-4.0 7/20 Oct. 2002 8,500,000 2.0-4.65 7/22 Oct. 2008 7,115,000 3.0-4.375 7/24 May 2009 9,750,000 4.0-4.5 7/25 -M I1 111 15,080,000 5,800,000 6,430,000 9,360,000 $ 74,965,000 $ 155.540.000 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 (1) This bond issue has a portion of the general obligation bonds payable shown as a liability on the balance sheet of the Water Fund. Also, this bond issue refunded the October 1992, June 1994, April 1995, and March 1997 General Obligation Bonds. (2) This bond issue has the general obligation bonds payable shown as a liability on the balance sheet of the Water Fund. Also, this bond issue refunded the November 1997 Water Construction General Obligation Bonds. (3) This bond issue refunded the April 1998, March 1999, and July 2000 General Obligation Bonds. (4) This bond issue refunded the June 2001 General Obligation Bonds. (5) This bond issue is an advance refunding of a portion of the May 2002 General Obligation Bonds. (6) This bond issue refunded the December 1999 Parking Revenue Bonds. (7) This bond issue refunded the March 1996, May 1997, and January 1999 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (8) This bond issue refunded the October 2000 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (9) This bond issue refunded the December 2001 and April 2002 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (10) This bond issue refunded the May 1999 Water Revenue Bonds. (11) This bond issue refunded the December 2000 Water Revenue Bonds. Conduit Debt Obligations From time to tune, the City has issued Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Facility Refunding Revenue Bonds, and Midwestern Disaster Area Revenue Bonds to provide financial assistance to private sector entities for the acquisition, construction, and renovation of industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are collateralized by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. All payments on the bonds are made by the private sector entities directly to a bond trustee, who is a third party financial institution, and in turn, disburses the payment to the respective bond holders. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. As of June 30, 2011, there were three series of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Facility Refunding Revenue Bonds, and Midwest Disaster Area Revenue Bonds outstanding, with an aggregate principal amount payable of $39,183,764. CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Debt Legal Compliance Legal Debt Margin: As of June 30, 2011, the general obligation debt issued by the City did not exceed its legal debt limit computed as follows: Assessed valuation: Real property Utilities Total valuation Debt limit, 5% of total assessed valuation Debt applicable to debt limit: General obligation bonds Legal debt margin 7. Other Long -term Liabilities Notes Payable Changes in Long -Term Liabilities -Notes Payable Note Payable activity for the year ended June 30, 2011, was as follows: July 1, 2010 Issues $ 4,362,817,413 90.281.335 $ 4.453.098.748 $ 222,654,937 80.575.000 $ 142.079.937 Due Within Retirements June 30, 2011 One Year Goven¢uental activities: $ 211,000 $ - $ - $ 211,000 $ - A note payable was issued to Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship for the purchase of an 11 unit apartment building for low income and disabled housing in the Peninsula Neighborhood. The terms of the loan are 1 0/o, interest only payments for twenty years with a final balloon payment of $211,000 due on August 1, 2025. 61 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Employee Vested Benefits Changes in Long -Term Liabilities - Employee Vested benefits Employee Vested Benefits activity for the year ended June 30, 2011, was as follows: Due Within July 1, 2010 Issues Retirements June 30, 2011 One Year Governmental activities: $ 2,099,762 $ 1.206.797 $ 1,133,652 $ 2,172,907 $ 1,180,751 Business -type activities: $ 523,018 $ 284,662 $ 288,275 $ 519,405 $ 290.601 For the govermnental activities, employee vested benefits are generally liquidated by the General Fund and Cotmmunity Development Block Grant Fund. Landfill Closure / Post - Closure Care Costs Changes in Long -Term Liabilities - Landfill Closure Post- closure Care Costs Landfill Closure Post - closure care activity for the year ended June 30, 2011, was as follows: Due Witten July 1, 2010 Issues Retirements June 30, 2011 One Year Business -type activities: $ 11,159,929 $ 594,725 $ - $ 11,754,654 $ - In August 1993, the GASH issued Statement No. 18, Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Closure and Post - closure Care Costs (the Statement). Under these rules, in addition to operating expenses related to current activities of the landfill, an expense provision and related liability are being recognized based on the future closure and post - closure care costs that will be incurred near or after the date the landfill no longer accepts waste. The recognition of these landfill closure and post - closure care costs is based on the amount of the landfill used during the year. The estimated liability for landfill closure and post - closure care costs as of June 30, 2011, is approximately $11,754,654, which is based on 88.1% usage (filled) of the landfill and is included in accrued liabilities within the Sanitation Fund. It is estimated that an additional amount of approximately $1,587,746 will be recognized as closure and post - closure care expenses between the date of the balance sheet and the date the landfill is expected to be filled to capacity by the year ended June 30, 2019. The estimated total current cost of the landfill closure and post - closure care costs at June 30, 2011, was determined by engineers from Howard R. Green Company and approximated $13,342,400. It is based on the amount that would be paid if all equipment, facilities, and services required to close, monitor, and maintain the landfill were acquired as of June 30, 2011. These amounts are based on an estimated post - closure care and monitoring period of 30 years, consistent with current State Department of Natural Resources regulations. However, the actual cost of closure and post - closure care may be higher due to inflation, changes in technology, or changes in landfill laws and regulations. 62 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 The City is required by federal and state laws and regulations to provide some form of financial assurance to finance closure and post - closure care. The City will meet its financial assurance obligations through the issuance of general obligation bonds. As of June 30, 2011, the Sanitation Fund had $13,641,828 in related equity in pooled cash and investments, at fair value designated for satisfaction of post - closure costs. The City estimates that these cash reserves will only provide a fraction of the dollars needed to close and monitor the landfill. The remaining portion of post - closure care costs, anticipated future inflation costs and additional costs that might arise from changes in post - closure requirements (due to changes in technology or more rigorous environmental regulations, for example) may need to be covered by charges to future landfill users as well as City taxpayers. Other Post Employment Benefits Changes in Long -Term Liabilities - Other Post pinployinent Benefits Net OPEB Obligation July 1, 2010 Current Year June 30, 2011 Governmental activities: $ 1,350,150 $ 355A81 $ 1.705,631 Business -type activities: $ 396,338 $ 155,372 $ 551,710 The City implemented GASH Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits other Than Pensions during the year ended June 30, 2009. Plan Description: The City operates one self - funded medical and dental for all employees, which is offered to current and retired employees and their dependents. All full -tune employees who retire or terminate /resign and their eligible dependents are offered the following post - employment benefit options: Health insurance and dental insurance — The option of continuing with the City's health insurance plan at the individual's expense. These benefits cease upon Medicare eligibility. Life insurance — The option of converting the employee's City -paid policy to an individual policy at the individual's expense with the City's life insurance carrier. Long -term disability — For employees who terminate/resign and have been on the plan for a minimum of one year, the option of converting the employee's City -paid group policy to a personal policy at the individual's expense with the City's long -term disability insurance carrier. The above options, while at the individual's own expense, are included within the City's overall insurance package, which results in an implicit rate subsidy and an OPEB liability. Funding Policy: The plan member's contribution requirements are established and may be amended by the City. The City currently finances the benefit plans on a pay -as- you -go basis. 63 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Annual OPEB Cost and Net OPEB Obligation: The City's annual OPEB cost is calculated based on the annual required contribution (ARC) of the City, an amount actuarially determined in accordance with GASB Statement No. 45. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal costs each year and amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities over a period not to exceed 30 years. The following table shows the components of the City's annual OPEB cost for the year ended June 30, 2011, the amount actually contributed to the plans, and changes in the City's net OPEB obligation: Annual required contribution $ 591,292 Interest on net OPEB obligation 69,860 Adjustment to annual required contribution (62,376) Annual OPEB costs 598,776 Contributions made (87,922) Increase in net OPEB obligation 510,854 Net OPEB obligation beginning of year 1,746,488 Net OPEB obligation end of year $2,257,342 For calculation of the net OPEB obligation, the actuary has set the transition day as July 1, 2008. The end of year net OPEB obligation was calculated by the actuary as the cumulative difference between the actuarially determined funding requirements and the actual contributions for the year ended June 30, 2011. The City's annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plans and the net OPEB obligation as of June 30, 2011 are summarized as follows: Percentage of Annual OPEB Cost Annual Year Ended OPEB Cost June 30, 2009 $1,288,466 June 30, 2010 $1,291,319 June 30, 2011 $ 598,776 Percentage of Annual OPEB Cost Net OPEB Contributed from City Obli ag tion 48.3% $ 665,791 16.3% $1,746,488 14.7% $2,257,342 Funded Status and Funding Progress: As of July 1, 2010, the most recent actuarial valuation date for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, the actuarial accrued liability was $6,893,438, with no actuarial value of assets, resulting in an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of $6,893,438. The covered payroll (annual payroll of active employees covered by the plans) was $29,842,842 and the ratio of the UAAL to covered payroll was 23.1 %. As of June 30, 2011, there were no trust fund assets. Actuarial Methods and Assumptions: Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions about the probability of events far into the future. Examples include assumption about future employments, mortality, and the health care cost trend. Actuarially determined amounts are subject to continual review as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made about the future. 64 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 The required schedule of funding progress, presented as required supplementary information in the section following the Notes to Financial Statements, will present multi -year trend information about whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits. Calculations are based on the types of benefits provided under the terms of the substantive plan at the time of each valuation and on the pattern of sharing of costs between the employer and plan members to that point. The projection of benefits for financial reporting purposes does not explicitly incorporate the potential effects of legal or contractual funding limitations on the pattern of cost sharing between the employer and plan members in the future. As of the July 1, 2010 actuarial valuation date, the actuarial cost method used is the entry age normal method. The actuarial assumption includes a 4% discount rate. The projected annual medical trend rate is 2.2 %. The ultimate medical trend rate is 6 %. The medical trend rate is increased to 10.0% for year two and then reduced by 0.5% each year until reaching the 6% ultimate trend rate. The projected annual dental trend rate is 2.9 %. The ultimate dental trend rate is 4 %. The dental trend rate is increased to 5.5% for year two and then reduced by 0.5% each year until reaching the 4% ultimate trend rate. Mortality rates for active employees are from the RP -2000 Employee Table and for retirees are from RP- 2000 Healthy Annuitant Table, applied on a gender- specific basis. Annual retirement and termination probabilities were developed from the retirement probabilities from the MFPRSI and IPERS pension plan turnover tables, adjusted to be consistent with recent City experience. Projected claim costs of the health and dental plans are $765.61 per month. The salary increase rate was assumed to be 3.5% per year. The UAAL is being amortized as a level percentage of projected payroll expenses over 30 years on an open basis. 