Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-01-11 Info Packet
City Council Information Packet CITY of IOWA CITY www.icgov.org IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule January 16 Conference Board Meeting IP2 Agenda and Meeting Packet January 16 Work Session IP3 Work Session Agenda January 11, 2018 IP4 Memo from City Manager: Operating and Capital Budget Discussion I135 Memo from Economic Development Coordinator: Proposed Retail Consultant work IP6 Pending Work Session Topics Miscellaneous I137 Article from Council Member Cole: Fort Collins, Colorado, Will Create Broadband Utility, `Committed' to Net Neutrality IP8 Memo from Sustainability Coordinator: Iowa City Consumption -based Emissions Inventory report finalized IP9 Memo from Neighborhood & Development Services Director: UniverCity Program Update and Future Direction I1310 Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: Long-term Debt Disclosure Report IP11 2017 Building Statistics IP12 Invitation: Open House- Iowa City Free Clinic —January 26 IP13 Invitation: Mental Health First Aid Class —February 12 and February 14 IP14 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Parking Enforcement Attendant IP15 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I —Refuse IP16 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Associate Planner— Community Development Copy of Press Release: Attend the 35th annual Historic Preservation Awards - January 18 [Distributed to Council as Late Handout 1/16] �r CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org IP1 Council City Council Information Packet Meeting Schedule \ January 16 Conference Board/Meeting IP2 Agenda and Meeting uary 16 Work IP3 Work Session Agenda \ I134 Memo from City Manager: Oper: IP5 Memo from Economic Developm IP6 Pending Work Session Topics IP7 Article from Council Member Cole: Utility, 'Committed' to Net Neutr IP8 Memo from Sustainability Coor in Inventory report finalized January 11, 2018 and pital Budget Discussion :oord' ator: Proposed Retail Consultant work Iowa IP9 Memo from Neighborhood Development Colorado, Will Create Broadband Consumption -based Emissions UniverCity Program Update and Future Directi n IP10 Memo from Budget & Co pliance Officer: Long-term Deb Disclosure Report IP11 2017 Building Statist! s IP12 Invitation: Open Ho se - Iowa City Free Clinic —January 26 IP13 Invitation: Mental ealth First Aid Class — February 12 and Feb uary 14 IP14 Civil Service Ent nce Examination: Parking Enforcement Attendan IP15 Civil Service trance Examination: Maintenance Worker I — Refuse IP16 Civil Serv' a Entrance Examination: Associate Planner— Community Development January 11, 2018 Information Packet (continued) 2 Draft Minutes IP17 Board of Adjustment: December 13 IP18 Historic Preservation Commission —December 14 IP19 Human Rights Commission —January 9 01-11-18 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 Anir� rrr®'m� Subject to change CITY OF IOWA CITY January 11, 2018 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 22, 2018 4:00 PM Reception Coralville City Hall 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:00 PM Strategic Planning Work Session Eastside Recycling Ctr- Education Center Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 20, 2018 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting --or-m- a- IP2 OFFICE OF THE IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BRAD COMER ASSESSOR MARTY BURKLE CHEF DEPUTY MARY PAUSTIAN DEPUTY January 10, 2018 Dear Conference Board Member: The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the consideration of the Iowa City Assessor's FY 2019 budget is scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 5:00 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed for your review before the meeting are: 1. The Agenda. 2. A copy of the February 21, 2017 minutes. 3. The Proposed Budget. 4. Annual performance review responses provided to the Assessor Evaluation Committee (completed by the Assessor) 5. A salary survey. 6. An Examining Board Application. 7. A Board of Review Application. 8. The 2017 Iowa City Assessor's Annual Report. There is an increase in the amount to be raised by the Assessment Expense Fund from last year's amount. The increase consists of: a. $ 10,485 for a 2.25 percent COLA increase in salaries b. $ 8,676 for merit increases. c. $ 1,000 for a step increase (appraiser — new construction) d. $ 1,249 for an increase in FICA. e. $ 1,458 for an increase in IPERS. f. $ 8,985 for an increase in health insurance. g. $ 6,100 for an increase in postage, an alternate year expense. h. $ 2,500 for an increase in printing, an alternate year expense. i. $ 100 for an increase in life insurance, which is based on salaries. j. 3,000 for an increase to the auto replacement reserve fund. $ 43,553 Total Increase This increase is offset by the following decrease: a. $ 3 837 for a decrease of base pay in a vacant appraiser position $_ 3.837 Total Decrease $ 39,716 Net Increase 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET • IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 TELEPHONE 319-356-6066 The Assessment Expense Fund levy rate will change from 0.25141 to 0.23187 The increase for salaries is based on a 2.25 percent cost of living increase. One appraiser position is currently vacant and the potential maximum pay was reduced by $3,837 from the previous amount. The enclosed salary survey indicates that our salaries fall below those of the most comparable assessment jurisdictions in Iowa. The City Assessor Evaluation Committee met on January 8, 2018 to review the performance of the Assessor and the proposed budget. Merit increases allow step increases similar to the pay plans used by the city, the county and the schools. There is an increase of $1,000 to an appraiser position. This appraiser position receives much less in pay than comparable positions in the Johnson County Assessor's office. This employee has 24 years in the office at his current position, which is more than any other employee in either of the Assessor's offices. The average salary of 3 county appraiser positions with more than 10 years of experience is $76,694 in the proposed FYI budget. The positions are not identical, as there are some additional valuation duties that the county appraisers have. Our goal is to get our appraiser within 20% of the county average. This $1,000 increase would get us closer to that goal at 79% or $60,859. The increases above are also reflected in FICA and IPERS. Health insurance was increased due to a projected increase in rates for the next fiscal year. Postage and printing were increased because 2019 will be a reassessment year and assessment rolls will be mailed to all property owners. Employee life insurance premiums are based on salaries and must be increased when salaries increase. The auto replacement reserve fund was increased by $3,000. This account builds by $3,000 per year and carries over until a new car is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about individual items or wish to see any of the supporting documents for this budget. Sincerely, Brad Comer Iowa City Assessor bcomer@co.iohnson.ia.us (319)356-6066 JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA CITY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLBOARD The Iowa City Conference Board Agenda Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:00 PA A. Call meeting to order by the Chairperson (Mayor). B. Roll call by taxing body. C. Motion to approve minutes of February 21, 2017 Conference Board meeting. Action: D. FY 19 Budget Comment — The purpose of this meeting is to set a date for a public hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's proposed budget for FY 2019. 1. Assessor presents proposed budget (included in packet) 2. Discuss proposed budget. (Possible closed session, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(1), to evaluate the professional competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered. A motion must be made to adjourn to executive session.) 3. Motion to approve publication on proposed budget. Action: E. Motion to set date for public hearing. (Suggested date: February 20, 2018) Action: F. Present Examining Board applications 1. Appoint Examining Board member (City Council representative) Action: G. Present Board of Review applications 1. Appoint Board of Review member Action: H. Other business. I. Adjournment. Action: The Conference Board votes as three voting units, with a majority of the members present for each unit determining the unit's vote. At least two members of voting unit must be present in order to vote. A quorum is reached when at least two members from two units are present. IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD MINUTES February 21, 2017 City Conference Board: February 21, 2017 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at the Iowa City City Hall, Mayor Jim Throgmorton presiding. Iowa City Council Members Present: Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas and Throgmorton. Johnson County Supervisors Present: Carberry, Green -Douglass and Friese. Iowa City School Board Members Present: None. Others Present: Comer, Paustian, Fruin, Monroe and Voparil. Digital Recording: February 21, 2017. Chair Jim Throgmorton called the meeting to order and Clerk Comer called roll and stated that a quorum was present. The City (Dickens) moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference Board meeting, January 17, 2017, the County (Friese) seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Throgmorton declared the public hearing on the FYI Budget open. After no comment from the public, the public hearing was declared closed. The County (Friese) moved to accept the proposed budget as published in the Iowa City Press -Citizen on February 2, 2017, the City (Mims) seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Clerk Comer explained that there is an opening on the Examining Board for the School and the term of Kann Franklin (City) ends on December 31, 2017. The Examining Board is not expected to meet this year. The School and City will look to fill the vacancies and appoint them at the next Conference Board meeting. There being no further business, the majority agreed to adjourn at 5:04 P.M. Brad Comer Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ITEMIZED BUDGET- ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES FY 2018 FY 2019 INCREASE COLA MERIT STEP SALARIES Current Proposed CITY ASSESSOR 108,680 112,755 3.75% 2.25% 1.50% CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR 94,077 97,953 4.12% 2.25% 1.87% DEPUTY ASSESSOR 87,309 90,910 4.12% 2.25% 1.87% REAL ESTATE/GIS SPECIALIST 63,964 66,603 4.12% 2.25% 1.87% APPRAISER (NEW CONSTRUCTION) 57,009 60,358 5.879/6 2.25% 1.87% 1.75% OFFICE MANAGER 58,238 60,859 4.50% 2.25% 2.25% APPRAISER (REAPPRAISAL) 58,837 55,000 -6.529/6 WA WA STEP INCREASE (APPRAISER - NEW CONSTRUCTION) (750) (1,000) MERIT INCREASES (haw been added to salaries above) (9,996) (8.676) SUBTOTAL $528,114 $544,438 3.09% Proposed salaries Include merit Increases, cost of living adjustments and a step increase. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYER SHARE: FICA 43,227 44,476 2.89% EMPLOYER SHARE: IPERS 50,447 51,905 2.89% HEALTH INSURANCE 149,645 158,630 6.00% SUBTOTAL 243,319 255,011 4.81% TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST $771,433 $799,449 3.63% OTHER EXPENDITURES LEAVE CONTINGENCY $20,000 $20,000 0.00% BOARDS BOARD OF REVIEW 16,800 16,800 0.00% BOARD OF REVIEW EXPENSES 200 200 0.00% CONFERENCE BOARD 0 0 EXAMINING BOARD 30 30 0.00% SUBTOTAL $17,030 $17,030 0.00% OFFICE EXPENSES MILEAGE &AUTO 4,500 4,500 0.00% OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,500 3,500 0.00% POSTAGE 2,000 8,100 305.00% TELEPHONE 1,300 1,300 0.00% PUBLICATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS 700 700 0.00% PRINTING 1,500 4,000 166.67% INSURANCE 4,600 4,700 2.17% EQUIPMENT PURCHASE 3,400 3,400 0.00% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 200 200 0.00% UNEMPLOYMENT 2,000 2,000 0.00% DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 18,000 18,000 0.00% SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 18,000 16,000 0.00% BONDS & WORKER'S COMPENSATION 1,700 1,700 0.00% COMPUTER REPLACEMENT 2,500 2,500 0.00% SUBTOTAL $63,900 $72,600 13.62% PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES SCHOOLS & CONFERENCES 13,500 13,500 0.00% DUES 2,400 2,400 0.00% SUBTOTAL $15,900 $15,900 0.00% TECHNICAL SERVICES LEGAL FEES & EXPERT WITNESSES 52,000 52,000 0.00% AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 10,000 10,000 0.00% APPRAISAL SERVICE 1,000 1,000 0.00% SUBTOTAL $63,000 $63,000 0.000% TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES $179,830 $188,530 4.84% SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $951,263 $987,979 RESERVES AUTO REPLACEMENT 9,000 12,000 TOTAL RESERVES $ 91000 $12,000 TOTAL ASSMT EXPENSE FUND BUDGET $960,263 $999,979 4.14% UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $100,292 $161,004 60.54% TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $859,971 $838,975 -2.449/ IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND 3,618,300,861 X.000675 $2,442,353 IPERS & FICA FUNDS $96,381 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION & TORT LIABILITY $4,000 MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITHOUT STATE APPROVAL $2,542,734 MAXIMUM EMERGENCY FUND 3,618,300,861 X.00027 $976,941 (requires State Appeal Board approval) MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR FY 2019 $3,519,675 PRIOR YEARS LEVIES AND RATES ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND TOTAL LEVY FY AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE 1996-97 319,513 0.20450 17,000 0.01088 0.21538 1997-98 318,270 0.19946 52,834 0.03311 0.23257 1998-99 318,699 0.19269 184,357 0.11146 0.30415 1999-00 341,910 0.19784 352,508 0.20398 0.40182 2000-01 359,341 0.19823 180,293 0.09946 0.29769 2001-02 396,829 0.20636 6,442 0.00335 0.20971 2002-03 403,136 0.20694 4,426 0.00227 0.20921 2003-04 412,379 0.20818 10,051 0.00507 0.21325 2004-05 470,398 0.22926 15,728 0.00767 0.23693 2005-06 472,050 0.22525 25,995 0.01240 0.23765 2006-07 529,702 0.23164 0 0 0.23164 2007-08 603,916 0.25868 4,792 0.00205 0.26073 2008-09 611,955 0.24917 1,540 0.00063 0.24980 2009-10 600,013 0.23848 0 0 0.23848 2010-11 621,785 0.23147 8,730 0.00325 0.23472 2011-12 680,786 0.24538 2,608 0.00094 0.24632 2012-13 700,997 0.24164 8,384 0.00289 0.24453 2013-14 769,744 0.25873 N/A N/A 0.25873 2014-15 732,073 0.23866 N/A N/A 0.23866 2015-16 754,689 0.24325 N/A N/A 0.24325 2016-17 804,099 0.24339 N/A N/A 0.24339 2017-18 859,971 0.25141 N/A N/A 0.25141 2018-19 838,975 0.23187 N/A N/A 0.23187 IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW Conducted January 2018 (Completed by the Iowa City Assessor) Assessors Name: Brad Comer Date of Review: January 8, 2017 Has the assessor adequately performed all duties as required by the Iowa Code § 441 and as outlined in the assessor's job description? Yes, I have performed the duties as required in the code. Much of the credit goes to our veteran, knowledgeable staff who allow our office to operate in a very efficient manner. Has the assessor complied with all applicable Iowa City and Johnson County policies and procedures? Yes, we have complied with those policies and procedures. We follow the Johnson County Employee Handbook. What is Iowa City's ranking on the most recent state listing of Coefficients of Dispersion? Also list any other related data, awards, classes or recognitions. The Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is a measure of the average deviation from the median of selling price to assessment ratios, with a low ratio considered good. Iowa City ranked first in the state with a residential COD of 7.69. The median of the 107 jurisdictions was 22.29. The statistics are from a Department of Revenue study of the 2016 sales. The 2016 commercial sales show that we are ranked 39`h overall with a COD of 21.77 and 17"' among jurisdictions with at least 10 sales. The median for all jurisdictions was 27.38. Based on the FYE 2018 budget, our office has the 61h lowest assessor levy rate in Iowa. The Iowa City Assessor levy is .2514 1, while the median across all 107 assessing jurisdictions is .44728. When considering 2016 Census estimates and FY2018 Assessment Expense Levies, Iowa City has the lowest tax per capita to operate the assessor's office among the 19 highest paid assessors. During the past year I attended 4 separate conferences in Iowa which covered various educational offerings. The Iowa Institute of Certified Assessors (IICA) Seminar and Workshop, the ISAA (Iowa State Association of Assessors) Annual School of Instruction and two ISAC (Iowa State Association of Counties) conferences. In any time as a Deputy Assessor, I served on numerous committees for the Iowa State Association of Assessors (ISAA). I am also a past president of the East Central District of Assessors (ECD). I am currently serving on the IDR (Iowa Department of Revenue)/ISAC Working Group SF295. This past year I was the chairperson of the IICA Nominating Committee. List any pertinent input (anonymously) from the assessor's staff, the community and/or the Review Board regarding the assessor's performance. I have not received complaints from the public, the community, the Board of Review or the staff. I encourage you to talk with anyone who may interact with our office. We take great pride in being very responsive to any request, as well as being fair and understanding when dealing with property owners. Review previous goals and objectives: 1. Continue in-house appraisal of all single family residential properties in Iowa City with a goal of 1500 properties visited by 06/30/2017. In progress. By 6/30/2017, we were at 1009 properties which is short of our goal but consistent with the previous year. This number may need to be adjusted downward next year. We also monitor real estate listings on-line and have been able to gain valuable information that our office may not have previously been aware of. 2. Focus in-house appraisal on areas with highest Coefficient of Dispersion. We have done this and will continue to do so. 3. Continue to cross train employees to allow our office to better assist the public in answering questions and to create efficiencies in the office. In progress. Our Office Manager is now entering sales into our appraisal software (Camavision). Both Deputy Assessors have become more involved in listing commercial properties. They have alternated assisting me on commercial property inspections. Our GIS/Mapping Specialist is assisting one of our appraisers by inputting the residential sketches into Camavision. The Chief Deputy and Office Manager continue to work with me on the office budget. 4. Work with Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services to receive zoning information that we could incorporate into our maps for internal analysis. This has been done and is very helpful in analyzing commercial areas by zoning. Other goals: List goals, objectives and areas of concern for the coming year: 1. Continue in-house appraisal of all single family residential properties in Iowa City with a goal of 1050 properties visited by 1/1/2019. 2. Request income and expenses for income type properties. Increase the weight of our income approach on apartments from 60% to at least 75% for the 2019 assessments. 3. Evaluate whether we have received enough information to incorporate the income approach on commercial properties. 4. Analyze land values for all classes of property and revalue as needed for the 2019 assessment. Employee Comments pertaining to this review: Signed:Date: Employee Signed: Date: Chair of Conference Board - / ,� �,E. r u„ti, o, ll,� cp.r�u ` t r e / t fi• Reviewed by Human Resources—(J l �✓ // / �J� UG Human Resources Director Date DICTION 01 02 SALARY 0809 SALARY 0910 SALARY 1011 SALARY 11 12 SALARY 1213 SALARY 1314 SALARY 1415 SALARY 1516 SALARY 1617 SALARY 1716 SALARY % RAISE 1YEAR % RAISE 5YEAR % RAISE 16 YEAR IST DEPUTY COUNTY 93,867 114,375 118,177 121,722 122,330 122,330 125,157 127,974 131,493 135,437 138,822 2.50% 13.48% 47.89% 129,530 79,959 102,169 107,276 110,500 113,938 116,662 120,322 123,943 127,668 131,300 137,770 4.93% 18.09% 72.30% 110,518 R RAPIDS 74,378 101,067 104,099 106,181 109,328 114,015 117,171 120,083 122,484 125,546 128,057 2.00% 12.32% 72.17% 110,636 4WATTAMIE 74,764 97,435 100,845 102,862 104,919 108,067 111,307 115,087 118,155 123,526 127,868 3.52% 18.32% 71.03% 102,295 Y 69,300 97,500 97,500 100,425 102,435 104,485 106,575 108,705 111,670 116,150 123,000 5.90% 17.72% 77.49% 98,400 SON 63,500 92,500 95,470 97,500 99,455 101,616 106,976 111,297 114,640 117,506 122,206 4.00% 20.26% 92.45% 103,412 1S 57,200 81,315 83,770 85,450 87,150 88,904 91,572 93,403 102,650 105,730 112,074 6.00% 26.06% 95.93% 95,263 65,472 84,125 87,069 89,246 91,477 93,581 95,764 99,563 102,550 105,622 109,685 3.85% 17.21% 67.53% 98,237 CITY 63,340 84,440 87,060 89,500 91,510 94,970 99,010 103,340 100,000 104,500 108,680 4.001/6 14.44% 71.58% 94,077 VPORT 67,836 88,930 92,043 94,803 97,648 97,189 98,160 100,756 104,453 106,135 107,842 1.61% 10.96% 58.97% 97,260 OUE CITY 66,083 84,364 87,317 87,317 87,317 89,937 92,635 95,414 98,276 101,224 106,295 5.01% 18.19% 60.85% 86,688 D GORDO 66,000 85,000 88,000 89,500 89,500 91,740 93,800 97,590 100,540 103,575 106,165 2.50% 15.72% 60.86% 84,932 E N/A N/A N/A 90,000 N/A 88,000 93,380 95,719 100,724 102,990 105,305 2.25% 19.66% N/A 61,828 ATINE 66,432 84,785 87,557 87,557 89,309 91,540 94,280 96,166 99,060 102,280 105,200 2.85% 14.92% 58.36% 71,911 (HAWK 66,200 85,600 87,320 87,320 88,630 90,420 92,457 95,004 97,854 100,790 103,813 3.00% 14.81% 56.82% 72,669 CITY 68,294 81,553 84,000 84,000 84,840 86,537 91,000 93,730 96,073 98,955 101,429 2.50% 17.21% 48.52% 86,800 )BURY 63,600 83,260 85,760 85,760 87,050 89,660 94,080 97,840 95,000 97,850 100,790 3.001/6 12.41% 58.47% 80,630 DUE COUNTY 62,500 80,589 83,410 83,410 83,410 85,912 88,489 91,144 93,878 100,413 100,079 -0.33% 16.49% 60.13% 80,063 f 62,666 84,751 87,506 89,256 91,486 93,316 95,183 97,087 99.890 96,000 98.100 2.19% 5.13% 56.54% 75.300 142 84,893 W$32 89M 91,482 THIS LIST INCLUDES THE TOP 19 HIGHEST PAID ASSESSOR POSITIONS IN IOWA. 2001-02 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS STARTING WITH A SIMILAR RATE 2017-18 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS WITH 12.44% DIFFERENCE JURISDICTION STAFF Value 2016 Taxable Taxable Value Per Employee 2017 COMPARISON OF OFFICES Taxes Population Budgeted Budget Per of 2016 Employee Jurisdiction Population Per Employee 2017.18 Assessment Expense Levy Taxes Per Capita Residential COD 2016 Commercial COD 2016 yrs In Office Appraisal Experience POLK COUNTY 36 $21,324 $ 592 $ 6,090,360 $ 169,177 474,045 13,168 0.27177 $12.85 14.63 28.74 3 37 AMES 7 $2,703 $ 386 $ 1,146,675 $ 163,811 66,191 9,456 0.31814 $17.32 9.92 17.94 11 30 CEDAR RAPIDS 15 $6,386 $ 426 $ 2,283,863 $ 152,258 131,127 8,742 0.32883 $17.42 12.22 27.89 18 32 POTTAWATTAMIE 13 $4,748 $ 365 $ 1,837,046 $ 141,311 93,582 7,199 0.34745 $19.63 21.27 54.53 7 31 STORY 7 $1,564 $ 223 $ 815,443 $ 116,492 30,899 4,414 0.47310 $26.39 12.60 15.84 39 44 JOHNSON 10 $3,914 $ 391 $ 1,417,260 $ 141,726 72,149 7,215 0.31448 $19.64 7.83 17.10 2 26 DALLAS 12 $5,093 $ 424 $ 1,652,787 $ 137,732 84,516 7,043 0.27309 $19.56 11.62 32.98 14 24 LINN 13 $4,233 $ 326 $ 1,700,123 $ 130,779 90,534 6,964 0.31890 $18.78 8.89 23.56 9 34 IOWACITY 7 $3,462 $ 495 $ 951,263 $ 135,895 74,398 10,628 0.25141 $12.79 7.69 21.77 3 22 DAVENPORT 12 $4,134 $ 345 $ 1,578,065 $ 131,505 102,612 8,551 0.32839 $15.38 16.04 26.23 3 26 DUBUQUE CITY 6 $2,377 $ 396 $ 764,958 $ 127,493 58,531 9,755 0.25234 $13.07 15.51 25.78 16 38 CERRO GORDO 5 $1,452 $ 290 $ 1,068,997 $ 213,799 15,640 3,128 0.52340 $68.35 14.15 49.00 37 40 BOONE 6 $1,333 $ 222 $ 715,460 $ 119,243 26,532 4,422 0.46128 $26.97 22.06 30.11 11 29 MUSCATINE 6 $1,934 $ 322 $ 732,855 $ 122,143 42,940 7,157 0.31793 $17.07 15.59 20.33 25 39 BLACKHAWK 14 $5,378 $ 384 $ 1,782,685 $ 127,335 132,904 9,493 0.26966 $13.41 16.69 32.57 3 17 SIOUX CITY 8 $2,604 $ 326 $ 1,077,832 $ 134,729 82,872 10,359 0.34549 $13.01 16.83 27.66 20 25 WOODBURY 5 $1,447 $ 289 $ 724,570 $ 144,914 19,907 3,981 0.41730 $36.40 13.26 23.65 3 24 DUBUQUE CO. 6 $2.093 $ 349 $ 682,906 $ 113,818 38,472 6,412 0.29850 $17.75 11.59 32.93 12 37 SCOTT 9 $4,091 $ 455 $ 1,083,049 $ 120,339 69,862 7,762 0.22975 $15.50 12.40 18.56 2 13 a City Rank 11 10 MILLIONS MILLIONS YEARS MEDIAN 8 $ 3,462 $366$1,083,,729 63,889 7,2'JML 7 OF THESE 19 JURISDICTIONS HAVE AN ASSESSOR WITH 3 YEARS OR LESS IN THE POSITION. IOWA CITY HAS THE SECOND LOWEST ASSESSOR LEVY RATE ON THE LIST. TAXES BUDGETED FOR THE OFFICE DIVIDED BY 2016 POPULATION SHOWS IOWA CITY AT THE LOWEST AMOUNT. POPULATION NUMBERS ARE BASED ON 2016 ESTIMATES FROM WWW.CENSUS.GOV NOTICE THE CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENT TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD: ASSESSOR'S EXAMINING BOARD One vacancy — Six -Year Term January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2023 It is the duty of members of the Assessor's Examining Board to hold examinations for the position of Assessor. In addition, the Board may hear appeal of firing or suspension of a Deputy Assessor by the Assessor. Iowa City -appointed members of boards and commissions must be 18 years of age and live in Iowa City. The City of Iowa City encourages diversity in the appointment of citizens to boards and commissions Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 19, 2017. An application can be completed and submitted on the City of Iowa City website at www.icgov.org. or by contacting the Clerk's office. Questions about the Assessor's Examining Board should be directed to Brad Comer at 356-6066. 12/29/2017 Board/Commission Application Cover Board/Commission: Announcement Date: 11/13/2017 Assessor's Examining Board One vacancy to fill a six year term 1/1/2018-12/31/2023 Application Deadline: 12/19/2017 Date of Non -Gender Appointment: 2/11/2018 Gender Balance Requirement: Current Gender Balance: Gender Female After date above may appoint without regard to gender 1 Female Female:0 Male:2 Name and Address Franklin, Karin 816 Sugar Loaf Circle Q1 �,� Advisory Board/Commission Application Form 1;4r�� This application Is a public document and as such can be reproduced and distributed for „iy,_ the public. This application vill be considered for twelve months only and automatically CITY OF IOWA CITY considered for any vacancy during that time. uaumnrvaruna mu NOTE: Must be 18 years of age and live vAthin city limits of owa City to apply Dale of Application 11/14/2017 First Name Karin Last Name Franklin Home Address* 616 Sugar Loaf Circle City IOWA CITY State K Zip Code 52245 1. Is your home address (listed above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City?* Yes Contact Phone Number 319-321.8261 Emall Address* fran klinkarin66@gmail.00m Boards & Commissions Select a Board or Commission you are Interested in; Assessor's Examining Board 2. How long have you been a resident of Iowa City?* 44 years 3. Occupation: Retired 4. Gender:* Female 5. Experience and/or activities which you feel qualify you for this position:* Background in urban and regional planning, working with developers and neighborhoods on development and redevelopment. 16 years of management experience in the public sector. 6. What Is your present knowledge of each advisory board you are interested in?* I have served on this Board since 2012 and was therefore part of the process of hiring the current Assessor. Please contact the City Attorney at 356.5030 to discuss quo stions or concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest. The following describe some but not all potential conflicts. Potential Conflicts of Interest The Housing and Community Development Commission makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the distribution of federal CBDG/HOME funds. The general rule is that no persons who exercise or have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to federally funded activities, or who are In a position to participate in the decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from a federally -assisted activity, or have a financial interest in any contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect to a federally -assisted activity, or with respect to tie proceeds of the federally -assisted activity, either for themselves or those with whom they have business or Immediate family lies, during their tenure or for one yearfhereafter. Section 362.5 of the Code of Iowa generally prohibits, with certain important exceptions, a member of a City Board or Commission from having an interest in a City contract. City Council Resolution# 15-300 established a policythat the following persons shall not be eligible for appointment to Boards and Commissions: A Council Member's spouse, domestic partner or partner by cohabitation, children, stepchildren, children for whom the Council Member assumes parental responsibility, mother, father, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother -In-law, father-in-law, step-parent, brother, sister, step -siblings and half -siblings, brother-in-law, sister -int -law, grandparents and grandchildren, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin, foster parent, foster child, persons who are parents of the same child, and persons with whom the employee is in an intimate relationship Res. #15-300 states that each application for reappointment to a City Board or Commission will be considered without regard to Incumbency. If reappointed, an individual would be limited to one reappointment to a full term in order to increase the opportunities for new applicants to serve. Council policy is not to permit an Individual to serve on two Boards or Commissions at the same time. You will be asked to resign from one if appointed to another. 7. Do you currently have a conflict of Interest? Ko 6. Do you currently serve on another Iowa City board or commission?* hs Demographic Information The City Council values all types of diversity on its Boards and Commissions. Your responses on this page provide valuable information to the Council in achieving that goal. In order to ensure that the Board and Commission is representative of the community and the groups(s) which it serves, please provide your information for the following: 9. Age 70 10. Country of Origin USA 11. Sexual Orientation 12. Religion none 13. Do you have a disability? No 14. Ethnicity Caucasian 'NOTE: The Human Rights Commission strives to ensure the Commission is representative of the community. Therefore, appointment shall take into consideration persons of various racial, religious, cultural, social and economic groups in the city. (Ordinance) The Housing and Community Development Commission strives to satisfy its purpose and intent, when possible to have at least one person with expertise in construction, at least one person with expertise in finance, and one person who receives rental assistance. (Resolution) Signature of Applicant* Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all the questions, except demographics, Council will not consider your application. You are encouraged to contact individual Council Members to express your interest in serving. Drop-down NOTICE THE CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENT TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD: BOARD OF REVIEW One vacancy — Six -Year Term January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2023 (Licensed Real Estate Broker) It Is the duty of members of the Board of Review to equalize assessments by raising or lowering the individual assessments of real property, including new buildings, personal property or monies and credits made by the Assessor; to add to the assessed rolls any taxable property which has been omitted by the Assessor. Members of the Board of Review shall be residents of the Assessor's jurisdiction. Iowa City -appointed members of boards and commissions must be 18 years of age. The City of Iowa City encourages diversity in the appointment of citizens to boards and commissions Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 19, 2017. An application can be completed and submitted on the City of Iowa City website at www.icgov.org. or by contacting the Clerk's office Questions about the Iowa City Board of Review should be directed to Brad Comer at 356-6066. Board/Commission Application Cover Board/Commission: Board of Review- Licensed Real Estate Broker One vacancy to fill a six year term 1/1/2018-12/31/2023 Announcement Date: 11/13/2017 Application Deadline: 12/19/2017 Date of Non -Gender Appointment: 2/11/2018 After date above may appoint without regard to gender Gender Balance Requirement: Current Gender Balance: Gender I Male None Female:2 Male:2 Name and Address Galer, Ernie 1749 West Benton Street Advisory Board/Commission Application Form grzz1° r - y This application is a public document and as such can be reproduced and distributed for ' the public. This application WO be considered for twelve months only and automatically CITY OF IOWA CITY considered for any vacancy during that time. UNES[OIM"M MNRE NOTE: Must be 18 years of age and live within city limits of Iowa City to appy Date of Application 11113/2017 First Name Ernie Last Name* Geier Home Address* 1749 West Benton Street City IOWA CITY State A Zip Code 5224 1. Is your home address (listed above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City?* Yes Contact Phone Number* 3193311614 Email Address* ernle@elgaler.lnfo Boards & Commissions Select a Board or Commission you are Interested In:* Review, Board of Board of Review Category* Licensed Real Estate Broker 2. How long have you been a resident of Iowa City?* 48 yrs. 3. Occupation:* Real Estate Broker 4. Gender:* Male S. Experience and/or activities which you feel qualify you for this position:° Past Member 6. What is your present knowledge of each advisory board you are interested in?* Past Member Please contact the City Attorney at 356-5030 to discuss questions or concerns regarding a potential confI Ict of Interest. The following describe soma but not all potential conflicts. Potential Conflicts of Interest The Housing and Community Development Commission makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the distribution of federal CBDG/HOME funds. The general rule is that no persons who exercise or have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to federally funded activities, or who are In a position to participate in the decision-making process or gain inside Information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from a federally -assisted activity, or have a financial interest in any contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect to a federally -assisted activity, or with respect to the proceeds of the federally -assisted activity, either for themselves or those with whom they have business or immediate familyties, during theirtenure or for one year thereafter. Section 362.5 of the Code of Iowa generally prohibits, with certain important exceptions, a member of a City Board or Commission from having an interest in a City contract. City Council Resolution # 15-300 established a policy that the following persons shall not be eligible for appointment to Boards and Commissions: A Council Member's spouse, domestic partner or partner by cohabitation, children, step -children, children forwhom the Council Member assumes parental responsibility, mother, father, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, step-parent, brother, sister, step -siblings and half -siblings, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandparents and grandchildren, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin, foster parent, foster child, persons who are parents of the same child, and persons with whom the employee is in an intimate relationship Res. #15-300 states that each application for reappointment to a City Board or Commission will be considered without regard to incumbency. If reappointed, an individual would be limited to one reappointment to a full term in order to increase the opportunities for new applicants to serve. Council policy is not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards or Commissions at the same time. You will be asked to resign from one if appointed to another. 7. Do you currently have a conflict of Interest?; No 8. Do you currently serve on another Iowa City board or commission?* w Demographic Information The City Council values all types of diversity on its Boards and Commissions. Your responses on this page provide valuable information to the Council in achieving that goal. In order to ensure that the Board and Commission is representative of the community and the groups(s) which it serves, please provide your information for the following: e. Age 73 10. Counlryof Origin USA 11. Sexual Orientation Fleterosexual 12. Religion Christen 13. Do you have a disability? tib 14. Ethnicity White 'NOTE: The Human rights Commission strives to ensure the Commission is representative of the community. Therefore, appointment shall take into consideration persons of various racial, religious, cultural, social and economic groups In the city. (Ordinance) The Housing and Community Development Commission strives to satisfy its purpose and intent, when possible to have at least one person with expertise in construction, at least one person with expertise in finance, and one person who receives rental assistance. (Resolution) Signature of Applicant* 60 -Wren ewt. Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee, If you fail to answer all the questions, except demographics, Council will not consider your application. You are encouraged to contact individual Council Members to express your interest in serving. Drop-down IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2017 ANNUAL REPORT WA CITY 3SESSOR Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report Contents 2017-2018 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD................................................................. 2 IOWACITY CITY COUNCIL............................................................................................. 2 IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD................................................................... 2 JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.......................................................... 