8. Short Term Debt Changes in Short -Term Liabilities - Notes Payable Notes Payable activity for the year ended June 30, 2011, was as follows: July 1, 2010 Issues Retirements Due Withm June 30, 2011 One Yom Governmental activities: $ 497,500 $ 1,-c)5,500 $ 6--,500 $ 1,615 500 $ 1,61 � 500 During FYI 1, the City issued multiple short term loans totaling $1,795,500 and repaid multiple short term loans totaling $677,500. The loans mature one year from the date of the loan and bear interest rates ranging from 2% to 3.25 %. The loans were used to fund the acquisition and rehabilitation of single family homes as part of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program (UniverCity). UniverCity is a cooperative effort of the City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa dedicated to ensuring that the University of Iowa Campus and surrounding neighborhoods remain vital, safe, affordable, and attractive places to live and work for both renters and homeowners. The City secured a $1.25 million I -JOBS grant that allows the program to acquire and rehabilitate 25 homes in the designated UniverCity 65 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Neighborhoods. The short term loans have been repaid and will be repaid with the proceeds from the sale of the rehabilitated homes. 9. Fund Equity The City implemented GASB Statement 954, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions effective with the June 30, 2011 financial statements. Fund balances for the governmental funds are reported in classifications that comprise a hierarchy based on the extent to which the government honors constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in those funds can be spent. The Nonspendable classification contains amounts not in spendable form or legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. Restricted amounts contain restraint on their use externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments; or imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Committed amounts can only be used for specific purposes imposed by formal action of the government's highest level of decision - making authority. The highest level of decision - making authority is the City Council and it takes an ordinance or resolution to establish a fund balance commitment. Amounts intended to be used for specific purposes are Assigned. Assignments should not cause deficits in the Unassigned fund balance. The Finance Director has been delegated authority by the City Council to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes. Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the General Fund. The City would use Restricted fund balances first, followed by Committed resources, and then Assigned resources, as appropriate opportunities arise, but reserves the right to selectively spend Unassigned resources first to defer the use of these other classified funds. M CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Components of Fund Balance 10. Risk Management The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; workplace accidents, errors and omissions; and natural disasters. During fiscal year 1988 the City established the Loss Reserve Fund, an internal service fund, to account for and finance its uninsured risks of loss. During the year ended June 30, 2011 the City purchased property, liability, and workers' compensation insurance under the program that provides for a $100,000 self - insured retention per occurrence on property losses, a $500,000 self - insured retention per occurrence on liability, and a $400,000 self - insured retention on workers' compensation losses. The liability insurance provides coverage for claims in excess of the aforementioned self- insured retention up to a maximum of $21,000,000 annual aggregate of losses paid. The operating funds pay annual premiums to the Loss Reserve Fund. Accumulated monies in the Loss Reserve Fund are available to cover the self - insured retention amounts and any uninsured losses. Settled claims have not exceeded this cornmercial coverage in any of the past twenty four fiscal years. The Housing Authority Fund is insured under a separate policy with the Assisted Housing Risk Management Association. The remaining funds participate in the Loss Reserve Fund. The funds make payments to the Loss Reserve Fund based on actuarial estimates of the amounts needed to pay prior- and current -year claims and to establish a reserve for catastrophic losses. The Fund's accrued liabilities balance includes a claims liability at June 30, 2011 based on the requirements of GASH Statement No. 67 Community Other Development Shared Other Employee Block Revenue and Debt Governmental General Benefis Grant Grants Service Funds Total Nonspendable'. Inventory $ 261,554 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 261,554 Perpetual Care Principal 69,000 69,000 Total Nonspendable 550,554 - - - - - 550,54 Restricted for Public Safety 440,995 - - - - - 440,995 Local Option Sales Tax 15,582,610 - - - - - 15,582,610 Assets Held for Resale 195,000 - - - - - 195,000 Debt Service - - - - 15,150,718 - 15,150,718 GO Bond Projects - - - - - 16,059,650 16,059,650 State Funding - - - 481,045 - - 481,045 Grant Agreement - - 1,925,290 - - - 1,925,290 Public Safety Employee Benefits - 2,552,011 - - - - 2,552,011 Economic Development - - - - - 645,405 645,405 Other Restricted 49,882 - - - - 95,255 145,117 Total Restricted 16,268,487 2,552,011 1,925,290 481,045 15,150,718 16,800,270 51,157,819 Assigned to Library Programs 578,276 - - - - - 578,276 Senior Center Programs 58,264 - - - - - 58,264 Replacement and Acquisition Reserves 2,818,565 - - - - - 2,818,565 Other Assigned 87,048 87,048 Total Assigned 5,541,955 - - - - - 5,541,955 Unassigned: 15,950,921 (1,741,187) 14,189,754 Total Fund Balances $ 56,071,895 $ 2,552,011 $ 1,925,290 $ 481,045 $ 15,150,718 $ 15,059,085 $ 69,220,040 10. Risk Management The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; workplace accidents, errors and omissions; and natural disasters. During fiscal year 1988 the City established the Loss Reserve Fund, an internal service fund, to account for and finance its uninsured risks of loss. During the year ended June 30, 2011 the City purchased property, liability, and workers' compensation insurance under the program that provides for a $100,000 self - insured retention per occurrence on property losses, a $500,000 self - insured retention per occurrence on liability, and a $400,000 self - insured retention on workers' compensation losses. The liability insurance provides coverage for claims in excess of the aforementioned self- insured retention up to a maximum of $21,000,000 annual aggregate of losses paid. The operating funds pay annual premiums to the Loss Reserve Fund. Accumulated monies in the Loss Reserve Fund are available to cover the self - insured retention amounts and any uninsured losses. Settled claims have not exceeded this cornmercial coverage in any of the past twenty four fiscal years. The Housing Authority Fund is insured under a separate policy with the Assisted Housing Risk Management Association. The remaining funds participate in the Loss Reserve Fund. The funds make payments to the Loss Reserve Fund based on actuarial estimates of the amounts needed to pay prior- and current -year claims and to establish a reserve for catastrophic losses. The Fund's accrued liabilities balance includes a claims liability at June 30, 2011 based on the requirements of GASH Statement No. 67 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 10, as amended, which requires that a liability for claims be reported if information prior to the issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Changes in the Loss Reserve Fund's claims liability amount for property, liability, and workers' compensation for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 are as follows: Also, the City is partially self - insured, through stop -loss insurance, for employee health care coverage, which is available to all of its permanent employees. This insurance provides stop -loss coverage for claims in excess of $100,000 per employee with an aggregate stop -loss of $9,316,713. The operating funds are charged premiums by the Loss Reserve Fund. The City reimburses a health insurance provider for actual medical costs incurred, plus a claims processing \administrative fee. Changes in the Loss Reserve Fund's claims liability amount for health care coverage for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 are as follows: 2009-2010 2010-2011 Beginning -of- Fiscal -Year Liability Current -Year Claims and Changes in Estimates 837,000 $ 5,879,000 714,000 6,259,000 68 Claim Payments $ 6,002,000 6,245,000 Balance at Fiscal Year -End 714,000 728,000 Current -Year Beginning -of- Claims and Balance at Fiscal -Year Changes in Claim Fiscal Liability Estimates Payments Year -End 2009 -2010 $ 1,237,000 $ 1,127,000 $ 762,000 $ 1,602,000 2010 -2011 1,602,000 92,000 994,000 700,000 Also, the City is partially self - insured, through stop -loss insurance, for employee health care coverage, which is available to all of its permanent employees. This insurance provides stop -loss coverage for claims in excess of $100,000 per employee with an aggregate stop -loss of $9,316,713. The operating funds are charged premiums by the Loss Reserve Fund. The City reimburses a health insurance provider for actual medical costs incurred, plus a claims processing \administrative fee. Changes in the Loss Reserve Fund's claims liability amount for health care coverage for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 are as follows: 2009-2010 2010-2011 Beginning -of- Fiscal -Year Liability Current -Year Claims and Changes in Estimates 837,000 $ 5,879,000 714,000 6,259,000 68 Claim Payments $ 6,002,000 6,245,000 Balance at Fiscal Year -End 714,000 728,000 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 11. Commitments and Contingencies The total outstanding contractual coirunitments as of June 30, 2011 are as follows: Fund Project Amount Bridge, street and traffic Paving and bridge construction, control construction engineering design and consulting $ 4,878,023 Other construction Public works construction, culture & recreation construction, and fire station construction 1,513,751 Parking Garage improvements and repair & maintenance 669,778 Wastewater Facility consolidation consulting and wastewater main repairs 472 898 Water Water main construction and flood mitigation construction 103,374 Sanitation Landfill consulting and recycling facility construction 2,376,409 Airport Runway grading and paving 1,311,923 Storinwater Storinwater system improvements 114,045 $ 11,440 201 The total significant encumbrances as of June 30, 2011 are as follows: Fund Project Amount Other Govermnental Other Construction Transit buses, fire equipment, and police equipment $ 841,717 $ 841,717 M] CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 12. Contingent Liabilities Litigation The City is a defendant in a number of lawsuits arising principally from claims against the City for alleged improper actions by City employees, with such lawsuits typically involving claims of improper police action, unlawful taking of property by zoning negligence, appeals of condemnations, and discrimination. Total damages claimed are substantial; however, it has been the City's experience that such actions are settled for amounts substantially less than claimed amounts. The City's management estimates that the potential claims against the City, not covered by various insurance policies, would not materially affect the financial condition of the City. The City has the authority to levy additional taxes (outside the regular limit) to cover uninsured judgments against the City. 13. Pension and Retirement Systems Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa The City is a participating employer in the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI or the Plan), which is a cost - sharing multiple - employer defined benefit public police and fire employees retirement system. All fire fighters and police officers appointed under civil service participate in the Plan. The Plan provides retirement, disability, and death benefits that are established under state statute. The Plan issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa, 7155 Lake Drive Suite 201, West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 or the report may be obtained from website www.mfl)rsi.org under the publications link. A member may retire at age 55 with 22 years of employment, and receive full benefits that are equal to 66% of the member's average final compensation. Additionally, members retiring with more than 22 years of service will receive an additional 2% of the member's average final compensation for up to 8 years of additional service. Other benefits are also calculated at varying percentages of the average final compensation. Benefits vest after four years of service. Member contribution rates are established by state statute. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, members contributed 9.40 %. The City's contribution rate is based upon an actuarially determined normal contribution rate. The normal contribution rate is provided by state statute to be the actuarial liabilities of the plan less current plan assets, the total then being divided by 1% of the actuarially determined present value of prospective future compensation of all members, further reduced by member contributions. Legislatively appropriated contributions from the state to the plan may further reduce the City's contribution rate. However, the City's contribution rate may not be less than 17% of earnable compensation. The City was required to contribute 19.90% of earnable compensation of each member in 2011, 17.0% of earnable compensation in 2010, and 18.75% of earnable compensation in 2009. The contributions paid by the City for the years ended June 30, 2009, 2010, and 2011, were $1,434,031, $1,349,558, and $1,826,791 respectively, and was equal to the required contributions for each year. 70 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Iowa Public Employees Retirement System The City contributes to the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS), which is a cost - sharing multiple - employer defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Iowa. IPERS provides retirement and death benefits, which are established by State statute to plan members and beneficiaries. IPERS issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to IPERS, P.O. Box 9117, Des Moines, Iowa 50306 -9117. All employees eighteen or older, except temporary employees of six months or less of employment duration, who do not participate in any other public retirement system in the state are eligible and must participate in IPERS. The pension plan provides retirement and death benefits that are established by state statute. Generally, a member may retire at the age of 65, or any time after age 62 and 20 years or more of service, or when age plus years of service equals or exceeds 88, and receive unreduced (for age) benefits. Members may also retire at the age of 55 or more at reduced benefits. Benefits vest after four years of service or after attaining the age of 55. Full benefits are equal to 60% of the average of the highest three years of covered wages times years of service divided by 30. Plan members are required to contribute 4.5% of their annual covered salary and the City is required to contribute 6.95% of annual covered payroll. Contribution requirements are established by state statute. The City's contributions to IPERS for the years ended June 30, 2009, 2010, and 2011, were $1,659,955, $1,767,350, and $1,969,422 respectively, and were equal to the required contributions for each year. 14. Municipal Utility Systems Water System The Water Division is comprised of five parts: Administration, Treatment Plant, Customer Service, Distribution, and Public Information/Education. There are a total of 32.75 (FTE) employees who work in the Water Division. This division serves 67,862 people and has over 23,000 customers. The average daily use for 2011 was 5.51 million gallons per day (MGD). A peak flow of 8.23 MGD was experienced during the summer of 2005. Water Sources: The primary source of water for the City is the alluvial aquifer collector wells along the Iowa River. Four collector wells can provide approximately 11.0 MGD. Additional sources include two Jordan aquifer wells which can provide 2.0 MGD; four Siluran aquifer wells which can provide 1.0 MGD; a sand pit that can provide 1.5 MGD; a river intake that can provide 3.0 MGD; for a total of approximately 18.5 MGD maximum capacity. Water Treatment Processes: The facilities include one treatment plant (constructed in 2003) located at 80 Stephen Atkins Drive. The plant is a surface water plant design that includes aeration, lime softening ( coagulation /flocculation/sedimentation), and granular activated carbon filtration processes with fluoridation and free chlorination. The grade four water facility employs operators that perform over 200 water quality tests per day in -house and collect samples for testing at the University Hygienic Laboratory. This testing ensures that the water meets all of the Safe Drinking Water Act Standards. 71 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Distribution System: The water flows through approximately 290 miles of water mains and includes over 25,000 service connections. The distribution piping consists of cast iron, ductile and PVC main that ranges in size from 2" to 30 ". The treatment plant site has effective water storage capacity of 1.75 million gallons of water; in addition there are four remote ground storage reservoirs (with pumping stations) that add up to remote effective storage capacity of 6.0 million gallons of water. The water system also provides for fire protection with approximately 3,100 hydrants located throughout the community. Billing and Collections: Customers are billed monthly on a combined utility statement which includes charges for sewer, water, solid waste, and curbside recycling. Under present City policy and City ordinances, utility bills are due when received but contain a delinquency date which provides 15 days for payment. If payment is not made in full within 22 days, a notice is mailed which allows 25 calendar days before service is disconnected. The City's bad debt write -offs have been less than 0.5% of gross revenues for the past three years. Rates: The following rates and charges were effective July 1, 2010. Water Service Charge Minimums (includes up to the first 100 cubic feet (c.f.)) Meter Size Inches Charge 5/8" $6.41 3/4" 7.00 1" 8.26 1 1/2" 16.47 Meter Size Inches Charge 2" $22.14 3" 40.91 4" 71.37 6" 143.61 Monthly Usage in excess of 100 cubic feet (c.f) 101-3,000 $2.99 per 100 c.f. 3,001 and over $2.15 per 100 c.f. Single Purpose Meter Charges First 100 (c.f) Usage in excess of 100 cubic feet (c.f) Changes in water rates over the last ten fiscal years. 2002 0% 2003 -5% 2004 -5% 2005 0% 2006 0% 2007 -5% 2008 0% 2009 0% 2010 0% 2011 0% 72 Minimum Monthly Charge $2.99 per 100 c.f. CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Financial Information: The following table summarizes the results of operations for the Water System for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2011, 2010, and 2009. WATER SYSTEM STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Operating Expenses Personal services 2011 2010 2009 Operating Revenues: 929 987 768 Charges for services $ 8,054 $ 7,957 $ 8,107 Miscellaneous 42 28 86 Total operating revenues 8,096 7,985 8,193 Operating Expenses Personal services 2,407 2,246 2,316 Commodities 929 987 768 Services and charges 2,128 1,920 2,642 Interest income 5,464 5,153 5,726 Depreciation 2,230 2,180 2,124 Total operating expenses 7,694 7,333 7,850 Operating income 402 652 343 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Gain ( Loss) on disposal of capital assets - 5 - Insurance Recoveries 2 33 - Operating Grants - 6 15 Interest income 256 312 625 Interest expense (1,032) (1,092) (1,351) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) (774) (736) (711) Income before capital contributions and transfers (372) (84) (368) Capital contributions 973 572 132 Transfers in 795 756 469 Transfers out (336) (343) (698) Change in net assets 1,060 901 (465) Net Assets, Beginning 61,042 60,141 60,606 Net Assets, Ending $ 62,102 $ 61,042 $ 60,141 73 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 The following table summarizes the budget and actual figures for the Water System for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 and the budget for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 on a cash basis. 11TRV Y DI'W1%W1910 DILI I BUDGET AND ACTUALS (CASH BASIS) For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) FY12 Actual Budget Percentage Budget Charges for services $ 8,032 $ 8,366 96.01% $ 8,502 Interest income 141 190 74.21% 173 Miscellaneous 78 49 159.18% 28 Operating grants 44 2,272 1.94% 2,445 Transfers from other funds - 336 0.00% 336 Bond sales - - 0.00% - Total Receipts $ 8,295 $ 11,213 73.98% $ 11,484 Personal services $ 2,513 $ 2,481 101.29% $ 2,715 Commodities 591 782 75.58% 749 Services and charges 2,307 2,857 80.75% 2,274 Capital outlay 1,749 5,273 33.17% 5,527 Transfer to capital project funds 315 982 32.08% 942 Operating subsidy 20 20 100.00% 23 Debt service payments 2,757 2,757 100.00% 2,803 Total Disbursements $ 10,252 $ 15,152 67.66% $ 15,033 Sewer System The City of Iowa City operates a municipal Sewer Utility System consisting of approximately 254 miles of sanitary sewers, 15 sanitary sewer lift stations, 2 storin water pumping stations, and 2 treatment plants. There are a total of 25.60 (FTE) employees who work in the Wastewater Division. This division serves 67,862 people and has over 23,000 customers. The average daily combined treatment flow for 2011 was 10.37 million gallons per day (MGD). The North Plant was constructed in 1935 and the South Plant was completed in 1990 and upgraded in 2002. The connecting of the North and South Plants was completed in 1998. The City has the capability to divert all wastewater treatment to the South Plant and control all operations remotely through computer systems. The combined wastewater treatment system design has a maximum daily treatment capacity of 41.10 MGD. Both plants are in compliance with federal clean water standards. 74 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Billine and Collections: Customers are billed monthly on a combined utility statement which includes charges for sewer, water, solid waste, and curbside recycling. Under present City policy and City ordinances, utility bills are due when received but contain a delinquency date which provides 15 days for payment. If payment is not made in full within 22 days, a notice is mailed which allows 25 calendar days before service is disconnected. The City's bad debt write -offs have been less than 0.5% of gross revenues for the past three years. Rates: The following rates and charges were effective July 1, 2010. Sewer Service Charge Minimum (includes up to the first 100 cubic feet (c.f.)) $8.15 Monthly Usage in excess of 100 cubic feet (c.f.) $3.99 Changes in sewer rates over the last ten fiscal years. 2002 5% 2003 0% 2004 0% 2005 0% 2006 0% 2007 8% 2008 0% 2009 5% 2010 0% 2011 0% 75 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 Financial Information: The following table summarizes the results of operations for the Sewer System for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2011, 2010, and 2009. SEWER SYSTEM STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Operating Expenses Personal services 2011 2010 2009 Operating Revenues: 895 645 853 Charges for services $ 12,836 $ 12,637 $ 12,557 Miscellaneous 63 73 84 Total operating revenues 12,899 12,710 12,641 Operating Expenses Personal services 1,961 1,874 1,848 Commodities 895 645 853 Services and charges 2,621 2,531 2,501 Interest expense 5,477 5,050 5,202 Depreciation 4,017 4,178 4,155 Total operating expenses 9,494 9,228 9,357 Operating income 3,405 3,482 3,284 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets (40) - 131 Operating grants - - 1 Interest income 382 464 820 Interest expense (1,704) (2,173) (2,578) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) (1,362) (1,709) (1,626) Income before capital contributions and transfers 2,043 1,773 1,658 Capital contributions 2,394 2,115 266 Transfers in 1,716 167 148 Transfers out (171) (202) (296) Change in net assets 5,982 3,853 1,776 Net Assets, Beginning 78,748 74,895 73,119 Net Assets, Ending $ 84,-30 $ 78.748 $ 74,895 76 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 The following table summarizes the budget and actual figures for the Sewer System for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 and the budget for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 on a cash basis. Charges for services Interest income Miscellaneous Operating grants Local option sales tax Bond sales Total Receipts SEWER SYSTEM BUDGET AND ACTUALS (CASH BASIS) For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) FY12 Actual Budget Percentage Budget $ 12,759 $ 13,427 301 100 67 57 1,355 5,700 950 9,286 $ 15,432 $ 28,570 95.02% 301.00% 117.54% 23.77% 10.23% 0.00% 54.01% $ 12,752 100 57 9,491 12,596 $ 34,996 Personal services $ 2,003 $ 1,962 102.09% $ 2,160 Commodities 591 547 108.04% 558 Services and charges 4,852 2,879 168.53% 2,783 Capital outlay 1,582 19,396 8.16% 26,150 Transfer to capital project funds (135) 774 - 17.44% 725 Operating subsidy 20 20 100.00% 23 Debt service payments 23,014 23,375 98.46% 6,308 Total Disbursements $ 31,927 $ 48,953 65.11 -' $ 38,707 77 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) June 30, 2011 15. Subsequent events On November 14, 2011, the Midwest Disaster Area Revenue Bonds, Conduit Debt of the City of Iowa City, in the amount of $1,840,000 was paid in full by the private sector entity directly to the bond trustee, a third party financial institution. 16. New Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Standards The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has issued statements not yet implemented by the City. The statement, which might impact the City's financial statements is as follows: Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements; issued November 2010, will be effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. The objective of this Statement is to improve financial reporting by addressing issues related to service concession arrangements. Statement No. 61, The Financial Reporting Entity: Omnibus — an amendment of GASB Statements No. 14 and No. 34; issued November 2010, will be effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. The objective of this Statement is to improve financial reporting for a governmental financial reporting entity. Statement No. 62, Codification ofAccounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre - November 30, 1989FASB andAICPAPronouncements; issued December 2010, will be effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. The objective of this Statement is to incorporate into the GASB's authoritative literature certain accounting and financial reporting guidance. Statement No. 63, Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Position, issued June 2011, will be effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. This Statement amends the net asset reporting requirements in Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements —and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments, and other pronouncements by incorporating deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources into the definitions of the required components of the residual measure and by renaming that measure as net position, rather than net assets. Statement No. 64, Derivative Instruments: Application of Hedge Accounting Termination Provisions - an amendment to GASB Statement No. 53, issued June 2011, will be effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012. The objective of this Statement is to clarify whether an effective hedging relationship continues after the replacement of a swap counterparty or a swap counterparty's credit support provider. The City's management has not yet determined the effect these statements will have on the City's financial statements. 78 79 CITY OF IOWA CITY BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE BUDGET AND ACTUAL - ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS BUDGETARY BASIS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (dollar amounts expressed in thousands) Governmental Fund Types Enterprise Fund Actual Budgetary Types Actual Total Actual Basis Budgetary Basis Budgetary Basis Revenues: Public safety Property taxes $ 47,826 $ - $ 47,826 Delinquent property taxes 8 - 8 Tax increment financing taxes 846 - 846 Other city taxes 10,865 - 10,865 Licenses and permits 1,409 5 1,414 Intergovernmental 30,184 9,430 39,614 Charges for services 6,025 34,628 40,653 Use of money and property 374 1,131 1,505 Miscellaneous 5,690 1,720 7,410 Total revenues 103,227 46,914 150,141 Expenditures/Expenses: Public safety 18,703 - 18,703 Public works 13,434 - 13,434 Culture and recreation 11,805 - 11,805 Community and economic development 19,120 - 19,120 General government 7,460 - 7,460 Debt service 14,053 - 14,053 Capital outlay 18,655 - 18,655 Business -type - 69,838 69,838 Total expenditures/expenses 103,230 69,838 173,068 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures/expenses (3) (22,924) (22,927) Other financing sources and uses, net Net change in fund balances 30,908 (23,357) 7,551 Balances, beginning of year 52,877 103,091 155,968 Balances, end of year 83,785 79,734 163,519 See Note to Required Supplementary Information. Em Budgeted Amounts Final to Actual variance - Positive Original Final (Negative) $ 47,789 $ 47,789 $ 37 13,579 14,422 8 840 840 6 10,265 11,011 (146) 1,335 1,342 72 37,636 85,782 (46,168) 39,621 41,385 (732) 2,187 1,124 381 3,785 7,635 (225) 143,458 196,908 (46,767) 20,149 20,813 2,110 13,579 14,422 988 11,981 12,380 575 4,796 40,153 21,033 8,350 8,512 1,052 14,045 14,196 143 17,292 68,902 50,247 73,909 101,292 31,454 164,101 280,670 107,602 (20,643) (83,762) 60,835 10,971 38,551 (8,073) (9,672) (45,211) 52,762 103,163 315,974 93,491 270,763 81 CITY OF IOWA CITY BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE BUDGET TO GAAP RECONCILIATION REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (dollar amounts expressed in thousands) Governmental Fund Types Accrual Modified Accrual Budget Basis Adjustments Basis Revenues $ 103,227 $ (815) $ 102,412 Expenditures 103,230 (5,528) 97,702 Net (3) 4,713 4,710 Other financing sources (uses) 30,911 (17,132) 13,779 Beginning Fund Balances $ 52,877 $ (2,146) $ 50,731 Ending Fund Balances $ 83,785 $ (14,565) $ 69,220 Enterprise Fund Types Accrual Accrual Budget Basis Adjustments Basis Revenues $ 46,914 $ (1,483) $ 45,431 Expenditures 69,838 (27,042) 42,796 Net (22,924) 25,559 2,635 Other financing sources (uses) (433) 8,577 8,144 Beginning Fund Balances 103,091 $ 144,918 248,009 Ending Fund Balances $ 79,734 $ 179,054 $ 258,788 See Note to Required Supplementary Information. 82 City of Iowa City, Iowa Note to Required Supplementary Information - Budgetary Reporting For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 In accordance with Code of Iowa, the City Council annually adopts a budget following required public notice and hearing which includes all funds, except internal service funds and agency funds. The budget basis of accounting is cash basis. The annual budget may be amended during the year utilizing similar statutorily prescribed procedures. Formal and legal budgetary control is based upon nine major classes of expenditures known as functions, not by fund or fund type. These nine functions are: public safety, public works, health and social services, culture and recreation, community and economic development, general government, debt service, capital outlay and business -type. The legal level control is at the aggregated function level, not at the fund or fund type level. During the year, budget amendments increased budgeted revenues by $53,450,000 and expenditures by $116,569,000. The budget amendments were primarily due to changes in the breadth and timing of capital improvement projects, which the City budgets in full during the initial year of the projects and amends future year budgets for carryover. Additional amendments are related to flood recovery and mitigation costs and the associated grants from flooding in the suiruner of 2008. 83 City of Iowa City, Iowa Note to Required Supplementary Information — Schedule of Funding Progress for Health and Dental Plans For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 84 UAAL As a Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Percentage of Valuation Fiscal Value of Accrued Unfunded AAL Funded Covered Date Year Assets Liability (AAL) (UAAL) Ratio Covered Payroll Payroll July 1, 2008 June 30, 2009 $ $ 15,235,196 $ 15,235,196 0.00% $ 32,804,905 46.44% July 1, 2008 June 30, 2010 $ $ 15,235,196 $ 15,235,196 0.00% $ 32,804,905 46.44% July 1, 2010 June 30, 2011 $ $ 6,893,438 $ 6,893,438 0.00% $ 29,842,842 23.10% 84 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Special Revenue Funds account for revenues derived from specific sources that are required to be accounted for as separate funds. The funds in this category and their purpose are as follows: Economic Development Fund — accounts for revenue and expenditures of economic development activities. Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (formerly Johnson County Council of Governments) Fund — accounts for the financial activities of the metropolitan/rural cooperative planning organization. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Capital Projects Funds are utilized to account for all resources used in the acquisition and construction of capital facilities and other major fixed assets, with the exception of those that are financed by proprietary fund monies. The fund in this category is as follows: Bridge, Street, and Traffic Control Construction Fund — accounts for the construction or replacement of infrastructure fixed assets, such as streets, bridges, dams, sidewalks, and lighting systems. Other Construction Fund — accounts for the construction or replacement of other City general fixed assets, such as administrative buildings with various funding sources, including general obligation bonds, intergovernmental revenues, and contributions. 85 CITY OF IOWA CITY COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Special Revenue Capital Projects Metropolitan Bridge, Planning Street, and Organization Traffic Economic of Johnson Control Other Development County Construction Construction Total Assets Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 657 $ 74 $ 1,336 $ - $ 2,067 Receivables: - 782 1,104 1,886 Accounts and unbilled usage - - 63 9 72 Interest ? - - 23 25 Due from other govenunents - 47 1,320 805 2,172 Assets held for resale - - 165 - 165 Restricted assets: - 1 - 1 Equity in pooled cash and investments - - 1 16,990 16,991 Total assets $ 659 $ L'1 $ 2,885 $ 1 -31- $ 11,491 Liabilities and Fund Balances Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 14 $ - $ 48 $ 194 $ 256 Contracts payable - - 782 1,104 1,886 Accrued liabilities - 26 16 15 57 Due to other govenunents - - 2,834 - 2,834 Deferred revenue - - 945 454 1,399 Liabilities payable from restricted assets: Deposits - - 1 - 1 Total liabilities 14 26 4,626 1,767 6,433 Fund balances: Restricted 645 95 - 16,060 16,800 Unassigned - - (1,741) - (1,741) Total fetid balances 645 95 (1,741) 16,060 15,059 Total liabilities and fetid balances $ 659 $ L'1 $ 2,885 $ 1',82' $ 21A92 86 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Revenues Property taxes Intergovernmental Use of money and property Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures Current: Public safety Public works Culture and recreation Community and economic development General government Capital outlay Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Issuance of bonds Insurance Recoveries Premium on issuance of bonds Transfers in Transfers out Total other financing sources and (uses) Net change in fund balances Fund Balances, Beginning Fund Balances, Ending For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Special Revenue Capital Projects Metropolitan Bridge, Planning Street, and Organization Traffic Economic of Johnson Control Other Development County Construction Construction Total $ 838 $ - $ 286 $ - $ 1,124 - 308 2,354 1,823 4,485 - 10 13 23 - 6 413 143 562 838 314 3,063 1,979 6,194 - 400 400 1,902 333 2,235 - 755 755 388 668 - 120 1,176 - - 139 139 - 6 5,971 6,032 12,009 388 674 7,873 7,779 16,714 450 (360) (4810) (5,800) (10,520) - - - 16,165 16,165 167 167 - - - 181 181 92 368 7,594 896 8,950 (51) - (3,318) (5,336) (8,705) 41 368 4,276 12,073 16,758 491 8 (534) 6,273 6,238 154 87 (1,207) 9,787 8,821 $ 645 $ 95 $ (1,741) $ 16,060 $ 15,059 87 Em NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS Enterprise Funds account for operations and activities of the City that are financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise, and where the costs of