2 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE......................................................... 2 OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF......................................................................... 3 IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF..................................................................... 3 IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW..................................................................................... 3 IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD..................................................................................... 3 LEGALCOUNSEL............................................................................................................ 3 ANNUALREPORT............................................................................................................... 4 MISSIONSTATEMENT....................................................................................................4 GOALS.............................................................................................................................. 4 El 5 5 5 6 6 6 A UviNI i IINUINU LUULH i 1UN............................................................................................. 8 ASSESSMENTDATA.......................................................................................................... 9 2017 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY ................................................ 9 EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2017............................................................. 9 VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED ................................................ 10 COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES TO TOTAL ASSESSED AND TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE ................................................... 12 2016 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS........................................................................ 13 COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR ....................... 14 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS................................................................................ 14 RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.......................................................... 14 COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS......................................................... 16 HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS....................................................... 16 1 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report 2017-2018 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL 2018 Council 2017 Council Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Pauline Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Kingsley Botchway II, Mayor Pro Tem Kingsley Botchway II Susan Mims Rockne Cole Rockne Cole Susan Mims Terry Dickens Mazahir Salih Pauline Taylor John Thomas John Thomas IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD 2017-18 School Board Janet Godwin, President Lori Roetlin, Vice President J.P. Claussen Shawn Eyestone *Ruthina Malone *Phil Hemingway **Paul Roesler *Conference Board Designee **Alternate Conference Board Designee 2016-17 School Board Chris Lynch, President *LaTasha DeLoach, Vice President Brian Kirschling *Phil Hemingway Chris Liebig Lori Roetlin Paul Roesler JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2018 Board 2017 Board Mike Carberry, Chairperson Janelle Rettig, Chairperson Lisa Green -Douglass, Vice Chairperson Mike Carberry, Vice Chairperson Kurt Friese Kurt Friese Rod Sullivan Rod Sullivan Janelle Rettig Lisa Green -Douglass IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE Courtney M. Kay -Decker— Director, Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017Annual Report OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF Brad Comer — Iowa City Assessor Marty Burkle — Chief Deputy Assessor Mary Paustian — Deputy Assessor Mark Fedler — Appraiser/Clerk Diane Campbell — Accounting Clerk Todd Kruse — Real Estate Clerk Vacant — Appraiser IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW Chuck McComas, Chairperson Dave Hintze, Phoebe Martin Ernie Galer Sara Meierotto IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD Karin Franklin for Iowa City Mike Kennedy for Johnson County Chace Ramey for Iowa City Schools LEGAL COUNSEL Eleanor Dilkes — City Attorney Eric Goers — Assistant City Attorney 3 Date of Employment: 14 Jan, 2002 Appointed 2015 thru 2019 (remainder of prior assessor's appointment) Date of Employment: 01 Feb, 2006 Hired as Chief Deputy 9 Mar, 2015 Date of Employment: 05 Jan, 2011 Hired as Deputy 8 June, 2015 Date of Employment: 20 Jun, 1994 Date of Employment: 16 Feb, 1998 Date of Employment: 14 May, 2001 Date of Employment: Appointed 2014 through 2019 Appointed 2013 through 2018 Appointed 2015 through 2020 Appointed 2012 through 2017 Appointed 2016 through 2021 Appointed 2012 through 2017 Appointed 2017 through 2022 Appointed 2013 through 2018 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report ANNUAL REPORT To: Members of the Iowa City Assessor's Conference Board From: Brad Comer — Iowa City Assessor Subject: 2017 Annual Report— Issued December 31, 2017 The following report covers the activities of this office from January 1, 2017 to date of issue. MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the Iowa City Assessor's Office is to find, list and value for tax purposes, all real property in Iowa City and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City. GOALS To establish values according to Iowa law on all commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential and multi -residential property within the City of Iowa City; to achieve equitable assessments across all classes of property based on actual physical aspects of the property and all pertinent sales data available; to improve the efficiency by which these assessments are made; to provide prompt and courteous response to all inquiries for information. OBJECTIVES 1. Receive calls and inquiries and dispense information efficiently and in a timely manner. 2. Complete all daily record changes and related duties as they are received. 3. On a quarterly basis, inspect and review all new construction and demolition, and make final review of said construction and demolition by January 1 every year. 4. Notify all new homeowners of potential eligibility for the homestead and military credits by July 1 every year. 5. Notify all owners of commercial and industrial property of potential eligibility for the business property tax credit (BPTC) by July 1 every year. 6. Remove all homestead exemptions, military credits and business property tax credits from the permanent file for those who are no longer eligible to receive the credit by July 1 every year. 7. Efficiently process all other new and routine annual filings, making sure they are in compliance with all laws and rules, and filed by their statutory dates. 8. Send out assessment notices to all properties requiring assessment notices, by April 1 sc every year. 9. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review from April 2nd to April 30th, inclusive, every year and coordinate the Board of Review meetings during the month of May. 10. Receive and review tentative equalization orders from the State Department of Revenue and Finance in August of reassessment years. 11. Receive final equalization orders by October 1 of reassessment years. 12.Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review Special Session from October 9 thru October 31 inclusive of reassessment year and coordinate the Board of Review Special Session from October 10 to November 15 of reassessment years, if needed. 13. Prepare and distribute the annual report by December 31 every year. 14. Hold preliminary Conference Board and public hearings to adopt the annual budget by March 15 every year. 15. Prepare and submit annual abstract to the Department of Revenue & Finance by July 1 every year. Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report 16. Maintain assessment information on website at httg:Hiowacity.iowaassessors.com and make improvements based on input from the public. The site went online February 15, 2001 and has over 2 million hits since that time. 17. Provide online access to application forms for Homestead Credits, Military Exemptions, Commercial Property Tax Credits, Charitable Exemptions, Business Property Tax Credits, and Board of Review petition forms which are available on our Johnson County website at httr)://www.mohnson-county.com 18. Review sales as they occur and compare selling price to assessments. 19. Review selling price/assessment ratios by neighborhood, age, size, building type and other relevant criteria. 20. Make adjustments to assessed value as indicated by the sales review and land value review at least every 2 years. 21. Physically inspect properties with selling price -to -assessment ratios outside acceptable standards. 22. Utilize GIS for quality control of assessment data and analysis of valuation. 23. Update recording information (book & page) on our website for older sales. 24. Maintain recently completed in-house re -appraisal of all Commercial properties in Iowa City. 25. Annually inspect/re-appraise 10% of residential properties in Iowa City. 26. Continue to cross -train employees for tasks or skills that are outside their specific job descriptions. VALUATIONS Since 2017 was a real estate revaluation year, there were increases in assessments to meet the statutory level as monitored by the Iowa Department of Revenue. Residential new construction added approximately $111 million and revaluation about $176 million. Commercial new construction added approximately $30 million and revaluation added about $63 million. There was $3 million of Multi -residential new construction and $56 million of revaluation. 1047 residential deed sales in 2017 give us a median ratio (assessed value/sale price) of 91.38% compared to 92.44% for 1064 sales in 2016 at the time of sale. The sales ratio of 2016 sales after the revaluation increase was 96.63. This tells us that the selling prices of homes have increased since last year and the number of sales has remained stable. The number of sales above does not include new construction completed during the past year. When including new construction there were 1174 sales. It should be kept in mind that when a jurisdiction is at the State mandated sales ratio level of 100%, a full one-half of home sales will be for less than the assessed value. Sales for less than the assessed value tend to result in appeals to the Board of Review. COURT CASES One commercial property owner filed an appeal in District Court in 2017, but that has already been dismissed. There are no active District Court appeals. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD There were twelve commercial properties appealed to PAAB for 2017. Seven were dismissed, one was settled and four are still active. 5 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report BOARD OF REVIEW The Board of Review was in session from May 1 through May 24, the day of adjournment. 565 protests were filed, with 184 being upheld and 381 denied. The total value of real estate being protested was $200,788,420. The Board allowed a total reduction of $1,601,850. EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT It is difficult to be both equitable among assessments and in tune with the market. Similar properties do not always sell for similar prices, so the market is not always equitable and sometimes a long way from it. Most assessors would lean toward equity if they could choose between the two. Our first priority is equity since it is not always possible to have every assessment match the selling price. Our statistics show that we are doing a good job in this regard. WEB PAGE The Iowa City Assessor's web page went online during the spring of 2001. Internet availability of comparable sales and comparable assessments has been very helpful to taxpayers concerned about the fairness of their assessments. Links are also provided to the Johnson County Treasurer for tax information and to the Johnson County GIS for online maps and aerial photography. We continue to look for ways to get more of our information accessible online and to increase the ability to query our data. In recent years, historical property record cards were added to our website. All of this has, and continues to reduce traffic at our counter, and frees up personnel to focus on our core function of equitable assessment of property. There have been over 2 million hits on our web site since it went online. It can be seen at http://iowacity.iowaassessors.com. We also have an internet presence through the Johnson County website at hftp://www.mohnson-county.com. Electronic forms for the Homestead Credit, Military Exemption, Business Property Tax Credit, Charitable Exemptions, and Board of Review appeals are available to the public on this web page site. ROLLBACKS The residential rollback will go down from 56.9391 %, for the current taxes, to 55.6209% for taxes payable in 2018-2019. The rollback for agricultural property will increase from 47.4996% to 54.4480%. The commercial rollback will stay at 90% for the foreseeable future. Multi -Residential is a newer class of property that started with the 2015 assessment year (taxes payable 2016-2017). This class of property will have a rollback of 78.75% for the 2017 assessment year (taxes payable 2018-2019) and continue to decrease until the 2022 assessment year, when it will equal the residential rollback. NEW LEGISLATION The 2017 Iowa Legislative Session produced a few minor property tax law changes. HF 478-A — Assessor Education, Conduct, and Report House File 478-A requires a candidate for assessor or deputy assessor to include evidence of successful completion of preliminary education requirements, as set forth in rule by the Director of Revenue. The Director of Revenue must prescribe by rule the preliminary education requirements for candidates applying to take the exam. In addition, the Department of Revenue must conduct a study on the current system of continuing Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report education for assessors and deputy assessors. The Department must report the findings of that study to the legislature by December 15, 2017. Also, an assessor may still be removed by a majority vote of the conference board due to a finding of assessor misconduct, nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance in office. "Misconduct' is now defined to include knowingly engaging in assessment methods, practices, or conduct that contravenes any applicable law, administrative rule, or order of any court or other government authority. HF 478-B — Owner -Used Property Assessment House File 478-B clarifies that a supplemental return required by the assessor cannot request sales or receipts data, expense data, balance sheets, bank account information, or other data related to the financial condition of a business that uses the property, if the property is classified as commercial or industrial. A person cannot be required to provide this data to the assessor for property assessment purposes. HF 478-C —Assessment Appeals — Burden of Proof House File 478-C eliminates the requirement of two disinterested witnesses to shift the burden of proof in a protest to the board of review. Beginning on January 1, 2017, a protestor can shift the burden of proof to the board of review by offering competent evidence that the market value of the property is different than the value determined by the assessor. The initial burden of proof in a protest to the board of review remains upon the protestor. A presumption of continuity in property tax classification is created after PAAB or a court determines the property tax classification during an appeal. The classification is presumed to not change for the four subsequent assessment years following the PAAB or court decision, unless PAAB or a court determines a new classification during a subsequent appeal. The burden is on the person asserting a change in classification to overcome the presumption within the four subsequent assessment years following a PAAB or court adjudication. HF 478-D — PAAB Notice Requirements House File 478-D still requires PAAB to send a copy of the appeal to the local board of review, however they are no longer required to use the mail to send this copy. The assessor, rather than the board of review, must notify all affected taxing districts of any appeal to PAAB or a court if the appeal requests and adjustment in valuation of $100,000 or more. HF 478-E — PAAB Sunset Provision Change House File 478-E eliminates the sunset provision for appeals to be brought before PAAB. Actions relating to assessment years beginning on or after January 1, 2021 may be appealed to PAAB. SF 408 — Board of Review Composition Senate File 408 changes the general requirement for architects from being registered to being licensed. This change affects the requirements for board of review composition in that an architect who serves on the board must now be licensed rather than registered. Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report CONTINUING EDUCATION Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and deputies for re -appointment to their positions. Over a six-year term, assessors must complete one hundred -fifty hours of classroom instruction, including at least ninety hours from courses requiring a test. Deputies must complete ninety hours of classroom instruction, including at least sixty tested hours over their six-year terms. It is also beneficial for other employees to attend classes so they can update their skills and stay current with assessment practices. The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences during 2017: [SAC Spring School of Instruction (Iowa State Association of Counties) IICA Summer Seminar and Workshop (Institute of Iowa Certified Assessors) ISAA Annual School of Instruction (Iowa State Association of Assessors) [SAC Annual Conference 6.00 C.E. Hrs. 13.50 C.E. Hrs. (7.5 tested) 9.75 C.E. Hrs. 6.75 C.E. Hrs. The Chief Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2017: ISAC Spring School of Instruction HCA Summer Seminar and Workshop (Institute of Iowa Certified Assessors) ISAA Annual School of Instruction ]SAC Annual Conference 6.00 C.E Hrs. 13.50 C.E. Hrs.(7.5 Tested) 9.75 C.E. Hrs. 6.50 C.E. Hrs. The Second Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2017: Footings to Ridge Caps 15.00 C.E. Hrs. (Tested) ISAA Annual School of Instruction 9.75 C.E. Hrs. ISAC Annual Conference 6.75 C.E. Hrs. Other staff attended classes and seminars related to operation and maintenance of various third party software utilized by the assessor's office. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the Board of Review, the City Attorney and her assistants, and the City Staff along with Johnson County and the Iowa City School Board for their assistance, cooperation and confidence during the past year. I would also like to recognize and thank my staff at this time for their part in establishing and maintaining the professional standards of the office. Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report ASSESSMENT DATA 2017 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY Value of Agricultural Land and Structures Value of Residential Dwellings on Agricultural Realty Value of Residential Lots and Buildings Value of Commercial Lots and Buildings Value of Multi -Residential Lots and Buildings Value of Industrial Lots and Buildings Actual Value of All Real Estate* $2,949,150 $1,019,410 $4,280,031,980 $966,669,459 $482,528,656 $74,023,380 $5,807,222,035 *All of the above values are based on the 2017 abstract as reported to the Iowa Department of Revenue on July 17, 2017. The values for Railroad and Utility Property are supplied to the Auditor by the Iowa Department of Revenue. The taxable value of utilities and railroads in Iowa City for 2017 is $52,091,241. EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2017 Religious Institutions Literary Societies & Educational Institutions Low Rent Housing Associations of War Veterans Charitable and Benevolent Societies Forest and Fruit Tree Partial Industrial, Urban Revitalization, Recycling, Mobile Home Storm Shelter, Public TV & New Jobs, Geothermal, Historical Sub -Total University of Iowa (As Reported by U of I as of June 30, 2017) TOTALEXEMPT $95,676,140 $6,490,960 $5,857,540 $586,060 $161,405,155 $1,359,310 $3,155,554 $274,530,719 $3,850,661,253 $4,125,191,972 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED 10 STATE STATE ADJUSTED YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE 2017 -10% Agricultural 2,949,150 54.5580 1,608,997 Ag Dwelling 1,019,410 55.6209 567,005 Residential 4,280,031,980 55.6209 2,380,592,307 Commercial 966,669,459 **90.0000 870,002,513 Multi -Res 482,528,656 78.7500 379,991,316 Industrial 74,023,380 **90.0000 66,621,042 TOTAL $5,807,222,035 $3,699,383,180 2016 Agricultural 3,484,890 47.4996 1,655,309 Ag Dwelling 1,015,050 56.9391 577,960 Residential 4,012,070,900 56.9391 2,284,437,062 Commercial 879,281,368 **90.0000 791,353,231 Multi -Res 420,708,451 82.5000 347,084,472 Industrial 79,489,600 **90.0000 71,540,640 TOTAL $5,396,050,259 $3,496,648,674 2015* Agricultural 3,814,000 46.1068 1,758,513 Ag Dwelling 1,120,840 55.6259 623,477 Residential 3,893,910,250 55.6259 2,166,022,622 Commercial 859,076,798 **90.0000 773,169,118 Multi -Res 415,794,401 86.2500 358,622,670 Industrial 80,349,550 **90.0000 72,314,595 TOTAL $5,254,065,839 $3,372,510,995 2014 Agricultural 3,784,570 44.7021 1,691,782 Ag Dwelling 1,202,940 55.7335 670,440 Residential 3,616,765,260 55.7335 2,015,749,866 Commercial 1,158,203,990 **90.0000 1,042,383,591 Industrial 78,113,470 **90.0000 70,302,123 M & E 0 TOTAL $4,858,070,230 $3,130,797,802 2013* Agricultural 3,708,350 43.3997 1,609,413 Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 54.4002 647,694 Residential 3,494,886,480 54.4002 1,901,225,235 Commercial 1,160,168,050 **95.0000 1,102,159,648 Industrial 80,897,070 **95.0000 76,852,217 M & E 0 0 TOTAL $4,740,850,560 $3,082,494,207 10 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED - CONT'D STATE STATE ADJUSTED YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE 2012 Agricultural 2,743,540 59.9334 1,644,297 Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 52.8166 628,840 Residential 3,371,349,260 52.8166 1,780,632,053 Commercial 1,122,041,780 1.000000 1,122,041,780 Industrial 78,576,040 1.000000 78,576,040 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,575,901,230 $2,983,523,010 2011* +6.1% Agricultural 2,566,040 57.5411 1,476,528 Ag Dwelling 1,313,570 50.7518 666,660 Residential 3,264,269,180 50.7518 1,656,675,366 Commercial 1,182,516,370 1.000000 1,182,516,370 Industrial 80,153,050 1.000000 80,153,050 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,530,818,210 $2,921,487,974 2010 Agricultural 2,317,426 69.0152 1,599,376 Ag Dwelling 1,256,350 48.5299 609,705 Residential 3,182,677,000 48.5299 1,544,549,965 Commercial 1,170,960,470 1.000000 1,170,960,470 Industrial 81,786,730 1.000000 81,786,730 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,438,997,976 $2,799,506,246 2009* +62.6% Agricultural 2,382,167 .662715 1,578,698 Ag Dwelling 1,256,350 .469094 589,346 Residential 3,124,020,860 .469094 1,465,459,944 Commercial 1,170,461,470 1.000000 1,170,461,470 Industrial 81,979,330 1.000000 81,979,330 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,380,100,177 $2,720,068,788 2008 Agricultural 1,548,650 .938568 1,453,513 Ag Dwelling 1,244,640 .455893 567,423 Residential 3,089,020,200 .455893 1,408,262,686 Commercial 1,153,802,900 1.000000 1,153,802,900 Industrial 74,852,940 1.000000 74,852,940 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,320,469,330 $2,638,939,462 The adjusted values given are not exact but are meant to give a representation of the growth of Iowa City's tax base. * Reassessment Year ** Commercial and Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by State of Iowa. 11 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report Total Assessed Value over time and Year to Year change in Total Assessed Value %oa u Sa 0 59u $396 f ® m $335 $341 S343 5191 A $193 $]m sm _I _ fm S • ss $13) /t ** fL3 Sim / 1 5106 5107 $119 / $117R 539 $4p $55 $Y1 5: $59 .59 Y A SAS $ Y $20. $v Y u Y ............- ASSESSED VALUES -41-ToWI ® Abstract Value ®�-Total Residential %, Commercial ® Changeln Value % (Millions) %, AQ % 2017 Year Residential %, Commercial %, Multi -Res % Industrial %, AQ % 2017 4,281,051,390 73.7 966,669,459 16.6 482,528,656 8.3 74,023,380 1.3 2,949,150 <0.1 2016 4,013,085,950 74.4 879,281,368 16.3 420,708,451 7.8 79,489,600 1.5 3,484,890 <0.1 2015 3,895,031,090 74.1 859,076,798 16.3 415,794,401 7.9 80,349,550 1.5 3,814,000 0.1 2014 3,617,968,200 74.5 1,158,203,990 23.8 NA 78,113,470 1.6 3,784,570 0.1 2013 3,496,077,090 73.7 1,160,168,050 24.5 NA 80,897,070 1.7 3,708,350 0.1 2012 3,372,539,870 73.7 1,122,041,780 24.5 NA 78,576,040 1.7 2,743,540 0.1 2011 3,265,582,750 72.1 1,182,516,370 26.1 NA 80,153,050 1.7 2,566,040 0.1 2010 3,183,933,350 71.7 1,170,960,470 26.4 NA 81,786,730 1.8 2,317,426 0.1 2009 3,125,277,210 71.3 1,170,461,470 26.7 NA 81,979,330 1.9 2,382,167 0.1 2008 3,090,264,840 71.5 1,153,802,900 26.7 NA 74,852,940 1.7 1,548,650 0.1 TAXABLE VALUES 2017 2,381,159,312 64.4 870,002,513 23.5 379,991,316 10.3 66,621,042 1.8 1,608,997 <0.05 2016 2,285,015,022 65.3 791,353,231 22.6 347,084,472 9.9 71,540,640 2.1 1,655,309 <0.1 2015 2,166,646,099 64.2 773,169,118 22.9 358,622,670 10.6 72,314,595 2.2 1,758,513 0.1 2014 2,016,420,307 64.4 1,042,383,591 33.3 70,302,123 2.2 1,691,782 0.1 2013 1,901,872,929 61.7 1,102,159,648 35.7 76,852,217 2.5 1,609,413 0.1 2012 1,781,260,893 59.7 1,122,041,780 37.6 78,576,040 2.6 1,644,297 0.1 2011 1,657,342,026 56.7 1,182,516,370 40.4 80,153,050 2.8 1,476,527 0.1 2010 1,545,159,671 55.2 1,170,960,470 41.8 81,786,730 2.9 1,599,376 0.1 2009 1,466,048,788 53.9 1,170,461,470 43.0 81,979,330 3.0 1,578,698 0.1 2008 1,408,830,109 53.4 1,153,802,900 43.7 74,852,940 2.8 1,453,513 0.1 Commercial -Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by State of Iowa at FY 2017 levels 12 80% 75% 70% d ca 65% m > 60% Ea o 55% H 0 50% Q 45% ro C 40% 35% CL 30% 25% 20% Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report Percentage of Taxable and Assessed Value — Past 13 Years • • •X• • Residential Assessed 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2016 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS (Excluding Utilities & Credit Unions Assessed by the State) +• • Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Assessed —Ar— Residential Taxable -41II— Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Taxable 2016 ... .... .... ....X......... # of ....X ... .. .... Pq .... Rank Contract or Title holder Value Parcels 2015 Taxes 1 American College Testing $47,791,285 18 $1,836,540 2 Ann S Gerdin Trust (Warehousing) $22,836,294 4 $874,800 3 Midwestone Bank $21,066,264 9 $814,288 4 Dealer Properties IC LLC (Billion Auto) $18,888,867 4 $722,408 5 Procter & Gamble Hair Care LLC $16,459,144 3 $632,010 6 BBCS-Hawkeye Housing LLC (Apartments) $15,327,864 522 $591,732 ....1......1..... Vesper Iowa City LLC (Hawks Ridge Apts) .... {.......... 201 $554,304 8 ALPLA INC $13,949,217 2 $535,112 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2016 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS (Excluding Utilities & Credit Unions Assessed by the State) +• • Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Assessed —Ar— Residential Taxable -41II— Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Taxable ' Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2016 assessment year were $2,015,047 If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2nd with $1,538,489 Taxes Billed. " These figures do not include the money state has paid to the county for the BPTC. 13 2016 Taxable # of Actual Rank Contract or Title holder Value Parcels 2015 Taxes 1 American College Testing $47,791,285 18 $1,836,540 2 Ann S Gerdin Trust (Warehousing) $22,836,294 4 $874,800 3 Midwestone Bank $21,066,264 9 $814,288 4 Dealer Properties IC LLC (Billion Auto) $18,888,867 4 $722,408 5 Procter & Gamble Hair Care LLC $16,459,144 3 $632,010 6 BBCS-Hawkeye Housing LLC (Apartments) $15,327,864 522 $591,732 7 Vesper Iowa City LLC (Hawks Ridge Apts) $14,357,871 201 $554,304 8 ALPLA INC $13,949,217 2 $535,112 9 National Computer Systems Inc (Pearson) $12,814,893 2 $491,320 10 Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust $12,714,300 1 $487,438 11 Graduate Iowa City Owner, LLC (Sheraton) $11,579,832 1 $466,626 12 Menard INC $10,934,613 3 $418,732 13 Core Sycamore Town Center LLC $10,679,166 1 $408,872 14 Mclaughlin, Michael T (Retail/Apartments) $10,544,699 76 $407,090 15 United Natural Foods INC $10,543,545 1 $403,636 16 Christian Retirement Services Inc (Oaknoll) $10,057,867 11 $388,290 17 OC Group LC (Old Capitol Town Center) $8,968,986 2 $360,612 18 Mercy Facilities INC $8,691,543 8 $328,738 19 Plaza Towers LLC $8,104,110 66 $323,032 20 Pepperwood Plaza LLC $8,438,067 8 $314,746 21 Oral-B Laboratories $7,908,291 7 $301,246 22 Blackhawk Partners LC (Retail/Apartments) $7,891,364 7 $297,848 23 Melrose Retirement Community LLC $7,611,590 1 $293,846 24 Seville Apartments Cooperative $7,527,493 3 $290,600 25 Moen, Marc B $7,659,188 48 $289,034 ' Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2016 assessment year were $2,015,047 If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2nd with $1,538,489 Taxes Billed. " These figures do not include the money state has paid to the county for the BPTC. 13 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D. below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent. RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of Iowa City in comparison to the other 107 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2016 sales which is the last complete year available. These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D. of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its size and mobile population. Rank Jurisdiction (Sorted by Assessor levy - Low to High) JOHNSON 3 15-16 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 City Assessor Assessor Assessor 8 CEDAR RAPIDS 9 Levy Levy Levy Total Levy Total Levy IOWA CITY .24325 .24339 .25141 38.74878 38.60513 DUBUQUE .26538 .25816 .25234 34.01012 33.91801 AMES .37804 .39544 .31814 31.65760 31.63447 DAVENPORT .34691 .31859 .32839 39.37128 39.93330 CEDAR RAPIDS .32165 .34474 .32883 38.21254 38.24649 SIOUX CITY .52092 .42001 .34549 40.30487 39.84532 CLINTON .40819 .54823 .48520 41.53341 41.91870 MASON CITY .63172 .63158 .61966 35.55039 35.62236 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D. below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent. RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of Iowa City in comparison to the other 107 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2016 sales which is the last complete year available. These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D. of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its size and mobile population. Rank Jurisdiction 1 IOWA CITY 2 JOHNSON 3 LINN 4 AMES CITY 5 DUBUQUE CO. 6 DALLAS 7 BREMER 8 CEDAR RAPIDS 9 SCOTT 10 STORY SORTED BY COD Mean Median Weiahted COD PRD 92.44% 91.56% 90.84% 7.69% 101.8% 93.27% 92.61% 92.99% 7.83% 100.3% 95.90% 94.12% 83.37% 8.89% 115.0% 91.80% 89.94% 90.14% 9.92% 101.9% 92.15% 89.74% 90.48% 11.59% 101.8% 93.59% 91.73% 89.15% 11.62% 105.0% 99.91% 97.93% 97.61% 12.21% 102.4% 100.3% 96.43% 95.99% 12.22% 104.5% 93.27% 90.85% 88.55% 12.40% 105.3% 91.16% 88.97% 91.30% 12.60% 99.85% 14 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report The Regression Index, also known as the Price Related Differential (PRD), is an indicator of the degree to which high value properties are over or under assessed in relationship to low value properties. An index of 100.00 indicates no difference in assessments of high value properties in comparison to low value properties based upon that year's sales. An index over 100 indicates that high value properties are under assessed in relation to low value properties. As you can see in the following table, Iowa City's regression index is still close to the ideal 100.00 level. For brevity, only the top 15 are shown. SORTED BY REGRESSION INDEX (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) Rank Jurisdiction Mean Median Weiahted COD PRD 1 STORY 91.16% 88.97% 91.30% 12.60% 99.85% 2 JOHNSON 93.27% 92.61% 92.99% 7.83% 100.30% 3 IOWAaTy 92.44% 91.56% 90.8496 7.69% 101.76% 4 DUBUQUE CO. 92.15% 89.74% 90.48% 11.59% 101.84% 5 AMES CITY 91.80% 89.94% 90.14% 9.92% 101.85% 6 DECATUR 95.55% 87.88% 93.36% 25.83% 102.34% 7 BREMER 99.91% 97.93% 97.61% 12.21% 102.40% 8 SIOUX CITY 90.06% 86.63% 87.53% 16.83% 102.90% 9 WOODBURY 93.92% 92.45% 91.27% 13.26% 102.90% 10 WARREN 93.11% 89.50% 90.48% 13.50% 102.91% 11 HENRY 91.73% 89.19% 89.08% 12.96% 102.98% 12 WINNISHIEK 89.08% 86.95% 86.47% 16.07% 103.02% 13 BOONE 91.88% 88.28% 89.00% 22.06% 103.23% 14 CERRO GORDO 93.92% 92.70% 90.97% 14.15% 103.24% 15 RINGGOLD 94.51% 91.87% 91.50% 20.47% 103.29% Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City Residential Property over time. Year Median C.O.D # Of Sales Average Sale Price Total Price Estimate #2017 91.38 7.44 1174 246,289 289,143,695 2016 92.44 7.69 1064 224,879 243,769,230 *2015 94.20 7.30 999 219,886 219,666,114 2014 92.62 7.49 974 209,633 204,182,923 *2013 95.18 6.72 937 204,632 191,740,184 2012 96.55 8.02 826 195,585 161,553,210 *2011 97.57 7.32 740 191,701 141,858,740 2010 95.92 9.99 745 182,635 136,062,994 *2009 95.42 8.29 796 191,459 152,401,156 2008 95.92 7.92 833 188,873 157,331,213 *2007 95.00 7.88 856 192,294 164,603,799 2006 88.70 9.67 665 197,878 131,588,850 *2005 90.50 8.61 717 186,437 133,675,410 2004 84.50 9.57 751 176,136 132,277,978 *2003 88.30 7.93 809 159,766 129,250,592 2002 94.32 8.03 777 152,219 118,274,003 *2001 94.60 7.83 682 144,912 98,830,294 2000 89.00 9.16 675 137,725 92,964,467 *1999 93.30 9.38 691 134,200 92,732,093 1998 91.60 8.24 699 129,556 90,559,435 *1997 93.45 8.71 658 123,278 81,117,152 1996 91.20 9.59 636 121,069 76,999,785 * Re -Assessment year # 2017 - Avg sale price includes new construction. Without new construction the avg is 232,656. 15 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2017 Annual Report COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The Coefficient of Dispersion for Commercial properties varies from 5.84 to 134.90 with a median of 27.38 for all Iowa jurisdictions while Residential C.O.D.'s vary from 7.69 to 49.97 with a median of 22.29. Commercial properties are typically more difficult to appraise than residential properties because of the wide variety of building types and fewer comparable sales. For this reason, only jurisdictions with 10 or more sales are included in table below. Median COMMERCIAL SALES SORTED BY C O D (2016 Sales Analysis) 87.52 No Jurisdiction # of Sales Mean Median COD PRD 1 MADISON 10 96.06% 96.75% 10.34% 99.22% 2 DICKINSON 50 91.55% 88.27% 13.49% 99.08% 3 BENTON 15 84.96% 79.49% 15.34% 111.19% 4 STORY 18 93.16% 91.74% 15.84% 103.68% 5 JOHNSON 46 94.86% 95.02% 17.10% 91.01% 6 HAMILTON 11 102.10% 97.91% 17.32% 103.05% 7 AMES 10 97.69% 96.85% 17.94% 103.51% 8 SCOTT 16 97.39% 98.49% 18.56% 127.07% 9 WARREN 14 93.46% 88.82% 18.65% 118.95% 10 MUSCATINE 13 85.02% 96.33% 20.33% 106.83% 11 SAC 10 72.89% 69.66% 20.51% 111.37% 12 APPANOOSE 15 103.81% 96.48% 20.81% 114.49% 13 CLINTON CO. 11 106.36% 102.77% 20.82% 98.88% 14 MARSHALL 11 91.84% 93.84% 20.94% 118.45% 15 SIOUX 23 103.57% 100.86% 20.97% 101.58% 16 OBRIEN 12 103.57% 93.56% 21.56% 106.21% 17 IOWA CITY 19 91.22% 92.54% 11.77% 106.21% 18 BREMER 13 94.48% 97.58% 22.68% 116.46% 19 PALO ALTO 10 93.88% 96.53% 22.99% 115.30% 20 MARION 12 103.64% 98.91% 23.05% 105.59% HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City commercial properties. Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales can greatly influence the performance measurements, therefore creating greater fluctuation in the numbers. See data above to illustrate this and to show Iowa City's standing W. #of #2ff Year Median C.O.D. Sales Year Median C.O.D. Sales Estimated 2017 87.52 17.08 15 1997 87.80 11.57 21 2016 92.54 21.77 19 1996 89.50 15.78 24 2015 90.67 13.13 12 1995 90.10 12.76 22 2014 90.82 15.39 12 1994 87.90 12.44 24 2013 92.98 18.15 20 1993 90.35 14.24 26 2012 93.51 12.84 14 1992 89.90 14.86 21 2011 90.83 27.99 18 1991 87.85 8.38 8 2010 97.77 12.82 29 1990 89.60 19.53 13 2009 89.21 13.60 29 1989 94.40 13.81 13 2008 95.29 21.32 36 1988 95.40 19.77 20 2007 91.80 23.24 35 1987 87.65 17.27 16 2006 87.55 17.05 26 1986 98.20 14.21 15 2005 85.65 15.52 34 1985 82.00 12.63 16 2004 80.90 17.82 17 1984 76.80 18.30 13 2003 89.22 15.08 39 1983 87.85 10.58 26 2002 92.40 16.81 17 1982 78.00 10.25 8 2001 93.50 15.04 23 1981 87.55 10.07 14 2000 96.85 14.99 28 1980 80.85 22.69 12 1999 87.50 14.14 33 1979 78.00 16.66 15 1998 89.10 11.68 25 1978 84.60 13.49 12 W. o1�i-{g— IP3 Ir 4 E CCIMPA CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Conference Board Meeting 5:00 PM — separate agenda posted City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall Following 5:00 City Conference Board Meeting • Review of Pedestrian Mall plans • Operating and Capital Budget Discussion [IP4 & IP5 of 1/11 Info Packet] • Clarification of Agenda Items • Information Packet Discussion [January 4, January 11] • Council updates on assigned boards, commissions and committees CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4 z-- MEMORANDUM Date: January 11, 2018 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Operating and Capital Budget Discussion The City Council has a scheduled a discussion of the proposed FY19 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for the regular January 161 work session. This memo outlines the topics raised by Council at the January 61 and 91 budget work sessions, as well as comments received from individual Council Members by the City Manager's Office. The topics are categorized into three groups, including operating budget, capital budget, and strategic plan, future work session or requested staff information. Operating Budget • Increase affordable housing contribution from $650k to $1 million Note: The FY18 and proposed FY19 contributions of $650k are being provided through the repayment of an internal loan to the General Fund and through General Fund revenues. Funding in FY20 and beyond is less certain given the internal loan will be satisfied. Staff aims to be able to maintain the $650k funding level going forward, but without a dedicated revenue source it will need to be carefully evaluated going forward. The City can use excess reserves from the General Fund to bump the contribution up to $1 million in FY19. In doing so the City would still be at the top end of our reserve policy. However, staff does not believe that a $1 million level of funding can be maintained in future years without dropping the General Fund reserve percentage, reducing expenditures elsewhere in the budget or identifying an alternative revenue source. Staff estimates that a unit of affordable housing generally requires a contribution of roughly $50-$100k. This is dependent on a number of variables including location, level and length of affordability, density of the project, etc. Thus, Council should expect that an extra $350k in funding might support an additional 4-8 units of affordable housing. Because these funds are not payable until after July 1, the Council may wish to revisit this decision after the State legislative session concludes and the City better understands the impact of the session on our future revenue streams. • Increase wages for all city employees to a minimum of $15/hour within two years Note: The City has four pay plans for permanent employee positions (Police, Fire, AFSCME, and Administrative / Confidential). Within each of the these pay plans, jobs are classified by paygrade. The lowest paygrades in all four pay plans have starting wages well above the $15/hour target. The lowest starting wage as of July 2018 will be $17.52 (AFSCME pay plan). In addition to permanent staff, the City is largely dependent on temporary hourly staff. The number of employees holding these positions fluctuates based on seasonal needs. Currently, we have approximately 370 temporary hourly employees making between $10.10 and $15/hour. The vast majority of these positions support our recreation January 11, 2018 Page 2 programs, however other positions support a variety of departments including, but not limited to, the Library, Public Works, Police and the City Manager's Office. For example, several intern positions throughout the City earn between $10.10 and $15.00 per hour. Staff evaluated two different scenarios in order to assess the cost of raising all employee wages above $15.00. Raising the wage only for employees currently making less than a $15.00 hourly wage would equate to roughly $600-$700k annually. If the City raised all temporary employee wages by the same amount in order to maintain the separation in current wage scales, the cost would be roughly $900k-$1 million annually. Essentially, it will cost an estimated $180-$200k per year for each $1.00 that is added to the temporary pay plans, across the board. The potential implications of these scenarios include pay scale compression for temporary positions, compression with the permanent employee pay plans, and market comparisons with other entities/businesses, among others. Additionally, the City's temporary pay plans and their application vary greatly based on the nature of the work being performed. A wide variety in type and nature of temporary positions exists throughout the City and turnover is frequent. Currently, temporary pay plans and wages are reviewed and adjusted as needed in order to recruit a sufficient workforce. If the City experiences problems in attracting a qualified applicant pool, we will generally increase wage rates accordingly. In order to pay for these wage increases, staff would have to evaluate needed increases to our tax levy. Wage scale increases cannot be paid with one-time funds or reserve accounts, thus additional revenue sources would need to be identified or other expenditures would need to be reduced. Raising the wages would also impact our financial ability to add temporary and permanent positions in the future. If we choose to pursue some aspect of wage changes, a more comprehensive analysis should be considered. • Increase funding for the social justice and racial grant program from $25k to $75k Note: The Human Rights Commission is currently reviewing 28 grant applications requesting $232k, which demonstrates interest for the grant funding. The requested dollar amount could be provided in FY 19 without compromising the projected surplus and our reserve policy. However, the City's ability to continue funding at this higher level is uncertain and may require prioritizing the program over other General Fund demands in future years. • Create a Council appointed committee to discuss enhancing apprenticeship and job training opportunities, and provide a modest budget allocation ($5-$15k) for the group to consider a pilot program or public event Note: Council will need to consider the pros and cons of an additional council appointed committee (staff support, open meeting notifications, minutes, etc.) The requested dollar amount could be provided without compromising the projected surplus and our reserve policy. Any future financial demands resulting from the initiative would need to be carefully considered. • Determine interest in keeping consulting funds in the budget for a retail attraction consultant ($50k) Note: Staff provided a background memo in the January 11 Information Packet January 11, 2018 Page 3 Capital Budget • Consider acceleration of Robert A. Lee Recreation Center improvements currently budgeted in FY21 Note: The project is currently budget in the year 2021 and has an estimated cost of $475k. The project is anticipated to be paid from a General Fund transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund (not a bonded project). More extensive design work is needed to get the project ready for construction documents, thus it is not realistic that it could be completed in 2018. If the Council wants to accelerate the project, staff would recommend that the Council (1) have a discussion to determine the scope of the project, (2) authorize staff to proceed with a design contract in 2018 or 2019. Once a design is complete and a cost estimate is firmed up, staff would explore with Council ways in which we would fund the project on an accelerated basis. Strategic Plan, Future Work Session. or Requested Staff Information • Pursue citywide inclusionary zoning • Pursue use of land banking funds with a goal of creating at least 30 units • Add Sunday public transit service • Determine the scope of the public transportation route and hours of operation analysis • Staff to provide examples of recent transit studies from other communities • Consider a policy to limit City business to vendors that pay all employees a wage of $10.10 or higher • Consider use of technology in work sessions to solicit comment and encourage broader participation from the public • Increase opportunities for the Council to engage with city staff and consider a voluntary survey to all employees seeking feedback on city related issues • Include a calendar of events in the Information Packet so the Council can discuss attendance at City or community events • Discuss support for an emerging interest in a local food incubator project downtown • Review the Farmer's Market vendor rules and regulations (Vendor Handbook) • Considering changing the City Manager's Roundtable to a Council appointed committee charged with applying an equity toolkit to key Council decisions • Staff to provide a memo on federal tax law changes, how it impacts Iowa City and what responses, if any, other cities are pursuing • Staff to provide information on city efforts to green our vehicle fleet • Staff to provide information on the concept of a Tree Advisory Board and planned efforts to increase the reach of the Parks and Recreation Foundation • Staff to provide a breakdown of Senior Center memberships by city/county of residence • Staff to provide verification of the eligibility of cooperatives to apply for a loan guarantee through the micro -loan program • Staff to report on the viability of a communications centric mobile app for residents • Staff to evaluate the possibility of creating a racial equity newsletter • Staff to report to Council on anticipated steps needed to achieve a Gold Bicycle Friendly certification • Staff to provide thoughts on forecasting road resurfacing projects for the City Council • Staff to add City Council district boundaries to the CIP map and offer a report on visible projects per district • Staff to finish the participatory budget research and present to Council • Review the equity gaps noted in the Parks Master Plan and discuss options to address • Consider the creation of a Safe Streets Action Plan • Discuss near and long-term planning for autonomous vehicles • Consider a plan for rubberized surfacing at park playgrounds January 11, 2018 Page 4 • Staff to provide a report on the temporary use of right-of-way for construction projects, the impacts those have on businesses and residents, and what the city does to alleviate concerns. - 0 1 -.JT-Tg— IP5 CITY OF IOWA CITY Nlrsco rrvl�WrECITY unTU. MEMORANDUM Date: January 10, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator Re: Proposed Retail Consultant work Introduction The purpose of this memo is to provide background information on the contract services of retail consultants, as proposed in the Economic Development Division's FY19 budget. What retail consultants do Cities who contract with retail consultants can expect to accomplish at least two main goals: market analysis and strategic business recruitment. Market analysis is data driven and business recruitment is relationship driven. The market analysis will demonstrate the strength of demand for different categories of retail in the commercial neighborhoods within the community. If there is unmet demand indicated by spending outside the local market, then opportunities exist for the City and the retailer. If demand is satisfied by existing business, then the City and the retailer will understand the area may not offer the opportunities they seek. The analysis helps community recognize areas of unmet or satisfied demand and tailor recruitment strategies accordingly. This information is valuable because it can help communities fill retail gaps in neighborhood commercial areas that may otherwise be overlooked by retail. In Iowa City, for example, it is more challenging to market available retail space in outlying commercial areas. When the retail recruiting consultant has the market analysis, they can compare it with information from the national retail landscape that indicates what categories of retail are expanding which are contracting and create strategies to attract appropriate businesses. They do this in concert with the leadership in community in order to focus recruiting efforts on highly desired targets. Retail recruiters are industry insiders. Their success is based on three things: 1) relationships they build through national retail associations, national and regional retail marketplaces, knowledge of similar markets, trends in retail, and real estate, 2) an understanding of the community vision, goals and community identity, and 3) data analytics. Scope of work can be tailored specifically The City may define the geographic scope of recruitment efforts, targeting specific commercial areas or contracting for services across the entire City. January 11, 2018 Page 2 Among the tasks in a scope of work available to clients of retail recruitment services are the following: • Develop trade area analysis focused on drive time delineation • Develop profiles of customers in the trade area based on buying habits, media habits and lifestyle characteristics • Assess the retail potential of selected sites in the city • Conduct retail peer market analysis • Identify priority business categories for community • Recommend specific retailers and restaurants that match customer profile • Match the customer profiles with profiles of specific retailers and restaurants that would consider the City for a location or expansion • Prepare custom marketing packages for each of the retailers and restaurants identified and identify the individual in the companies who makes location decisions • Identification of specific prospects to target for recruitment • Make other recommendations as seen pertinent to the assessment • Outreach to local brokers and property owners • Provide a retail leakage/surplus analysis • Provide an online data base and marketing tool to assist recruitment efforts • Provide long -Term Partnership- unlimited access to GIS and staff to help optimize marketing efforts • Provide information required to retaining and attracting high value, high wage jobs by analyzing how the city benchmarks against competing cities • Provide information to understand the value of residents, and surrounding households when considered as a workforce. • Provide information to understand residents access to services, retail, healthcare, municipal assets and other attractive amenities for overall quality of life benchmarks • Provide a business retention solution designed specifically for small business owners and franchisees. Local governments and economic development agencies can also leverage this tool to support local businesses and entrepreneurs. Considering retail recruitment for Iowa City In response to concerns about some of Iowa City's vacant commercial space in the Highway 1/6 corridor, staff has met with two retail recruitment firms to discuss approaches to meet our needs. Interestingly, both firms have worked with the City of Dubuque, who recently renewed a three- year contract with one of the firms. The Economic Development director in Dubuque also shared some insight on having worked with the two firms, citing that one has greater strengths in data collection and analysis while the other is stronger in networking and knowing the community. Both firms with whom we have visited charge essentially the same fee -- $45,000 - $50,000 per year with a three-year contract. Staff would prepare a Request for Proposals and invite these two firms along with others to make proposals. January 11, 2018 Page 3 It is important to note the City's role in the process. While the City may help facilitate contacts, the recruitment firm would be tasked with working with private property owners, developers, and retail companies. The City would define goals and provide direction to the recruitment firm, relying on the firm's expertise to carry out the contract. From Council Member Cole Fort Collins, Colorado, Will Create Broadband Utility, 'Committed' to Net Neutrality By Bill Chappell, NPR 05 January 18 The city of Fort Collins, Colo., will build a system to deliver "high speed next -generation broadband to the entire community," after its City Council enacted a ballot initiative that voters approved in November. The move comes despite resistance from cable and telecom companies. The city will become an Internet service provider and provide broadband as a utility, building out its own infrastructure — a plan that it aonroved up to $150 million in bonds and debt to accomplish. It expects to pay off that amount within 14 years of service. The council approved the plan this week, in its first session of the new year. The vote was a unanimous 7-0; it came two months after nearly 60 percent of voters embraced the broadband plan. Opponents of the new utility service spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ad campaigns to fight it, through a group called Priorities First Fort Collins. Foes of the plan had included Internet providers Comcast and CenturyLink, according to the Institute for Local Self -Reliance, which is in favor of municipal and public networks. Fort Collins' broadband could begin serving its first customers within two years; the city says the full network would likely take three to four years to complete. It is issuing requests for proposals for companies to submit their bids to engineer, equip and market the new utility. On its webpage devoted to the broadband project, Fort Collins says that the city "is committed to the principles of Net Neutrality," adding, "The City Broadband Plan does not call for any restrictions on access including uploads, downloads, delivery methods or providers (email, Skype, Netflix, etc.)