providing services to the general public on a continuing basis are expected to be financed or recovered primarily through user charges, or where the City has decided that periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and /or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes. The funds in this category are as follows: Airport Fund — accounts for the operation and maintenance of the airport facility. Stormwater Fund — accounts for the operation and maintenance of the storniwater operation. Cable Television Fund — accounts for the operation and maintenance of the Broadband Telecommunications Conunission that oversees the franchise agreement with the cable television company, including production and broadcasting on the government television channels. EM CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable 2 25 Cable 136 Contracts payable Airport Stormwater Television Total Assets 3 9 23 35 Current assets: 1 2 14 17 Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 465 $ 665 $ 1,394 $ 2,524 Receivables: Accounts and unbilled usage - 71 184 255 Interest 1 1 3 5 Due from other governments 305 - - 305 Total current assets 771 737 1,581 3,089 Noncurrent assets: 3 4 19 26 Restricted assets: 1,476 5 31 1,512 Equity in pooled cash and investments 9 - 109 118 Capital assets: Land 7,286 2,167 - 9,453 Buildings 4,055 - 741 4,796 Improvements other than buildings 357 - - 357 Machinery and equipment 281 259 125 665 Infrastructure 12,270 35,095 - 47,365 Accumulated depreciation (3,521) (8,426) (337) (12,284) Construction in progress 350 2,475 - 2,825 Total noncurrent assets 21,087 31,570 638 53,295 Total assets 21,858 32,307 2,219 56,384 Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable 2 25 109 136 Contracts payable 87 51 - 138 Accrued liabilities 3 9 23 35 Employee vested benefits 1 2 14 17 Total current liabilities 93 87 146 326 Noncurrent liabilities: Liabilities payable from restricted assets: Deposits 9 - - 9 Advances from other fiords 1,463 - - 1,463 Employee vested benefits 1 1 12 14 Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation 3 4 19 26 Total noncurrent liabilities 1,476 5 31 1,512 Total liabilities 1,569 92 177 1,838 Net Assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 21,078 31,570 529 53,177 Unrestricted (789) 645 1,513 1,369 Total net assets $ 20,289 $ 32,215 $ 2,042 $ 54,546 :aE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS Operating Revenues: Charges for services Total operating revenues Operating Expenses: Personal services Commodities Services and charges Depreciation Total operating expenses Operating income (loss) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Cain on disposal of capital assets Interest income Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) Income (loss) before capital contributions and transfers Capital contributions Transfers in Transfers out Change in net assets Net Assets, Beginning Net Assets, Ending For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Cable Airport Stormwater Television Total $ 293 $ 641 $ 809 $ 1,743 293 641 809 1,743 39 182 447 668 20 385 18 423 272 172 148 592 331 739 613 1,683 728 679 40 1,447 1,059 1,418 653 3,130 (766) (777) 156 (1,387) 353 - 1 354 2 2 4 8 355 2 5 362 (411) (775) 161 (1,025) 358 140 - 498 199 1,856 - 2,055 (136) (39) (55) (230) 10 1,182 106 1,298 20,279 31,033 1,936 53,248 $ 20,289 $ 32215 $ 2,042 $ 54,546 91 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Cash Flows From Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users Payments to suppliers Payments to employees Net cash flows from operating activities Cash Flows From Noncapital Financing Activities Transfers from other funds Transfers to other funds Repayment of advances from other funds Net cash flows from noncapital financing activities Cash Flows From Capital and Related Financing Activities Capital grants received Acquisition and construction of property and equipment Proceeds from sale of property Net cash flows from capital and related financing activities Cash Flows From Investing Activities Interest on investments Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning Cash and Cash Equivalents, Ending Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Operating income (loss) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation expense Changes in Receivables: Accounts and unbilled usage Accounts payable Accrued liabilities Employee vested benefits Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation Total adjustments Net cash flows from operating activities Noncash Investing, Capital, and Financing Activities: Contributions of capital assets from government and others Cable Airport Stormwater Television Total $ 293 $ 630 $ 805 $ 1,728 (313) (534) (170) (1,017) (42) (185) (448) (675) (62) (89) 187 36 199 1,856 - 2,055 (136) (39) (55) (230) (42) - - (42) 21 1,817 (55) 1,783 357 - 357 (521) (2,380) (41) (2,942) 376 1 377 212 (2,380) (40) (2,208) 1 3 3 7 172 (649) 95 (382) 302 1,314 1,408 3,024 $ 474 $ 665 $ 1,503 $ 2,642 (766) $ (777) $ 156 $ (1,387) 728 679 40 1,447 - (11) (4) (15) (21) 23 (4) (2) 2 (1) 5 6 (2) 1 (1) (5) - (7) (12) 704 688 31 1,423 $ (62) $ (89) $ 187 $ 36 140 $ - $ 140 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Internal Service Funds account for goods and services provided by one department to other City departments on a cost - reimbursement basis. The funds in this category are: Equipment Maintenance Fund — accounts for the provision of maintenance for City vehicles and equipment and vehicle rental to other City departments from a central vehicle pool. Central Services Fund — accounts for the support services of photocopying, paper supplies, mail, overnight shipping, and two -way radios provided to other City departments. Loss Reserve Fund — accounts for the property, liability, Workers' Compensation and health insurance premiums and claims activity for City departments, including the self - insured retention portion. Information Technology Fund — accounts for the accumulation and allocation of costs associated with telecommunications and data processing, including the operation and replacement of equipment. :4M CITY OF IOWA CITY COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable Equipment Central Loss Information 494 Accrued liabilities Maintenance Services Reserve Technology Total Assets 36 1 3 24 64 Current assets: 500 4 1,474 105 2,083 Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 7,275 $ 694 $ 10,218 $ 2,470 $ 20,657 Receivables: 28 - 3 19 50 Interest 14 1 19 5 39 Due from other governments 97 - - - 97 Inventories 517 - - - 517 Total current assets 7,903 695 10,237 2,475 21,310 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Land 45 - - - 45 Buildings 578 - - 243 821 Improvements other than buildings 50 - - - 50 Machinery and equipment 13,492 205 14 1,685 15,396 Infrastructure - - - 1,094 1,094 Accumulated depreciation (8,905) (128) (7) (1,783) (10,823) Construction in progress - - - 376 376 Total noncurrent assets 5,260 77 7 1,615 6,959 Total assets 13,163 772 10,244 4,090 28,269 Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable 425 1 36 32 494 Accrued liabilities 39 2 1,435 49 1,525 Employee vested benefits 36 1 3 24 64 Total current liabilities 500 4 1,474 105 2,083 Noncurrent liabilities: Employee vested benefits 28 - 3 19 50 Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation (3) 3 (26) 47 21 Total noncurrent liabilities 25 3 (23) 66 71 Total liabilities 525 7 1,451 171 2,154 Net Assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 5,260 77 7 1,615 6,959 Unrestricted 7,378 688 8,786 2,304 19,156 Total net assets $ 12,638 $ 765 $ 8,793 $ 3,919 $ 26,115 ZDS CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Operating Revenues: Charges for services Miscellaneous Total operating revenues Operating Expenses: Personal services Commodities Services and charges Depreciation Total operating expenses Operating income (loss) For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Equipment Central Loss Information Maintenance Services Reserve Technology Total $ 5,364 $ 239 $ 9,970 $ 1,801 $ 17,374 2 6 8 5,364 239 9,972 1,807 17,382 865 56 153 1,043 2,117 2,114 7 28 384 2,533 370 130 6,995 422 7,917 3,349 193 7,176 1,849 12,567 1,166 23 3 212 1,404 4,515 216 7,179 2,061 13,971 849 23 2,793 (254) 3,411 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Cain (loss) on disposal of capital assets 124 (4) 2 10 132 Interest income 21 2 31 7 61 Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 145 (2) 33 17 193 Income (loss) before capital contributions and transfers Transfers in Transfers out Change in net assets Net Assets, Beginning Net Assets, Ending 994 21 2,826 (237) 3,604 14 - - 331 345 (277) (3) - - (280) 731 18 2,826 94 3,669 11,907 747 5,967 3,825 22,446 $ 12,638 $ 765 $ 8,793 $ 3,919 $ 26,115 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Cash Flows From Noncapital Financing Activities Transfers from other finds Operating transfers to otter finds Net cash flows from noncapital financing activities Cash Flows From Capital and Related Financing Activities Acquisition and construction of property and equipment Proceeds from sale of property Net cash flows from capital and related financing activities Cash Flows From Investing Activities Interest on investments Net increase in cash and cash equivalents Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning Cash and Cash Equivalents, Ending Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Operating income (loss) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation expense Changes in Receivables: Accounts and mnbited usage Due from other govenunents Inventories Accounts payable Accrued liabilities Employee vested benefits Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation Total adjustments Net cash flows from operating activities 14 - (277) (3) 331 345 - (280) (263) (3) - 331 65 (1,879) (1) (6) (536) (2,422) 130 - 2 10 142 (1,749) (1) (4) (526) (2,280) 17 2 24 6 49 78 �4 1,742 (357) 1,517 7,197 640 8,476 2,827 19,140 $ '?'5 $ 694 $ 10?18 $ 2,4'0 $ 20,657 $ 849 $ 1,166 23 $ 1 -93 $ (2�4) $ 3,411 23 3 212 1,404 19 Equipment Central Loss Information (41) - Maintenance Services Reserve Technology Total Cash Flows From Operating Activities - (194) 302 (2) (175) Receipts from customers and users $ 5,342 $ 239 $ 9,972 $ 1,828 $ 17,381 Payments to suppliers (2,376) (139) (7,198) (994) (10,707) Payments to employees (893) (44) (1,052) (1,002) (2,991) Net cash flows from operating activities 2,073 56 1,722 (168) 3,683 Cash Flows From Noncapital Financing Activities Transfers from other finds Operating transfers to otter finds Net cash flows from noncapital financing activities Cash Flows From Capital and Related Financing Activities Acquisition and construction of property and equipment Proceeds from sale of property Net cash flows from capital and related financing activities Cash Flows From Investing Activities Interest on investments Net increase in cash and cash equivalents Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning Cash and Cash Equivalents, Ending Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Operating income (loss) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation expense Changes in Receivables: Accounts and mnbited usage Due from other govenunents Inventories Accounts payable Accrued liabilities Employee vested benefits Other Post Employment Benefits Obligation Total adjustments Net cash flows from operating activities 14 - (277) (3) 331 345 - (280) (263) (3) - 331 65 (1,879) (1) (6) (536) (2,422) 130 - 2 10 142 (1,749) (1) (4) (526) (2,280) 17 2 24 6 49 78 �4 1,742 (357) 1,517 7,197 640 8,476 2,827 19,140 $ '?'5 $ 694 $ 10?18 $ 2,4'0 $ 20,657 $ 849 $ 1,166 23 $ 1 -93 $ (2�4) $ 3,411 23 3 212 1,404 19 5 24 (41) - - 16 (25) (194) - - - (194) 302 (2) (175) (188) (63) 2 - (888) 11 (875) (3) (1) 1 8 5 (27) 13 (12) 22 (4) 1,224 33 (1,071) 86 272 $ 2,073 $ 56 $ 1,722 $ (168) $ 3,683 AGENCY FUNDS The Agency Funds account for assets held by the City in a trustee or custodial capacity for other entities, such as individuals, private organizations, or other governmental units. The funds in this category are: Project Green Fund — accounts for donations that are received to plant and develop yards and lawns, both public and private, within Iowa City. Library Foundation — accounts for donations that are made to support the library development office. M CITY OF IOWA CITY STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AGENCY FUNDS For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands) Balance Balance July 1, 2010 Increases Decreases June 30, 2011 Project Green Assets Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 2O9 $ 59 $ 82 $ 206 Interest receivable 1 1 1 1 Total assets $ 230 $ 60 $ 83 $ 207 Liabilities Accounts payable $ 19 $ - $ 19 $ - Due to agency 211 60 64 207 Total liabilities $ 230 $ 60 $ 83 $ 20- Library Foundation Assets Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 6 $ - $ 11 $ 2 Accounts receivable 5 4 - 9 $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 Liabilities Accrued liabilities $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 Total liabilities $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 Total Agency Funds Assets Equity in pooled cash and investments $ 235 $ 66 $ 93 $ 208 Accounts receivable 5 4 - 9 Interest receivable 1 1 1 1 Total assets $ 241 $ 71 $ 94 $ 218 Liabilities Accounts payable $ 19 $ - $ 19 $ - Accrued liabilities 11 11 11 11 Due to agency 211 60 64 207 Total liabilities $ 241 $ 71 $ 94 $ 218 Statistical Section This part of the City of Iowa City's comprehensive annual financial report represents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the government's overall financial health. Contents Page Financial Trends 101 These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the government's financial performance and well -being have changed over tune. Revenue Capacity 106 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the government's most significant local revenue source, the property tax. Debt Capacity 116 These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the government's current levels of outstanding debt and the government's ability to issue additional debt in the future. Demographic and Economic Information 126 These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the government's financial activities take place. Operating Information 128 These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the government's financial report relates to the services the government provides and the activities it performs. Sources: Unless otherwise noted the information in these schedules is derived from the comprehensive annual financial reportfor the relevant year. The city implemented GASB 34 in FY03; schedules presenting government -wide information include information beginning in that year. 0 100 a z w b (� N F F v � z O N i I I N O O U N 0. I I i i M fr b M W W ti V1 N fr m W V1 O N V M ti O\ M M V O\ W 7 fr m V M fr O\ O N N l� fr M N W V Vl O O N fr W fr O O fr N �N� m W W O\ l O O N D W M M V V �D M V1 W O D\ O O D\ V D N r V V O\ W P N � III A N b b N �+ N N w W o C C ti p p N � d J b N b a�D i III A N b b N ti N � w� W � o � � C C � ti p p � � � GL N m 'm C ro Kx�D 101 i i N v� O Ili A N b b N w O C Fa � G 0. v 7 OqO 4 b b P3 r+ a�D III N N C Em a F H O 0 W O V U O � N 0 0 IO O °r O V O Ni V O h O N N m M O m m + O M b M W fr fr V � v 6 O j � J 'O 0 pp 0 op�F w O W O n n V �OIO 11 II N V b M i 0 y s c c 5 b v 0 0 ro EE� L 0 on E 6 0 H 102 IS o�oI 'n o�ao �Om V'/Oim V O O b V r V r ti N b V i E E ° O 6 9 saw E 's O � o °c omu b �AO`�3�`EA�95.� > ° > >O � �aUH 0 w` N a a n 0 I O W W M V N W M 0 W b V Po� W ti m N m W N W 1� V a�M.M o m N � N 0 r V N O m a b c? b y c Y E o N�33�xw¢�� `'II I ` f II ` III ` fl -Ti1 ° - -fl II 1 11 I III ° 'l l hl ' l O � N 0 0 IO O °r O V O Ni V O h O N N m M O m m + O M b M W fr fr V � v 6 O j � J 'O 0 pp 0 op�F w O W O n n V �OIO 11 II N V b M i 0 y s c c 5 b v 0 0 ro EE� L 0 on E 6 0 H 102 IS o�oI 'n o�ao �Om V'/Oim V O O b V r V r ti N b V i E E ° O 6 9 saw E 's O � o °c omu b �AO`�3�`EA�95.� > ° > >O � �aUH 0 w` N a a n 0 I O W W M V N W M 0 W b V Po� W ti m N m W N W 1� V a�M.M o m N � N 0 r V N O m a b c? b y c Y E o N�33�xw¢�� a 3 o_ y F' �.1 a 3 0 0 F' �.1 9 U F' G�1 U. F' a x v ': IIJ II II:I FI III II 911 °fl ! III II I1'I fl I fl II III `fl I I'I II II:I 11 `I1 I II II °I'fl 'II I fl II H'1 °fl S ZP41 I 119 "H 1 cn III II II 119 fl uuuuuuuccccc M N V1 O� O CC l� C N Vj Vj Vj Vj CL T v, Vi Vi Vi Vi � C � L v N U J Yi Yi Yi Yi '- O ti O _ C L N Vj Vj Vj Vj L n V1 V1 O O� N M W V1 pp � o r � n co N � - ❑ C.. M,I N CI � ` Vj Z L ° L r 6 3 Q � � � c c a � z z ° — o 104 91 0 F U 3 0 W O F U w� M w w r� a N Co � r a o w o 0 o m o a 1n -. Cn w a w a ry rn ry � ,-. � v ry m� m m a u a m m w a m d N m mn v on rn w w m m w m ci w m n m o a a n n n n n n n N z P. a w s q 105 yO I� H V O w O H V 0 a 106 N v � � co _ v w y R L w a v N � a R O H y R u O u R r/j 'O o m F U N µ{ 1Oy U y w O H u � 3 R O � � a O, F' co r. V �O co N V l O co O H ti ±+ O a+ U L cd u RI O O O O O O O O 0 0 _ 0 N 106 3 0 F U 3 0 w O U T N O T y V � m ti m � vl m r m N r m m t� N I�y fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr O F � Q H 0 R � d G N 9 V y R A O N O T f� N m N b r vl V b F ✓• �L �L�y [y N 09 � D R to 9 rn rn rn V V V V V V V U 6 y � 6 T ¢ � Q 6 O 6 rn O w O r rn rn 1� N h rn N w O m r a Oj id � m 0 E c o 0 k O U O Q Oy 7 N V3 O rJ = h C O Q � _ 107 � \ \ \ ± ( ) i j \ \ � ) \ , f e } 6 \ � ) §\ ; f - - } � \ 108 \ ° ) § 2 / ) 7 ; s \ __) y / \ [ \ c \ { ) - - - - - - - - - - } ±* \ \ \ 4 j ! 7 / 108 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA PROPERTY TAX BUDGETS AND COLLECTIONS Last Ten Fiscal Years (Cash basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Source: Certificate of City Taxes and Johnson County Treasurer's Office Note: This schedule is presented on a cash basis of accounting. Taxes are collected by the Johnson County Treasurer and submitted to the City in the following month. Because of the month delay, some years will show Current Tax Collections in excess of the Total Tax Levied. 109 Percent of Total as Collection Total Tax Current Tax Levy Delinquent Tax Total Tax a Percent of Year Levied Collections Collected Collections Collections Levv 2002 $ 27,920 $ 28,423 101.8 % $ 5 $ 28,428 101.8 % 2003 31,975 31,863 99.6 16 31,879 99.7 2004 34,073 34,009 99.8 23 34,032 99.9 2005 34,403 34,814 101.2 15 34,829 101.2 2006 36,460 36,654 100.5 44 36,698 100.7 2007 39,094 38,947 99.6 13 38,960 99.7 2008 39,973 39,768 99.5 70 39,838 99.7 2009 43,168 43,118 99.9 18 43,136 99.9 2010 45,393 45,318 99.8 17 45,335 99.9 2011 47,789 47,826 100.1 8 47,834 100.1 Source: Certificate of City Taxes and Johnson County Treasurer's Office Note: This schedule is presented on a cash basis of accounting. Taxes are collected by the Johnson County Treasurer and submitted to the City in the following month. Because of the month delay, some years will show Current Tax Collections in excess of the Total Tax Levied. 109 110 0 0 Jr Cy e � � ••� R .� N t� � vl �O h CO O\ � � � � � � .. .. .. .. N . . . . O o �n co cn o a a � cn o co N 0 0 z z z O O O O e y' N N o � 0 a ¢ •C YRC = � N .. W b U U O � R..� � a ❑v O zj O U .� o w � a. •� �' o � � � U a� � C 0 C C C d o v N 0-0 � ' v T � � R R. L U N N d a b ttl N O O d v W v T 1 p � .�C. .p 110 111 / 2 \ / 2 $ ( \ / \ / j ] k am ] k Ma ) ) j \ \ \\ \ 2 2 o � \ ( ` ©( 112 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA SALES HISTORY AND TOTAL WATER CHARGES Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Water Sales Water System Year Cubic Feet Sold Charges 2002 253,409,874 $ 9,049,700 2003 257,788,030 9,308,824 2004 253,454,012 8,850,608 2005 254,560,239 8,315,719 2006 267,107,998 8,844,993 2007 261,072,632 8,414,310 2008 249,361,929 7,976,536 2009 234,804,167 7,497,903 2010 234,342,825 7,568,378 2011 236,838,370 7,661,898 Sources: City of Iowa City Revenue Department 113 I i H I� F H U 3 0 w H U bO� Q N N N N z cd C U rl rl O N 0 0 N L Y it �i C R a L s U R C Y L Y it a Y s A 0 — N M V v � h o C O I CT vi M co 1O CT N 0 r N V I M� v h O c C 0 N M v 0 cv V M N I M N V V O N O co O M CT O I M o co — N F co N I M v N M U N ti 3 O H N N N C M C C cd C U 0 ' nr . ti U N N � ' H N � (]Ur PO Q N U U N N M � N L O — � U d c N N L F O O O N N 7 cd Q Y ti F3 � N 0 114 v N M U N ti 3 O H N N N C M C C cd C U 0 ' nr . ti U N N � ' H N � (]Ur PO Q N U U N N M � N L O — � U d c CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA SALES HISTORY AND TOTAL SEWER CHARGES Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Sewer Sales Sewer System Year Cubic Feet Sold Charges 2002 292,323,306 $ 11,431,949 2003 297,084,229 12,015,122 2004 294,683,685 12,482,393 2005 297,714,953 12,557,646 2006 302,925,357 12,373,762 2007 315,199,203 11,084,369 2008 285,492,596 12,221,769 2009 276,455,246 12,499,949 2010 265,375,857 12,541,905 2011 280,303,237 12,748,695 Sources: City of Iowa City Revenue Department 115 O F 3 O w O F U 116 0 imp on a. 0 W cd U O J 0 U � cd O ti N J Q' m C � o 0 P. R V vi co V V co O\ O �O O\ 0., m m m m m cV cV cV cV cV R V � u R o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bL C �u O vi O co O\ V co co h M V O N O\ OA V vi h V rR v L Pr C Pi O C N N N C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F a � m F" co o N �n o �n o co co O u R y co O V co Oy N_ O O �O O R C O O O O O O O a o u 0 N N N N N N N Paz a O _ N OA l co O N O � O u R O O O O O O O O 116 0 imp on a. 0 W cd U O J 0 U � cd O ti N J Q' m C � o 0 P. 0 E� V O w O E� S 25 go o� z� Of a E O' .a f V r O� O! E� i 117 N O 4. O ti ti Q v U Q' � O O A U A 0 � U cd � � y O � O N � cd y N � o) ° A ° z � o a O � A R L z a: A 9 N N N O 9 y a o y ca a r/1 m vi co �O N �O vt co co � o � m v O O N O R V �O M N V co M M O N ti L ti -o Qi W N� � r.a O O vi O O O O vi O vi v N O O\ N O co O O\ O vi '� Q vi M co vi vi vi l V vi O O 9 co co co co co co co co h co 9 C CQ � N � 117 N O 4. O ti ti Q v U Q' � O O A U A 0 � U cd � � y O � O N � cd y N � o) ° A ° z � o a CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA RATIO OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES' Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2002 20032 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Notes Principal $ 3,599 $ 4,742 5,172 9,349 6,099 6,700 7,323 8,418 9,354 10,386 Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Interest 2,136 $ 3,683 3,336 3,676 3,458 3,464 3,556 3,364 3,064 2,889 Total Debt Service 5,735 $ 8,425 8,508 13,025 9,557 10,164 10,879 11,782 12,418 13,275 1 General Fund, Special Revenue Funds and Debt Service Fund. 2 Beginning in FY03, Capital Projects Funds are also included. 118 Total General Governmental Expenditures and Transfers 53,462 82,001 83,445 88,342 93,360 93,639 99,178 102,607 108,950 120,424 Ratio of Debt Service to General Expenditures .11 : 1.00 10: 1.00 10: 1.00 15 : 1.00 10: 1.00 11 : 1.00 11 : 1.00 11 : 1.00 11 : 1.00 11 : 1.00 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT Name of Governmental Unit City of Iowa City Iowa City Community School District Total Per capita assessed value June 30, 2011 (amounts expressed in thousands, except per capita) Total General Long -Term Bonded Debt Outstanding $ 80,575 % Applicable to the City of Iowa City 100.00% $ Amount Applicable to the City of Iowa City Per Capita 80,575 $ 1,187.34 21,505 59.23% 12,737 187.69 $ 102,080 $ 93,312 $ 1,375 $ 68,094 Source: Johnson County Auditor's Office. Note: Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the City. This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is borne by the residents and businesses of Iowa City. This process recognizes that, when considering the City's ability to issue and repay long -term debt, the entire burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account. However, this does not imply that every taxpayer is a resident, and therefore responsible for repaying the debt, of each overlapping government. 119 i 0 H 3 0 w O F U z 0 H 0 w z a H W A .a C�7 W .a w d F a d d 120 V1 V1 O o W l� O r N ro ri o ri V O V o V N V.. � R d O v1 v1 o % O v1 f1 T T v1 f1 V W R U � d Q T W O T T T o O O Q .•� O N fr V3 V3 d N O d F (a a a T O T o o o � o N rn o m rn M o �N rn o rn o N v M N N N o N o v o v o c v m m vri N N A A sR� b A roy R R 120 0 i-r F U 3 0 0 F U y 7 O h bL G 9 G 7 n r � O R d 9 G y G R p R 7 c L u G E c L u u R S G R LL FI k R F � G o fyi Pr 0 F r � y L Ru W G H I ul G Pr L R R w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O vi O O O vi O vi O O O vi O ov m� 00 m m � m ov m ov m� vi �p vi CO vi vi M �O vi vi � O\ CO CO M CO V1 V1 O V1 O\ V1 O v3 0 0v ov M M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O vi O O vi vi vi vi O O vi vi O N r. ao e a N b9 O ao W 0 b9 r N r a 0 .w .y v3 r a r ti b9 O O N ti ti b9 ti N M � Vt �O P CO OA O N M R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 121 0 N w v v O 0-0 G w 7 O p ro G N ro 0. N N G a G 0. ro G O Y 'ro0 z CITY OF IOWA CITY. IOWA SCHEDULE OF REVENUE BOND COVERAGE Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal $ 12,501 $ 3,389 $ 9,112 $ 3,005 $ 4,236 $ 7,241 1.26 Year 13,000 4,463 Net Revenue 3,060 Annual Debt Service'' 1.15 Ended 12,947 4,523 Available for 3,280 3,672 6,952 Ratio of June30 Revenue Expenses' Debt Service Principal Interest Total Coverage 2006 12,798 4,260 Parking Revenue' 3,815 3,390 7,205 1.19 2007 13,708 4,236 9,472 3,905 3,234 2002 $ 4,272 $ 1,960 $ 2,312 $ 510 $ 746 $ 1,256 1.84 2003 4,198 1,953 2,245 375 715 1,090 2.06 2004 4,164 2,319 1,845 395 687 1,082 1.71 2005 4,360 2,377 1,983 305 663 968 2.05 2006 4,161 2,380 1,781 320 645 965 1.85 2007 5,035 2,973 2,062 335 626 961 2.15 2008 4,995 2,454 2,541 355 606 961 2.64 2009 5,630 3,024 2,606 370 584 954 2.73 2010' 5,509 3,149 2,360 390 504 894 2.64 2011 5,389 2,920 2,469 420 391 811 3.04 Wastewater Treatment Revenue° 2002 $ 12,501 $ 3,389 $ 9,112 $ 3,005 $ 4,236 $ 7,241 1.26 2003 13,000 4,463 8,537 3,060 4,385 7,445 1.15 2004 12,947 4,523 8,424 3,280 3,672 6,952 1.21 2005 12,600 4,432 8,168 3,630 3,537 7,167 1.14 2006 12,798 4,260 8,538 3,815 3,390 7,205 1.19 2007 13,708 4,236 9,472 3,905 3,234 7,139 1.33 2008 13,332 4,581 8,751 4,105 3,071 7,176 1.22 2009' 13,462 5,202 8,260 4,260 2,813 7,073 1.17 2010' 13,174 5,050 8,124 4,205 2,307 6,512 1.25 2011' 13,281 5,477 7,804 1,840 2,054 3,894 2.00 Water Revenues 2002 $ 10,179 $ 3,428 $ 6,751 $ 705 $ 1,175 $ 1,880 3.59 2003 10,241 4,361 5,880 500 1,088 1,588 3.70 2004 10,627 4,360 6,267 925 1,427 2,352 2.66 2005 9,287 4,783 4,504 845 1,340 2,185 2.06 2006 9,918 5,722 4,196 880 1,305 2,185 1.92 2007 9,220 5,356 3,864 915 1,268 2,183 1.77 2008 9,258 5,348 3,910 955 1,229 2,184 1.79 2009' 8,833 5,726 3,107 995 1,171 2,166 1.43 2010' 8,336 5,153 3,183 680 1,055 1,735 1.83 2011 8,354 5,464 2,890 1,110 902 2,012 1.44 Notes: 'Excludes depreciation and interest. Includes principal and interest of revenue bonds only. ' Parking Revenue bonds ratio of "Net Revenue Available for Debt Service" to "Total Annual Debt Service" is required to be at least 1.25. ° Wastewater Treatment Revenue bonds ratio of "Net Revenue Available for Debt Service" to "Total Annual Debt Service" is required to be at least 1.10. 5 Water Revenme bowls ratio of 'Net Revenue Available for Debt Service" to "Total Annual Debt Service" is required to be at least 1.10. 6 Refunded Revenue Bonds paid are excluded from the principal of Annual Debt Service. 122 3 O F_ U 3 0 w O F_ U F O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ❑. ;D o L M a� e o a� e N �n e� o o N v e O e0 N � c G� v w w � � ln d v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v v w �+ ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri -. -. L N F O� N Ol M N Ol V X ll Ol O M D Ol W W V O -r O W V m V N V M M M M M M M N N N N N N L F py EA O O W O� M U W lD lD lD lD lD M r r r ai M L N N h � i Fl 8 EA O Ol W P vl P vl l0 P N lD vl Ol P lD M O O W V M ll O M M N ll Ol O lD O� lD l� r� W N M r M N N N O� W �D �D lc L M V M .-r O� V .-r W EA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P N P ll P lc �D W Ol W Mi W N Ol N .-r M M �D O N V W W b L Q� EA q y V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w �+ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 123 i I Eli i Eli i o -�l 6 Eli ; O F Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA REVENUE DEBT ANNUAL MATURITY BY FUNDING SOURCE Principal $ 420,000 500,000 515,000 530,000 540,000 560,000 580,000 605,000 625,000 650,000 680,000 705,000 735,000 770,000 695,000 9,110,000 Principal $ 1,840,000 4,615,000 4,865,000 3,250,000 3,370,000 3,520,000 3,625,000 3,775,000 3,915,000 4,090,000 3,740,000 2,485,000 1,220,000 700,000 740,000 Parking Outstanding Interest $ 390,926 339,200 323,975 308,300 292,250 272,950 250,150 226,450 201,850 176,350 148,900 119,469 88,869 54,000 17,375 $ 3,2 11,014 Sewer Outstanding Interest $ 2,054,003 1,693,000 1,546,888 1,418,681 1,304,900 1,175,119 1,034,575 886,575 731,400 557,463 378,013 232,288 141,250 93,250 57,250 Total $ 810,926 839,200 838,975 838,300 832,250 832,950 830,150 831,450 826,850 826,350 828,900 824,469 823,869 824,000 712,375 $ 12321.014 Total $ 3,894,003 6,308,000 6,411,888 4,668,681 4,674,900 4,695,119 4,659,575 4,661,575 4,646,400 4,647,463 4,118,013 2,717,288 1,361,250 793,250 797,250 775,000 19,375 794,375 $ 46,525,000 $ 13,324,030 $ 59,849,030 124 (continued) CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA REVENUE DEBT ANNUAL MATURITY BY FUNDING SOURCE (continued) Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total Principal $ 1,110,000 1,200,000 1,245,000 1,295,000 1,345,000 1,395,000 1,450,000 1,515,000 1,575,000 1,645,000 1,715,000 1,790,000 1,870,000 1,325,000 1,390,000 835,000 $ 22,700,000 Water Outstanding Interest $ 901,971 861,409 817,855 771,806 722,795 670,768 615,530 556,281 493,487 427,519 357,303 281,468 200,160 128,847 68,481 18,788 $ 7,894,468 125 Total $ 2,011,971 2,061,409 2,062,855 2,066,806 2,067,795 2,065,768 2,065,530 2,071,281 2,068,487 2,072,519 2,072,303 2,071,468 2,070,160 1,453,847 1,458,481 853,788 $ 30,594,468 / 2 \ / 2 / § z ! \ ± «i / ! \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ « z ! \ ± «i z 126 \ ) / \ \\ \ �\ ° \\ \ [ ©\ ) )\ \ \\ 3,a 23 (\\ (j ` \ }2z , ■±: § § §®® f = { ) 7 � \ \ u / \ \ \ C) \ } / ( \ u � / } / } } e --- - - -99/ %n<2° / \ ( \ ) )\ )} / � \ ® ) ' \\ \ �\ \ �PQ \/ (3 \ } \ \ \2ii 127 / \ ( \ ) )\ )} / Source: City's Financial Plans. 128 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA FULL -TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION Last Ten Fiscal Years Full -Tune Equivalent Employees as of June 30 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Public Safety Police 97.25 97.25 97.25 94.25 94.25 96.25 Fire 58 58 58 56 57 57 Aiwnal Shelter 5.5 6 6 6 6 6 Hrspection Services 14.13 14.13 14.13 13.88 14.88 14.88 Public Works Public Works Adnin 2 2 2 2 2 2 Engineering 13.6 13.6 13.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Flood Recovery Culture and Recreation Parks and Rec Adnin 2 2 2 2 2 2 Recreation 15.17 15.17 15.17 15.17 15.17 15.42 Parks 13 13 13 12 13 13 Forestry 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cemetery 3 3 3 3 3 3 CBD Maintenance 3 3 3 3 3 3 Library 41.25 41.25 43.25 42.63 42.63 42.89 Senior Center 6 5.81 5.81 6.31 6.31 6.31 Community and Economic Development 9.05 8.35 9.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 General Govenunent City Council 7 7 7 7 7 7 City Manager 3 3 3 3 3 3 City Clerk 4.5 4 4 4 4 4 City Attorney 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Tort Liabiltiy, Insurance - - - - - - Personrel 4 4 4 4 4 4 Finance 28.61 28.61 28.61 26.61 26.75 26.75 Government Buildings 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 Energy Conservation 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Hmnan Rights 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Transit 48.5 48.5 48.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 Special Revenue Employee Benefits 0.4 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.39 CIP / Roads 7 7 7 3 2 2 Flood Mitigation Grants - - - - - - Community Development 4.75 5.45 5.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 Traffic Engineering 4.15 5.65 5.65 5.65 4.15 4.15 Streets 23.5 22 22 22 23.5 23.5 MPOJC (fonnerly JCCOG) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.6 6.6 Library Development 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.8 1 1 Internal Service Funds Hrfonnaflon Technology 7.5 7.5 7.5 8 11.75 12 Equipment 10.25 11.25 11.26 11.25 11.26 11.26 Central Services 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Risk Management 1.26 1.33 1.33 1.32 1.38 1.38 Business -Type Activities Parking 37 31.5 31.5 32.75 32.75 32.75 Wastewater Treatinent 26.3 26.3 27.3 27.3 25.5 25.5 Water 28.2 30.7 31.7 31.7 32.5 32 Sarutation 32.35 32.35 32.35 34.35 33.85 33.85 Airport 2 2 2 2 1.6 1.6 Cable Television 5.25 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 Stonnwater - - - - 0.5 1 Housing Authority 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.75 13.25 13.25 Total 661.68 660.94 665.95 654.86 605.37 608.13 Source: City's Financial Plans. 128 Full -Tune Equivalent Employees as of Jwie 30 2008 2009 2010 2011 96.25 103.25 103.25 98 57 57 57 66 6 6 6 6 15.38 15.55 15.55 15.55 2 2 2 2 11.35 11.35 11.35 12.1 0.4 2 2 2 2 15.42 15.42 15.42 15.42 13 13 13 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 43.14 43.14 43.14 43.14 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 8.95 9.05 9.05 9.1 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6.6 6 6 5.6 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 26.5 25.3 25.3 25.24 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 0.25 0.25 0.25 - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 54.75 58.5 58.5 56.25 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.26 1 2 2 - - - 1.6 3.98 3.88 3.88 3.83 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 23.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 1 1 1 1 12.3 12.3 12.3 11.3 11.26 11.26 11.26 11.26 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.73 1.93 1.93 2.01 32.75 33.25 33.25 32.75 25.5 25.6 25.6 25.6 32.75 32.75 32.75 32.75 34.85 34.85 35.85 37.85 1.6 1.75 1.75 1.75 6.19 6.44 6.44 6.69 2 1.9 1.9 1.9 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 614.81 629.03 630.03 632.37 129 O ti vl �O fr V fr N ti vl �O fr V fr �O O N T O O O .ti 1� O V vl V N vl O r O N ti vl �O fr V fr N ti vl �O fr V fr N fr V O vl r .ti T O vl �O V fr z o �nm rnN m o ow O O rn mrnv v v - a F W � e 0 0 O � ov rn m o or oo rn �n .-. v o?o ou ou h o N o r v ov" m m o o Y I w rnrn rnrn Q o ow oo m Nv mm v E E `�-' rnw �nrn z N v w � w f. 0 0 o 0 0 o F E E wF zap w Q 'z Ca o .w mw�' uSO z z w w 3 3 3 m 130 131 ti W fn Dv N Ni ti ti O � N fn O Ni O b � � y N V Q' •C 'D `d O N V C V N C O 132 V rl O � N -� P fn Dv O W ti � O ti fn N fn O N O ti r O � b O fn ti N O O � N ti b O � b O fn ti N O N ti P fn W W Vl ti ti O ti O N fn Dv N Vl N N fn D O N z z W N � 0 � F a o U d N U M N D In O N N N D fn 0 O N ti N C O � � y N V Q' •C 'D `d O N V C V 132 Vl �D N� N P O O ti Vl W D\ N N D\ W D\ 'y O N ti Vl N m fn •'� (�1 f�l N O N N Vl �D ti N N� O N ti Vl p O N -ti to N �D to O N N p� O N ti N b fn O N N y O N ti N Vl fn O N N Vl O �D l� N fn fn D\ ti O N N ti D N Vl N O N N = N N V z � w O N N N O N N V N Vl N P N� N O N N C V ti O OOC �L] � V N � � 133 134 EideBailly 11-� CPAs & BUSINESS ADVISORS Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated December 14, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. 135 www.eidebaiIIy.com 3999 Pennsylvania Ave., Ste. 100 1 Dubuque, IA 52002.2273 1 T 563.556.1790 1 f 563.557.7842 I EOE Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Comments involving statutory and other legal matters about the City's operations for the year ended June 30, 2011, are based exclusively on knowledge obtained from procedures performed during our audit of the financial statements of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and are reported in Part III of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Since our audit was based on tests and samples, not all transactions that might have had an impact on the comments were necessarily audited. The comments involving statutory and other legal matters are not intended to constitute legal interpretations of those statutes. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, City Council, others within the entity, and federal awarding agencies and pass - through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. A/ r7" Dubuque, Iowa December 14, 2011 136 EideBailly. 1%�� CPAs & BUSINESS ADVISORS Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements That Could have a Direct and Material Effect on Each Major Program and on Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A -133 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa Compliance We have audited the compliance of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Circular A -133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City's major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2011. The City's major federal programs are identified in the summary of the independent auditor's results section of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the City's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A -133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City's compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2011. 137 www.eideboilly.com 3999 Pen nsylvonio Ave„ Ste- 100 1 Dubuqua, IA 52002 -2273 1 T 563.556.1790 1 F 563.557.7842 1 EOE Internal Control Over Compliance Management of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City's internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A- 133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over compliance. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, we identified a certain deficiency in internal control over compliance that we consider to be a significant deficiency as described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs as item II -A -11. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. The City's response to the finding identified in our audit is described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. We did not audit the City's response, and accordingly, we express no opinion on it. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, City Council, others within the entity, and federal awarding agencies and pass - through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. A/ L 7�' Dubuque, Iowa December 14, 2011 138 Federal Grantor/Program CFDA Number U.S. Department of Commerce Direct Program Economic Adjustment Assistance Economic Adjustment Assistance Economic Adjustment Assistance Total U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Direct Program Community Development Block Grants/ Entitlement Grants Community Development Block Grants/ Entitlement Grants Pass - Through Program From Iowa Department of Economic Development Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non- Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non- Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii 11.307 11.307 11.307 14.218 14.218 14.228 14.228 14.228 14,228 14.228 14.228 14.228 14.228 139 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2011 Pass - Through Entity Identifying Number [11t2P135,1: M G7 08 -DRB -204 08 -DRH -210 08 -DRI -071 [11,190t7.I:IIr�rx 08- DRH -010 08 -DRI -273 08 -DRI -271 Federal Expenditures $ 6,822 520,262 2,563 529.647 582,586 287.020 869.606 93,469 54,165 3,107,357 108,510 6,758,597 26,147 109,023 157,752 Federal Grantor/Program CFDA Number U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (continued) Pass - Through Program from Iowa Department of Economic Development (continued) Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii 14.228 Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii 14.228 Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Direct Program HOME Investment Partnerships Program HOME Investment Partnerships Program HOME Investment Partnerships Program HOME Investment Partnerships Program Public and Indian Housing Public and Indian Housing Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Public Housing Funds Cluster Public Housing Capital Fund Public Housing Capital Fund Public Housing Capital Fund 14.228 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2011 Pass - Through Entity Identifying Federal Number Expenditures 08 -DRIEF -274 $ 284 O8 -DRIEF -276 08 -DRMI -007 19,233 26-,127 10,460,664 14,239 248,353 14.239 363,544 14.239 215,749 14.239 196.645 1.024.291 14.850 187,800 14.850 141.487 329.287 IEIF30 6,993,496 14.872 12,469 14.872 2,933 14.872 106,268 121,670 ARRA - Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) Recovery Act Funded 14.885 Total Public Housing Funds Cluster Total U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Justice Pass - Through Program From Iowa Department of Justice Violence Against Women Formula Grants 16.588 140 7,118 128,788 1%806,132 VW -11 -34 47.400 Federal Grantor/Proeram CFDA Number U.S. Department of Justice (continued) Direct Program Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 Pass - Through Program From Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants 16.710 JAG Cluster Direct Program Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 16.738 Pass-Through Program From Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy ARRA — Recovery Act — Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program/Grants to States and Territories 16.803 Direct Program ARRA — Recovery Act — Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program/Grants to Units of Local Government 16.804 Total JAG Cluster Total U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Transportation Direct Program ARRA - Airport Improvement Program Airport Improvement Program Airport Improvement Program Airport Improvement Program 20.106 20.106 20,106 20.106 141 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2011 Pass - Through Entity Identifying Federal Number Expenditures $ 512 11,477 11.989 09- flotspots/ Interdiction -09 69.176 56,273 09JAG /ARF,A -3413B 122,475 83,979 262.727 391,292 12,831 1,776 112,512 120,486 247,605 Federal Grantor/Program CFDA Number U.S. Department of Transportation (continued) Pass - Through Program From Highway Planning and Construction Cluster Iowa Department of Transportation and Johnson County Council of Governments Highway Planning and Construction 20.205 Iowa Department of Transportation Recreational Trails Program 20.219 Total Highway Planning and Construction Cluster Iowa Department of Transportation and Johnson County Council of Governments Federal Transit – Metropolitan Planning Grants Direct Program Federal Transit – Formula Grants Federal Transit – Formula Grants 20.505 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2011 Pass- Through Entity Identifying Federal Number Expenditures 11 MPO -JCCOG $ 145.775 NRT- 3715(649�-9G -52 43.848 189.623 11MP0 -JCCOG 35.233 20.507 1,010,352 20.507 181.023 1,191,375 Pass - Through Program From Iowa Department of Transportation Transit Services Program Cluster Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities 20.513 Job Access – Reverse Commute Job Access – Reverse Commute Total Transit Services Programs Cluster JA -16- 30001- 371 -11 20.516 IA -37 -X017 -371 - l0 20.516 IA -37- X017- 371 -11 Iowa Department of Public Safety, Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants 1 20.601 Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants I 20.601 Total U.S. Department of Transportation 142 PAP -11 -410, Task 39 PAP -10 -410, Task 36 91.035 31,416 93.802 125.218 216,253 16,304 6,545 22,849 1.902.938 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2011 Pass - Through Federal Entity Identifying Federal Grantor/Prograrn CFDA Number Number Expenditures U.S. Department of Energy Pass - Through Program From Iowa Office of Energy Independence ARRA — State Energy Program 81.041 SEP09 -005 $ 269,154 Direct Program APRA - Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) 81.128 269,202 Total U.S. Department of Energy 538.356 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Pass - Through Program From Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division Disaster Grants — Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) 97.036 FEMA -1763 DR -IA 721,903 Hazard Mitigation Grant (B) 97.039 DR -1763- 0137 -01 69,841 Hazard Mitigation Grant (B) 97.039 FEMA -DR- 1763 -0015 01 272.544 342,385 Direct Program Assistance to Firefighters Grant 97.044 13,673 Assistance to Firefighters Grant 97.044 7.008 20.681 Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1,084,969 Total ,"4. 3� See Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 143 City of Iowa City, Iowa Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2011 Note 1- Basis of Presentation The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes the federal grant activity of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and is presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations. Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic financial statements. Note 2 - Subrecipients Of the federal expenditures presented in the schedule, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, provided federal awards to subrecipients as follows: Program Title Community Development Block Grants/ Entitlement Grants HOME Investment Partnerships Program Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program ARRA — Edward Byme Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program/Grants to States and Territories 144 Federal Amount Provided CFDA Number to Subrecipients 14.218 $ 584,414 14.239 826,785 16.738 29,971 16.803 58,788 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2011 Part 1: Summary of the Independent Auditor's Results: Financial Statements Type of auditor's report issued Unqualified Internal control over Financial reporting: Material weakness identified No Significant deficiency None reported Noncompliance material to financial statements noted No Federal Awards Internal control over major programs: Material weakness identified No Significant deficiency Yes Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for major programs Unqualified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Circular A -I33, Section .510(a) Yes Identification of major programs: CFDA Number 14.228 14.871 81.041 81.128 97.036 Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs Name of Federal Program or Cluster Community Development Block Grants/ State's Program and Non - Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers ARRA — State Energy Program ARRA - Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) Disaster Grants — Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) $727,600 Auditee qualified as low -risk auditee No 145 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2011 Part II: Findings and Questioned Costs for Federal Awards: SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY CFDA Number 97.036: Disaster Grants -Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Pass - Througb Agency Number: FEMA -1763 DR -IA U.S. Department of Homeland Security Passed through the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Division II -A -11 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Criteria — The City is required to follow state procurement policies and procedures, as well as any additional requirements contained in the grant application. Condition — During our audit, we noted one contract that was entered into following state procurement policies and procedures, but did not include certain federal government- mandated provisions contained in the grant application. Cause — The Water Division personnel performing the procurement procedures were not aware of the additional federal requirements contained in the grant application. Federal grant contracts are usually reviewed by Public Works personnel. However, no review was performed due to staffing constraints caused by the large number of projects occurring in fiscal year 2011. Effect — The contractor may not have complied with the regulations required by the grant application. Recommendation — In the future, the City should ensure staff performing grant functions are aware of all grant requirements. Response — This contract was amended to include the required federal government- mandated provisions. Public works personnel will review all future federal grant contracts and specifications to prevent this typo of deficiency. Conclusion — Response accepted. 146 City of Iowa City, Iowa Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2011 Part III: Other Findings Related to Required Statutory Reporting: III -A -1 I Certified Budget — Disbursements during the year ended June 30, 2011, did not exceed the amount budgeted. III -B -11 Questionable Expenditures— We noted no expenditures that we believe may fail to meet the requirements of public purpose as defined in an Attorney General's opinion dated April 25, 1979. III -C -11 Travel Expense — No expenditures of City money for travel expenses of spouses of City officials or employees were noted. III -D -11 Business Transactions — Business transactions between the City and City officials or employees are detailed as follows: Name, Title, and Transaction Business Connection Description Amount Art Bettis, Spouse of Brenda Nations, Environmental Coordinator, Landfill Matt Neumiller, member of Board of Appeals, owner ofNeumiller Electric Steve Ford, Spouse of Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator, Part owner of Confluence Consulting $ 1,500 Services Electric Supplies 90 Consulting 111,487 Services In accordance with Chapter 362.5(3)] of the Code of Iowa, the transactions with Art Bettis and Matt Neumiller do not appear to represent conflicts of interest since total transactions with each individual were less than $1,500 during the fiscal year. The transaction with Confluence does not appear to represent a conflict of interest since the related party's ownership is less than 5% in accordance with Chapter 362.5(9) of the Code of Iowa. III -E -11 Bond Coverage — Surety bond coverage of City officials and employees is in accordance with statutory provisions. The amount of coverage should be reviewed annually to ensure the coverage is adequate for current operations. Ill -F -11 Council Minutes— No transactions were found that we believe should have been approved in the Council minutes but were not. III-G -11 Deposits and Investments —No instances of non - compliance with the deposit and investment provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the Code of Iowa and the City's investment policy were noted. III -H -I I Revenue Bonds -- No instances of non - compliance with the provisions of the City's revenue bond resolutions were noted. 147