." The broadband plan is going ahead despite a Colorado law that prohibits local governments from creating broadband networks; Fort Collins voters overrode that law in 2015. In November, 19 more Colorado cities and counties voted to opt out of the law —joining around 100 others in the state, The Denver Post reported. "The city hopes to offer 1 gigabit -per -second speed for uploads and downloads," the Coloradoan reported in November. Projected pricing for residential customers is $70 per month for 1 gbps and $50 for 50 mbps." Fort Collins had initially taken up the idea of an improved broadband network back in 2010, when it teamed up with Colorado State University to apply for the Google Fiber challenge. After Google did not choose the city for the program, it incorporated the ideas into its strategic plan. IP8 r CITY OF IOWA CITY Date: January 11, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager From: BfVnda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator Re: Iowa City Consumption -based Emissions Inventory report finalized Iowa City received a grant from the Urban Sustainability Directors Network to conduct a consumption -based emissions inventory. The inventory report entitled, "EcoCity Footprint Tool Pilot' has been completed and is posted on the Iowa City Climate Action website. The purpose of this work was twofold; 1) to provide a consumption -based inventory along an ecological footprint for Iowa City, and 2) to test this protocol to evaluate its effectiveness in the United States, since it was developed and used in Vancouver, Canada. A consumption -based emissions inventory provides a comprehensive assessment of the total greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the community's activities. Typical emissions inventories include only emissions from sources within the city limits, but with the globalization of our economy a significant amount of the emissions associated with the production, disposal and transport of a jurisdiction's goods occur in other regions. Although only a few cities in the U.S. have conducted an inventory of this type, cities across the country are interested in a more wholistic picture of the role that consumable goods and food play in carbon emissions to understand what actions can be taken to have a greater impact in emissions reductions. Some key takeaways from the report include: • The type of food we eat has a larger impact on carbon emissions than the distance it travels. Reducing the amount of meat and dairy we consume can lessen carbon emissions. Total elimination isn't necessary to make an impact. • The total amount of goods and materials consumed has a much larger effect on carbon emissions than recycling. Recycling is important, but purchasing durable goods and only what we need can have a greater impact. • The report evaluates Iowa City's "ecological footprint' by calculating land use for what the Iowa City community consumes and compares it to resources available. If everyone had the lifestyle of residents in Iowa City, we would need the resource equivalent of four planets. The list on page 23 lists an example of actions that can be taken to get to a "One Planet Scenario°. The report has been shared with members of the Climate Action and Adaptation Steering Committee members with the hopes that it will provide useful background data to align actions for the upcoming Climate Action and Adaptation Plan that resonate with the community's growing interest in climate, sustainable lifestyle changes and adopting a plant -based diet. If you have any questions, please contact me at brenda-nations(a)iowa-city.ona January 11, 2018 Page 2 CC: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director FUNDED BY THE USDN INNOVATION FUND ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot ...ecological and carbon footprint analysis for achieving one planet living i r� max: A W - r c it I '' ,KT X42! SIT MBIA JDCQ 9lI3#Cytow !1lf" � PREPARED BY: t/"—•w� a,� Cm n nq Xl a c i r� max: A W - r c it I '' ,KT X42! SIT MBIA JDCQ 9lI3#Cytow !1lf" � PREPARED BY: t/"—•w� a,� Cm n nq Xl a SUMMARY With the support of the Urban Sustainability Directors' Network (USDN) Sustainable Consumption Grant, the ecoCity Footprint Tool (eF Tool) was pilot tested with Iowa City. The objectives of the Sustainable Consumption Grant project were to: Assess the eF Tool's suitability for use in a US city Identify potential modifications to increase the Tool's utility in a US context Create a Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological Footprint Assessment for Iowa City This Summary Report presents the results of Iowa's Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological Footprint, as created by the ecoCity Footprint Tool. It also provides an overview of the data collection methodology and identifies opportunities, challenges and limitations specific to Iowa City. Background The ecoCity Footprint Tool enables a community to evaluate its ecological footprint, 'territorial' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and consumption -based GHG emissions. These inventories provide critical data to inform sustainable -consumption and climate mitigation efforts. Since the late '90s, governments have typically created GHG emissions inventories using an in -boundary or territorial approach, which identifies emissions from sources within the particular region. However, this form of inventory does not provide a complete picture of a community's impact on global climate change. It misses the climate impacts associated with the many goods a community consumes, because many of these goods are produced in other regions, often on other continents. Although climate change is arguably the most pressing environmental issue we are currently facing, we are also bumping up against many other planetary boundaries. Due to unsustainable levels of consumption, global society today is demanding more in a year through consumption of energy and resources than nature can provide, and polluting more than nature can assimilate. The ecoCity Footprint Tool has the capacity to arm a community with the information it needs to act on global climate change and ecological overshoot. Results This report presents Iowa City's ecological footprint and consumption based emission inventory results for 2015. Ecological Footprint Assessment The ecological footprint is measured in global hectares (gha) per capita, where a global hectare is a biologically productive hectare with globally averaged productivity for a given year. It is an estimate of how much biologically productive land and water area an individual or population needs to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the wastes it generates. Based on current global population and biological productivity levels, an average of 1.7 global hectares is available for each person on the planet. Results show that Iowa City's per capita footprint is 6.7 gha/person.' This means Iowa City residents are consuming four times more of the earth's resources than what is currently available. Put another way, this means that approximately 4 earths would be required to support the global population if everyone had lifestyles comparable to an Iowa City resident. 'This per capita footprint includes an estimate of national and provincial services. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report # Planets Required by Iowa City 4.0 Territorial GHG Emission Inventory and Consumption Based Emission Inventory The Consumption Based Emissions Inventory (CBEI) presents the total GHG emissions resulting from consumption of goods and services within a region, regardless of where those goods and services are produced. This form of inventory is generated using the data typically collected for a territorial inventory, including the energy used by buildings and transportation and the emissions associated with solid waste management; in addition to an evaluation of the emissions that result from the production and transport of all goods consumed within the region, as informed by life cycle assessment data. Total consumption -based emissions for Iowa City were 1,182 ktCO2e in 2015, approximately 200 ktCO2e more than the territorial emissions (see Figure 1). CBEI emissions for communities with low levels of industry within their borders are typically half that of their territorial emissions, since much of the goods consumed in a community are imported. This is not the case for Iowa City, however since the city is home to a few large manufacturing companies. Territorial GHG Emissions, 2015 2% ■ Stationary Energy 11.2 tCO2e/ca ■Transportation 1.7 tCO2e/ca ■ Waste 0.3 tCO2e/ca TotaltCO2e/ca: 13.2 TotaltCO2e: 970,000 Consumption Based GHG Emissions, 2015 0% lla Food 1.5 tCO2e/ca ■ Buildings 8.4 tCO2e/ca ■ Consumables & Waste 3.7 tCO2e/ca TotaltCO2e/ca: 16.1 TotaltCO2e: 1,182,000 Figure 1: Comparison of Iowa City's 2015 Consumption Based and Territorial GHG Emissions Highlights For the CBEI, the largest impact category is buildings (52%) followed by consumables and waste (23%); similarly, for the EF, the largest impact category is buildings (37%), followed by consumables and waste (28%). Food is the impact area in which these results vary most significantly. Food is only 10% of the total for the CBEI, but 25% of the EF; the primary driver for this difference is the land intensity of food production. FOOD Only a small proportion of the impact of food is associated with its transportation, whereas 98% is associated with the amount of land and energy used for agricultural production. Nearly three quarters of food impacts result from production of animal proteins, in particular red meat and dairy products. Three-quarters of both the ecological footprint (EF) and the CBEI associated with food result from production of animal proteins, including dairy. The main difference between the EF and the CBEI results is that dairy yields a greater GHG impact due to the energy intensity of its production, and meat yields a greater EF impact due to its intensity in land use demands. Results demonstrate that the largest priority for reducing Iowa City's food footprint is to target meat and dairy consumption, both in terms of reducing overall consumption levels and in terms of reducing the land and energy demands associated with their production. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report BUILDINGS Operating energy of buildings dominates impacts for both the EF and the CBEI. The near-term priority should be to improve the efficiency of buildings and accelerate action to transition to 100% renewable energy, with a longer-term objective of ensuring footprint impacts are considered in decisions about building materials. Ciii7PF1U�►I_G91�7 The footprint of consumables and waste is dominated by upstream impacts, namely the energy and materials that go into producing the goods that are consumed in the city. Textiles and paper are a significant component of the consumables and waste footprint. The largest impact categories for consumables with respect to the EF are paper (40%), and wood waste, textiles, rubber (33%); whereas for the CBEI the largest impact categories for consumables are wood waste, textiles, rubber (37%), and plastics (36%). These results are explained by the larger land footprint associated with production of paper, and the higher fuel intensity associated with plastic. Results indicate the necessity to prioritize reduction in overall consumption, instead of focusing on end of stream waste management. Emphasis should be placed on priority material types, in particular plastic, paper and textiles. 11:7_1151907:4K11101#1 Sixty two percent of Iowa City's transportation footprint is a result of fuel consumption for private vehicles, and adding the embodied energy of vehicles, private vehicle transportation represents more than 80% of the transportation footprint. Similar to the EF, 90% of the consumption -based emissions for transportation are associated with private vehicle travel. A near term priority is to continue to support a mode -shift away from private vehicle travel, continue to electrify the vehicle fleet (particularly transit); and to reduce the number of vehicles on the road by promoting active transportation, transit and car -sharing. These initiatives can also reduce the embodied energy for transportation by reducing the overall number of vehicles on the road. The long-term priority should be to promote compact communities that are designed for active transportation and transit. The Sustainability Gap To achieve 'One Planet Living' Iowa City's ecological footprint would need to reduce from 6.7 gha per capita to at least 1.7 gha per capita. This represents a sustainability gap of 70%. From a climate perspective, in order to achieve the target of maintaining global temperatures below a 2 degree Celsius in warming, GHGs must be reduced to 2 tCO2e per capita. Given Iowa City's current consumption based GHG per capita emissions of 16.1 tCO2e, GHG emissions would need to be reduced by 88%; and based on the territorial GHG emissions of 13.2 tCO2e per capita, they would need to be reduced by 85%. This report presents a proposed One Planet Scenario, as an example of how Iowa City could reduce its total ecological footprint to 1.7 gha per capita. It also presents a set of example policy and planning interventions to help close this sustainability gap. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Acknowledgements This report has been prepared by Cora Hallsworth (Principal, Cora Hallsworth Consulting -CHC) and Dr. Jennie Moore (Associate Dean, School of Construction and the Built Environment, BCIT); with contributions and research provided by Daniel Southwick, University of Iowa, Ryan Mackie (CHC), and editing provided by Paramdeep Nahal, BCIT. The authors would like to thank and acknowledge our project advisors and the many individuals who contributed time to this project. A special thank you to the City of Iowa City staff lead for this project: Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator, and to our project advisors: Babe O'Sullivan (USDN) and Allison Ashcroft (Network Coordinator, CUSP), and the many staff members at Iowa City whom contributed data and participated in workshops. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY....................................................................... i Background...................................................................... i Results............................................................................. i Ecological Footprint Assessment i GHG Emission Inventories ii Highlights ii The Sustainability Gap iii Acknowledgements........................................................ iv Listof Figures.................................................................. 3 Acronyms........................................................................ 4 Definition of Terms......................................................... 4 CONTEXT......................................................................... 5 ECOCITY FOOTPRINT TOOL OVERVIEW .......................... 6 PILOT PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................. 8 PILOTING IN IOWA CITY..................................................8 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.... 11 RESULTS........................................................................ 14 Ecological Footprint Assessment .................................. 14 Food Footprint 15 Buildings Footprint 16 Consumables and Waste Footprint 17 Transportation Footprint 18 Territorial GHG Emission Inventory .............................. 18 Consumption Based Emission Inventory ...................... 19 CBEI of Food 20 CBEI of Buildings 20 CBEI of Consumables 21 CBEI of Transportation 22 ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report THE SUSTAINABILITY GAP ............................................. 22 ONE PLANET SCENARIO................................................23 POLICY RESPONSES AND INTERVENTIONS ...................25 NEXT STEPS................................................................... 28 APPENDIX A: LCA DATA FOR CONSUMABLES AND WASTE 29 APPENDIX B: DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ....... 30 ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Summary of Ecological Footprint by Activity, 2015 (excluding national and provincial services) ....Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2: Comparison of Iowa City's 2015 Consumption Based and Territorial GHG Emissions .............................ii Figure 3: Sustainability Gap, 2015 (including national and state services)...............Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4: Iowa City's Current Ecological Footprint Compared to a One Planet ScenarioError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 1 Complimentary GHG Emission Inventory Approaches...............................................................................6 Figure 2 Two methods for calculating the Ecological Footprint...............................................................................7 Figure 3 ecoCity Footprint Tool Outputs..................................................................................................................7 Figure4: Data Inputs............................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 8: Summary of Ecological Footprint by Activity, 2015 (excluding national and state services) ................. 15 Figure 9: Food Footprint Summary, 2015.............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 10: Food Footprint by Food Type, 2015..................................................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Buildings Footprint Detailed, 2015....................................................................................................... 16 Figure 12: Consumables and Waste Footprint, 2015............................................................................................ 17 Figure 13: Consumables Footprint by Type, 2015................................................................................................. 18 Figure 14: Transportation Footprint in Detail, 2015............................................................................................. 18 Figure 15: Territorial GHG Emissions Inventory (GPC Basic Inventory)................................................................ 19 Figure 16: Summary of GHG Emissions from Consumption, 2015........................................................................ 20 Figure 17: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Food, 2015........................................................................... 20 Figure 18: GHG Emissions Inventory of Buildings, 2015........................................................................................ 21 Figure 19: GHG Emissions Inventory of Consumables, 2015................................................................................. 21 Figure 20: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Transportation, 2015........................................................... 22 Figure 21: Sustainability Gap, 2015 (including national and state services)......................................................... 22 Figure 20: Iowa City's Current Ecological Footprint Compared to a One Planet Scenario .................................... 24 ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Acronyms AFOLU Agricultural, Forest, and other Commercial Land Uses BCIT British Columbia Institute of Technology CBEI Consumption Based Emission Inventory CLP Climate Leadership Plan CMA Census Metropolitan Area CRD Capital Regional District EF Ecological Footprint eF Tool ecoCity Footprint Tool gha Global Hectares gha/ca Global Hectares per Capita (person) GHG Greenhouse Gas GPC Global Protocol for Community -Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories CI Industrial Commercial and Institutional (sectors) IPPU Industrial Products and Pollutants tCO2e Metric Tonnes Carbon Dioxide USDN Urban Sustainability Directors Network VKT Vehicle Kilometers Traveled Definition of Terms BASIC and BASIC+ Reporting levels in the Global Protocol for Community -Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC). Built Area For the eF Tool, Built Area is the total municipal boundary excluding natural areas, where a natural area is a non -serviced area. For example, a treed park would be excluded, but agricultural land is included. In the eF Tool, the Built Area for the transportation sector is reported separately. COze Carbon dioxide equivalent (COze) expresses the impact of each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of CO2 (carbon dioxide) that would create the same amount of warming. This enables reporting total greenhouse gas emissions in one measurement. Embodied Energy The energy used in creating and delivering a particular material (e.g., consumable good or infrastructure), including the energy used for extraction of raw materials, manufacturing and transportation of the end product. Embodied Materials Materials that are utilized in the manufacture of a consumable product or infrastructure, but that do not end up in the finished product. Examples are manufacturing wastage and temporary features used during manufacture. Urban Metabolism A study of the flow of energy and materials through the urban system. Operating Energy The energy used in the function of a product, building, vehicle, etc. Scope 1-3 GHG emissions that are generated in -boundary (Scope 1), from grid supplied energy (Scope 2), and generated out -of -boundary (Scope 3). ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report CONTEXT Scientists are suggesting that we have entered the era of the Anthropocene; an era in which humanity is the greatest force shaping earth's terrestrial systems. Currently, 50% of net primary production is in service of the human population and 80% of ecosystems are influenced by humans.' As a result, we are bumping up against important planetary boundaries, " and are in a state of "ecological overshoot.""' Ecological overshoot is measured using ecological footprint analysis, which assesses humanity's total demand on nature's services over a one-year period compared to the capability of biologically productive land and sea areas to meet that demand. Global society today is demanding more in a year through consumption of energy and resources than nature can provide, and polluting more than nature can assimilate. Simply stated, it would take 1.5 Earths to sustainably provide the ecological services we currently use. Climate change is one of these critical areas of overshoot. Recently, Nation States from around the world, including Canada, ratified the Paris Agreement, committing to holding global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius. The signatories are aiming to go beyond this commitment by staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, which scientists now suggest is the boundary threshold for avoiding the most negative and severe climate change impacts of a changing climate. Cities account for only 3% of global land use, but they are responsible for the majority of global resource consumption.' It is not the cities that are the problem, but the energy and resource intensity of our urban lifestyles that require vast land areas outside of the city to support it. The discrepancy between the small amount of land occupied by cities and the vast amount of land required to resource urban lifestyles is at the heart of the urban sustainability challenge. The Ecological Footprint (EF) and the Consumption Based Emission Inventory (CBEI) can help communities and governments tackle one of the root causes of global ecological overshoot and climate change: individual and collective consumption choices and habits. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report What is an Ecological Footprint? The ecological footprint helps us understand how consumption affects ecological thresholds in terms of our demand on nature's services and the available ecologically productive land and sea area. It is an estimate of how much biologically productive land and water area an individual or population needs to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates. It is measured in global hectares (gha) per capita, where a global hectare is a biologically productive hectare with globally averaged productivity for a given year. What is a Consumption -Based Emissions Inventory? The consumption approach includes the emissions released to produce goods and services consumed within a region, regardless of where they were originally produced. That is, it estimates global emissions resulting from local consumption habits. Typical emissions inventories include only emissions from sources within a given region's borders; however, with the globalization and integration of our economy, a significant amount of the emissions associated with the production, disposal, and transport of a region's goods occur in other regions. CBEI results can demonstrate the scale to which we are off-loading our consumption -related emissions on to other jurisdictions. This will help encourage strategies that maximize global, and not just local, emission reductions. This form of inventory is of growing interest to governments that are keen to broaden and deepen their sustainability and climate - action efforts. ECOCITY FOOTPRINT TOOL OVERVIEW Dr. Jennie Moore, Associate Dean at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), created the ecoCity Footprint Tool (eF Tool) as part of her PhD under the supervision of Dr. William Rees, founder of the ecological footprint concept. The goal in creating the eF Tool was to support policy -related decision- making aimed at reversing global Plan". ecological overshoot, namely by creating a community -scale ecological footprint using locally sourced data. A prototype of this eF Tool was used by the City of Vancouver. The outputs from the Tool are highly valued by the City and are informing the strategies, actions, and monitoring methods for their "Greenest City 2020 Action The Tool was originally conceived for ecological footprint utility, but it also generates an urban metabolism, a traditional 'territorial' greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventory, and a consumption -based emissions inventory. These inventories provide critical data to inform sustainable -consumption and climate mitigation efforts. r i Consumption - Evaluation of based emissions associated with ollconsumption, regardless of whereproduced In -boundary emrssionsfrom community -wide sources due to energy use in buildings, Traditional transportation, water 'territorial` supply/treatment; and solid waste disposal A growing numberef local andreglonal governments are pursuing consumption basedinventodes to complement traditional inventories Figure 2 Complementary GHG Emission Inventory Approaches How Does the eF Tool Work? Many existing ecological footprint and consumption -based greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory tools use the 'compound method' (a top-down approach that uses national and/or econometric data). But, the eF Tool uses the 'component method', which emphasizes the use of community-based data, and aligns with traditional spheres of planning at the local government level (see Figure 3, below). Real consumption data, collected through an urban metabolism study, ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report What is an Urban Metabolism? The urban metabolism traces the flow of energy and materials through the urban system, and yields the data to inform the footprint and consumption inventory. The urban metabolism can be depicted visually using a SANKEY diagram (see below). What is a Territorial GHG Emissions Inventory? Since the late 90's governments have typically created greenhouse gas emissions inventories using an in -boundary or territorial approach, which identifies emissions from sources within the particular region, plus electricity. provides the utility needed to directly link policy intervention to emission outputs at the local government scale. This provides a clear and transparent understanding of how city functions, across all sectors and service areas, affect the footprint. It also enables scenario analyses to forecast which policy interventions and changes could enable reductions in the city's energy and material flows, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and ecological footprint. COM POUND Method • Top-down National data • Input -Output economictables(i.e. StatsCan • Comparable • Comprehensive • Not locally responsive Global Footprint Network COMPONENTMethod • Bottom-up • Localdata • Municipaland Regional reports • Lackofstandardization=lesscomparable • Data collection can he onerous • Locally responsivelrelevant Figure 3 Two methods for calculating the Ecological Footprint MzCit Footprint Tool ecoCity Footprint Tool Application Exploring consumption -based inventories and ecological footprints is a way for governments to broaden and deepen their sustainability and climate -action efforts. In particular, they provide a more robust understanding of emission sources and ecological impacts, and they can directly inform sustainable -consumption efforts. The eF Tool also has the potential to help streamline data collection and reporting due to its capacity to create multiple outputs: the consumption -based inventory, the territorial inventory, as well as the ecological footprint. Informed by Life Cycle Assessment data %% Figure 4 ecoCity Footprint Tool Outputs ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report WMq riai G •hsion rentory PILOT PROJECT OVERVIEW With the support of the Urban Sustainability Directors' Network (USDN) Sustainable Consumption Grant, the eF Tool was pilot tested with Iowa City. The objectives of the Sustainable Consumption Grant project were to: Assess the eF Tool's suitability for use in a US city Identify potential modifications to increase the Tool's utility in a US context Create a Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological Footprint Assessment for Iowa City This project ran in parallel with a USDN Innovation Fund pilot project aimed at refining the Tool to align with new international GHG reporting protocols; scoping out an on-line version of the Tool; creation of user guidance and testing with four additional USDN members (City of Victoria, City of Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, and District of Saanich). Both projects were led by BCIT with the support of a project manager and a team of advisors. This Summary Report presents the results of Iowa City's Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological Footprint, as created by the ecoCity Footprint Tool. It also provides an overview of the data collection methodology and identifies opportunities, challenges and limitations specific to Iowa City. Two companion reports provide supplementary information: The Sustainable Consumption Grant Final Report summarizes the lessons learned in testing the ecoCity Footprint Tool in a US context, particularly an assessment of the Tool's suitability for use in a US city. A summary of recommended refinements to the Tool is also presented. The Innovation Fund Pilot Project Final Report (to be submitted in January 2018) will present a complete set of lessons learned through piloting with all five communities. PILOTING IN IOWA CITY Iowa City participated in this pilot project because of its potential to inform and contribute to climate and sustainability planning efforts. The City is currently creating an updated Community -wide Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and it is hoped that information gleaned from using the ecoCity Footprint Tool can help inform this planning process. Ecological Footprint and Consumption Based Emissions Inventory results can also inform a broader set of planning initiatives at the City; including, for example: neighborhood planning, local food strategy planning, sustainable transportation planning, and solid waste management planning. The resulting data and knowledge could also provide framing for communications to residents and business about sustainability and climate action issues. Iowa City has made substantive climate action commitments over the last decade, starting in 2007 with the signing of the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. In 2008, the City joined the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and began annually reporting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Most recently, in 2016, the city joined the Compact of Mayors, now the Covenant of Mayors, and completed their first GHG inventory compliant with the Global Protocol for Community -Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) for the 2015 reporting year. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Municipal Context Iowa City is located in the state of Iowa, in northern central USA, and had a population of over 73,000 in 2015. The city has a total area of 25 square miles (65 km),' 97% of which is farmland.' A significant proportion of Iowa City's population attend the University of Iowa (UI), located in Iowa City. The smaller Kirkwood Community College is also located in Iowa City. Current enrolment at UI is 30,000' and many of these students are considered to be Iowa City residents as they reside in Iowa City for more than six months of the year. There are several small towns that flank Iowa City such as Coralville and North Liberty. The University of Iowa employs over 27,000 people in the region either directly or in its hospital and clinics. Much of the remaining population is employed by other medical services, local government and academic services independent from UI. Several large engineering and manufacturing plants also operate in the city including Proctor & Gamble, Oral- B, International Automotive Components, Lear, Alpla, and Moore North America' Both heating and cooling loads for buildings are significant in this climate given that winters are relatively cold (averaging lows of 15°F) and summers are hot and humid (averaging highs of 867).6 The majority of electricity is supplied by MidAmerican Energy Company and by a power plant on the UI campus. MidAmerican is the largest wind energy producer in the USA and as of 2011, 30% of its power generation comes from renewables. The UI power plant uses both coal and biomass and plans to have 40% of campus energy come from renewable energy sources by 2020. By 2025, their goal is to be 100% coal -free.' Both the City and UI have committed to reducing energy use through the construction of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings, converting to Light -emitting Diode (LED) lighting and other conservation retrofits. As of 2011, both the city and UI list close to 10 completed LEED projects. UI also runs an Energy Control Center in which energy engineers can monitor and analyze the energy use of all buildings on campus. With this initiative, conservation efforts can be tracked in real time to analyze effectiveness.' Municipal solid waste production per capita for Iowa City is 767 kg (2011). This is slightly higher than the US average of 744 kg and well above most other regions in the world. For example, the European Union (EU) average is 476 kg (2015)9 and the world average is 234 kg (2013).10 UI has a goal to reach a 60% waste diversion rate by 2020.11There are a number of recycling programs in Iowa City including curbside pickup which is used regularly by 65% of residents and a composting program for yard waste and food scraps; however, diversion rates are still relatively low. It is estimated that 75% (2011) of the waste entering the landfill is recyclable. Methane gas from ' US Census Bureau, 2010 Census. (n.d.). QuickFacts. Retrieved from htt ps://www.census.gov/au ickfa cts/fact/table/a mescitviowa, US/1 P E120216 ' City of Iowa City. (2013). Iowa City Sustainability Assessment 2013. Retrieved from https://www.icgov.org/services/sustainability ° City of Iowa City. (2013). s City of Iowa City. (2013). 6 National Climatic Data Center. (n.d.). Climate of Iowa. Retrieved from http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dvn/downloads/Clim IA 01.13df ' City of Iowa City. (2013). e City of Iowa City. (2013). Iowa City Sustainability Assessment 2013. Retrieved from https://www.icgov.org/services/sustainability s Eurostat. (n.d.). Municipal Waste Statistics extracted July 2017. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Municipal waste statistics to World Economic Forum. (Aug 2015). Which countries produce the most waste?. Retrieved from htt iis://www.weforum.org/agenda /2015/08/which-countries-p rod uce-the-most-waste/ 11 City of Iowa City. (2013). ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report the landfill and the wastewater treatment plant is captured and a portion of the wastewater methane is utilized, effectively reducing emissions. Iowa City has a walk score of 43; this ranking means that most errands require a car." With 77 km (48 miles) of paved bike trails, the city is a Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community. The transit service ridership is close to 2 million (2011) connecting the UI campus and neighboring communities. UI runs a free bus service on campus that services over 4 million riders annually (2011) and a van service used by about 700 students to commute to the campus. Efforts by the city to shift to more active transportation between 2007 to 2011 contributed to a 10% reduction in automobile use, a 67% increase in public transportation use, a 52% increase in bicycling, and a 9% increase in walking. In 2011, UI and the city increased the biodiesel content used in their bus fleets to 20% and 10% respectively. The UI vehicle fleet is 52% E-85, hybrid, and electric vehicles. The annual vehicle kilometers traveled per capita in Iowa City is 7,564 (4,700 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita), less than half of the state and country average.13 U I received a STARS Gold Rating in 2013 for its sustainability efforts and in 2015, Iowa City received a 4 -star rating from the STAR Community Rating System. Over the last decade, Iowa City has seen a steady decline of per capita GHG emissions from 21 tCOze (2008) to 18 tCOze (2013) and inventory results for the 2015 reporting year also suggest a downward trend in total emissions.14 12Walkscore. Living in Iowa City. Retrieved from: https://www.walkscore.com/IA/lowa_City " City of Iowa City. (2013). 14 City of Iowa City. (2013). Iowa City Sustainability Assessment 2013. Retrieved from httiis://www.icgov.org/services/sustainability ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The ecoCity Footprint Tool is aligned with the typical spheres (or categories) of municipal planning. As such, data is collected on the total inputs, in terms of materials, embodied energy, operational energy and built area for each of these categories (see Figure 5). Each of these inputs are evaluated sectorally — that is by residential, institution, commercial and industrial sectors. The eF Tool employs a bottom-up approach, prioritizing the use of community- and regional -scale data sources. However, in cases where local data is not available, assumptions or proxies are utilized. Study year A study year of 2015 was chosen to align with the most recently completed GHG inventory. Categories: Food/Buildings/ Consumables & Waste / Transportation / Water Materials Embodied 6 Operating I Built Area l Energy Energy t Residential I I I (I)CI I I I Residential I I I (I)CI I I I Residential I I I (I)CI I I I Residential I I I (I)CI Figure 5: Data Inputs15 Key Assumptions and Limitations An overview of the data inputs required to generate the ecological footprint, CBEI and territorial GHG inventory, and key assumptions and limitations are presented in the table, below. A detailed overview of the methodology, data sources, and challenges and opportunities are presented in Appendix A. " (I)CI refers to light industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report Table 1: Key Assumptions and Limitations ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report TERRITORIAL CATEGORY INPUTS EF CBEI GHG KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS INVENTORY Food Embodied energy and Food consumption and 'food miles' statistics were not Food available is measured as a proxy for food materials associated with available at the local level; therefore national averages consumption and import distances are used to food production (energy and were used as a proxy. An option to make this data more estimate food -kilometers traveled. Energy materials used to produce locally relevant would be to conduct a food survey in the associated with the production and and transport food) future. transportation of imported food is then estimated. Land used to produce food ✓ x x Buildings and Stationary Energy Operating energy used by The study team was unable to obtain tonnage of The embodied materials, embodied energy, buildings and related ✓ ✓ ✓ materials used in buildings. Archetype information operating energy, and the built area associated infrastructure already contained within Dr. Moore's ecoCity Footprint Embodied energy and with residential, industrial and commercial Tool was used as a proxy in the absence of local data. buildings are evaluated to establish a material- embodied materials of ✓ ✓ x flow analysis, assess the direct and embodied buildings guilt area associated with buildings carbon, and evaluate the ecological footprint of these buildings. ✓ x x Consumables and Waste Operating energy used in The landfill serves a regional community, therefore waste Data is collected on the: waste management facilities ✓ ✓ ✓ generation rates were pro -rated based on population quantity of solid and liquid waste generated and hauling waste served by the landfill. This method does not reflect the Di rect e missio ns fro m waste ✓ ✓ ✓ by sector (residential, industrial, commercial unique profile of Iowa City residents. and institutional) and by material type; facilities Embodied energy and method in which materials are managed (i.e., landfilled, incinerated, recycled, materials associated with ✓ ✓ x consumables (as inferred by composted); waste stream) energy consumption and emissions guilt area associated with associated with waste management waste management facilities, and transportation of waste, ✓ x x material composition and built area associated with waste management facilities. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report TERRITORIAL CATEGORY INPUTS EF CBEI GHG KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS INVENTORY Transportation Operating energy associated State average annual miles driven per capita were used Evaluates the embodied materials and with to transportation (fuel since city-wide estimates did not account fortravel out of embodied energy of physical transportation use for private and ✓ ✓ ✓ city limits. State averages likely result in an over - infrastructure and vehicles, operating energy (fuel consumed by vehicles), and physical built area occupied by transportation infrastructure. Data is collected for private and commercial commercial vehicles; aviation; marine vessels and off-road vehicles) estimate of VMTs due to the high percentage of biking and walking commutes that take place in Iowa City compared to the rest of the State. National average air travel estimates were used in the absence of local data. Embodied energy and embodied materials vehicles, transit, aviation travel, marine travel associated with personal ✓ ✓ x and off road vehicle use. vehicles and transportation infrastructure Built area associated with waste management ✓ x x Water Operating energy used In ✓ ✓ ✓ n/a Evaluates the embodied materials, embodied treating and conveying water Embodied energy and energy, operating energy, and built area impacts of the water distribution and purification system relied on by the municipality. embodied materials associated with water infrastructure ✓ ✓ x Built area associated with water management ✓ x x ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report RESULTS The following presents the results of the assessment of Iowa City's: (1) Ecological Footprint (EF), (2) Consumption Based Emission Inventory (CBEI), and (3) 'Territorial/GPC GHG emission inventory; as evaluated by the ecoCity Footprint Tool. It is important to contextualize results with the knowledge that Iowa City's per capita footprint and GHG emissions are increased since the city is home to the University of Iowa, and since the city is home to companies that provide employment for residents in surrounding communities. Students and employees that travel into Iowa City from surrounding communities generate waste and use energy while they are in the City. As a result, the waste generation and energy -use associated with the institutional and commercial sectors in Iowa City is inflated. Ecological Footprint Assessment The ecological footprint is measured in global hectares (gha). A global hectare represents the average of all biological productive land and aquatic area on earth for a given year. An ecological footprint is an estimate of how much biologically productive land and water area an individual or population needs to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the wastes it generates. Based on current global population and biological productivity levels, an average of 1.7 global hectares is available for each person on the planet. Iowa City's total ecological footprint is 418,000 gha (about 1 million acres).16 This is an area 64 times bigger than the City's municipal boundary. Iowa City's current per capita footprint is 5.7 gha excluding the resource demands associated with national and state services such as the military. If we were to add these national and state services, Iowa City's per capita ecological footprint increases by at least 18%, to 6.7 gha per person. This means Iowa City residents are consuming 4 times more of the earth's resources than what is currently available. Put another way, this means that approximately 4 earths would be required to support the global population if everyone had lifestyles comparable to an Iowa City resident. If we look at the various components of Iowa City's footprint, as shown in Figure 6, buildings represent the largest impact (37%), followed by consumables and waste (28%), food (25%), and transportation (10%). 16 Excluding national and state services. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report # Planets Required by Iowa City 4.0 0% ■ Food 1.43 gha/ca ■ Buildings 2.12 gha/ca ■ Consumables & Waste 1.57 gha/ca ■ Transportation 0.57 gha/ca ■ Water 0.01 gha/ca Total gha/ca: 5.70 Total gha: 418,000 [Acres equivalent: 14.1 acres/capita; Total: 1 million acres] Figure 6: Summary of Ecological Footprint by Activity, 2015 (excluding national and state services) Food Footprint In considering the food footprint we see that only a small proportion of the impact is associated with transport of the food, whereas 98% of the footprint is associated with the amount of land and energy that are utilized in growing food (see Figure 7). 0% 2% Figure 7: Food Footprint Summary, 2015 ■ Materials (Cropland) 63,072 gha ® Materials (Pasture Land) 13,452 gha Materials (Fishing Area) 79 gha ■ Embodied Energy (Production) 26,192 gha ■ Operating Energy (Food Miles) 2,020 gha Total gha: 105,000 [Acres equivalent: 259,000 acres] When we look at which types of food are having the largest impact on the footprint, nearly three quarters of the footprint is a result of animal proteins, in particular red meat and dairy products (see Figure 8: Food Footprint by Food Type, 2015). ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report Figure 8: Food Footprint by Food Type, 2015 ■ Fruits and Vegetables 7,156 gha ■ Fish, Meat, Eggs 53,058 gha ■Grains 4,370 gha ■ Stimulants (coffee, tea, sugar, cocoa) 5,237 gha ■Oils, Nuts, Legumes 5,400 gha Dairy Products 21,642 gha ■ Beverages 7,953 gha Totalgha: 105,000 [Acres equivalent: 259,000 acres] These results demonstrate that the largest priority for reducing Iowa City's food footprint is to target meat and dairy consumption, both in terms of reducing overall consumption levels and in terms of reducing the land and energy demands associated with their production. Buildings Footprint As shown in Figure 9, more than 90 percent of the ecological footprint of Iowa City buildings is a result of operating energy. This is not to say that material choices for buildings are insignificant, but given that the impact of these materials are amortized over the entire lifespan of the building, their overall impact compared to fuel and electricity consumption becomes overshadowed." As the City transitions to lower impact energy sources to operate our buildings, the impact of material choices will make up a greater percentage of the footprint. The near-term priority should be to improve the efficiency of buildings, with a longer-term objective of ensuring footprint impacts are considered in decisions about building materials over their lifecycle. 2% 0% 0%1% 0% 5% 28% 64% Figure 9: Buildings Footprint Detailed, 2015 66 Materials (Residential Woodframe only) 915 gha ■ Embodied Energy Residential 8,256 gha ■ Embodied Energy Commercial/Institutional 112 gha Operating Energy Residential 43,198 gha Operating Energy Commercial/Institutional 99,505 gha ■ Built Area Residential 2,677 gha ■ Built Area Commercial 323 gha Built Area Institutional 454 gha Tota I gha: 155,000 [Acres equivalent: 383,000 acres] 17 There is an unresolved issue with the data for concrete resulting in under reporting of impacts of commercial/institutional embodied energy on EF and CBEL ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report Consumables and Waste Footprint The footprint of consumables and waste is dominated by upstream impacts, namely the energy and materials that go into producing the goods that are consumed in the city.18 As shown in Figure 10, these upstream impacts — the embodied materials and embodied energy associated with the consumables — represent 96% of the footprint. Embodied materials are those that are utilized in the manufacture of a consumable product or infrastructure but do not end up in the finished product; and embodied energy is the energy used in creating and delivering a particular material (e.g., consumable good or infrastructure). Results indicate the necessity to prioritize reduction in overall consumption, instead of focusing on end of stream waste management. Figure 10: Consumables and Waste Footprint, 2015 ■ Materials Disposed 4,255 gha ■ Embodied Materials Disposed 51,571 gha ■ Embodied Energy of Materials Disposed 58,675 gha ■ Embodied Energy of Materials Recycled 512 gha Solid Waste Operations 135 gha ■ Liquid Waste Operations 7 gha Solid Waste Built Area 145 gha ■ Liquid Waste Built Area 0 gha Totalgha: 115,000 [Acres equivalent: 383,000] It is also instructional to evaluate which consumables are yielding the largest impact on the footprint in order to develop targeted policy and communication measures. As shown in Figure 11, Iowa City's footprint is dominated by paper and "wood waste, textiles, & rubber."19 Although textiles typically comprise a small portion of the waste stream by weight, their embodied energy and material are very high. Table 1 in Appendix A provides a detailed breakdown of footprint impacts by type (that is, by type of plastic, paper, etc.). Emphasis should be placed on reducing consumption of priority materials, in particular paper and textiles. "Operating energy for waste management facilities was not available, as discussed in Appendix A: Methodology, but would be negligible compared to the embodied energy and embodied materials impacts. 19 Total global hectares is lower in Figure 11 than it is in Figure 10 because Figure 11 only shows the LCA impacts of food, and does not include the EF and GHG impacts associated with waste management (operating energy and direct emissions from waste management). ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report 0% 1% Figure 11: Consumables Footprint by Type, 2015 ■ Paper 35,379 gha ■ Plastic 15,262 gha ■ Wood Waste, Textiles, & Rubber 29,288 gha T Metals 5,380 gha ... Glass 147 gha ■ Household Hygiene 3,019 gha Other 440 gha Total gha: 89,000 [Acres equivalent: 220,000] Transportation Footprint More than half of Iowa City's transportation footprint is a result of fuel consumption for private vehicles, and if we add in the embodied energy of vehicles, private vehicle transportation represents more than three-quarters of the footprint. A near term priority is to continue to support a mode -shift away from private vehicle travel, and to electrify the vehicle fleet (particularly transit) and reduce the number of vehicles on the road by promoting active transportation, transit, and car -sharing. There are also opportunities to reduce the embodied energy for transportation through car -sharing and transit. The long term priority should be promoting compact communities that are designed for active transportation and transit. no/ Figure 12: Transportation Footprint in Detail, 2015 Territorial GHG Emission Inventory 0 Embodied Energy Roads 1,142 gha ■ Embodied Energy Vehicles 7,145 gha ■ Operating Energy Private Vehicles 25,909 gha ■ Operating Energy Commercial Vehicles 1,688 gha U Operating Energy Public Transportation 257 gha Operating Energy Air Travel 1,701 gha ■ Operating Energy Off Road 3,699 gha ■ Operating Energy Street Lights 266 gha Total gha: 42,000 [Acres equivalent: 104,000] Through enhancements as part of the pilot project, the eF Tool now provides a territorial GHG emission inventory which is compliant with GPC reporting protocols. A comprehensive GPC inventory has already been prepared for the City. For this report we therefore present only summary information on the territorial emission inventory, ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report for the purposes of comparison with the Consumption Based Emission Inventory. As shown in Figure 13, the total territorial emissions for Iowa City are 970 ktCO2e,20 or 13.2 tCO2e per capita. 2% Stationary Energy 11.2 tCO2e/ca ■ Transportation 1.7 tCO2e/ca ■ Waste 0.3 tCO2e/ca TotaltCO2e/ca: 13.2 TotaltCO2e: 970,000 Figure 13: Territorial GHG Emissions Inventory (GPC Basic Inventory) Consumption Based Emission Inventory As previously noted, the Consumption Based Emission Inventory (CBEI) presents the total GHG emissions resulting from consumption of goods and services within a region, regardless of where those goods and services are produced. This form of inventory is generated using the data typically collected for a territorial inventory, including the energy used by buildings and transportation and the emissions associated with solid waste management; in addition to an evaluation of the emissions that result from the production and transport of all goods consumed within the region, as informed by life cycle assessment data. For communities with low levels of industry, total consumption -based emissions are typically double territorial GHG emissions, since much of the emissions associated with consumables are being generated outside of the community's borders. However, for communities like Iowa City, which are home to large manufacturing companies or large universities, this may not be the case. Total consumption -based emissions for Iowa City were 1,182 ktCC2e in 2015 (see Figure 14), approximately 200 ktCC2e more than the territorial emissions (see Figure 13). For the CBEI, the largest impact category is buildings (52%) followed by consumables and waste (23%); this is similar to the EF results where the largest impact category is buildings (37%) followed by consumables and waste (28%). Food impacts are the area in which these results vary most significantly. Food is only 10% of the total for the CBEI, but 25% of the EF; the primary driver for this difference is the land intensity of food production. 20 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) expresses the impact of each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of CO2 (carbon dioxide) that would create the same amount of warming. This enables reporting total greenhouse gas emissions in one measurement. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report 0% ■ Food 1.5 tCO2e/ca ■ Buildings 8.4 tCO2e/ca ■ Consumables & Waste 3.7 tCO2e/ca ■ Transportation 2.4 tCO2e/ca ■ Water 0.1 tCO2e/ca TotaltCO2e/ca: 16.1 Tota 1tCO2e: 1,182,000 Figure 14: Summary of GHG Emissions from Consumption, 2015 CBEI of Food To inform policy and planning decisions it is important to consider the varying contributions of each of the food types to the overall food emissions. Figure 15 shows that, similar to the EF, the majority of the CBEI for food is a result of animal proteins and dairy (74%). The main difference between the EF and the CBEI results are that dairy yields a greater GHG impact due to the energy intensity of dairy production, and meat yields a greater EF impact due to its intensity in land use demands. 2% ■ Fruits and Vegetables 10,612 tCO2e ■ Fish, Meat, Eggs 47,037 tCO2e ■ Stimulants 6,505 tCO2e ■ Grains 7,409 tCO2e ■ Oils, Nuts, Legumes 2,220 tCO2e Dairy Products 38,115 tCO2e ■ Beverages 1,861 tCO2e Figure 15: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Food, 2015 CBEI of Buildings TotaltCO2e: 114,000 As with the EF, the operating energy of buildings dominates the impact on the CBEI. There is an unresolved issue with the data for concrete resulting in under reporting the impacts of commercial/institutional embodied energy, however, it is expected that changes will not impact the overall emissions significantly. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report ■ Residential Embodied Energy 33,292 tCO2e ■ Residential Operating Energy 184,123 tCO2e Commercial and Institutional Embodied Energy 452 tCO2e ■ Commercial and Institutional Operating Energy 400,504 tCO2e TotaltCO2e: 618,000 Figure 16: GHG Emissions Inventory of Buildings, 2015 CBEI of Consumables The CBEI for consumables shows that the largest GHG impact is due to wood waste, textiles, and rubber (37%), as shown in Figure 17.21 However, in contrast to the EF, the consumption -based emissions are higher from plastics (36%, compared to 17% for the EF); and much less for paper (10%, compared to 40% for the EF). These results are explained by the larger land footprint associated with production of paper and the higher fuel intensity associated with plastic. Table 1 in Appendix A provides a detailed breakdown of GHG impacts by type (that is, by type of plastic, paper, etc.). Figure 17: GHG Emissions Inventory of Consumables, 2015 ■ Paper 17,526 tCO2e ■ Plastics 60,767 tCO2e ■ Wood Waste, Textiles, & Rubber 62,552 tCO2e Metals 18,284 tCO2e ■ Glass 1,452 tCO2e ■ Household Hygiene 7,079 tCO2e ■ Hazerdous Material Container 1,492 tCO2e TotaltCO2e: 169,000 21 Total emissions are lower in Figure 17 Figure 11 than they are in Figure 14 because Figure 17 only shows the LCA impacts of food, and does not include the GHG impacts associated with waste management (operating energy and direct emissions from waste management), however the ratios remain the same. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report CBEI of Transportation Similar to the EF, the majority of the consumption -based emissions for transportation are associated with private vehicle travel (88%), as shown in Figure 18. 0% ■ Embodied Energy of Roads 5,420 tCO2e ■ Embodied Energy of Vehicles 36,787 tCO2e Private Vehicles 103,920 tCO2e ■ Commercial Vehicles 6,805 tCO2e Public Transit 634 tCO2e ■ Air Travel 7,262 tCO2e Total tCO2e: 175,94 Figure 18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Transportation, 2015 THE SUSTAINABILITY GAP To achieve 'One Planet Living' Iowa City's ecological footprint would need to reduce from 6.7 gha per capita (with added national and state services — such as the military) to 1.7 gha per capita. This represents a sustainability gap of 70%. From a climate perspective, in order to achieve the target of maintaining global temperatures below a 2 degree Celsius in warming, GHGs must be reduced to 2 tCO2e per capita. Given Iowa City's current CBEI per capita emissions of 16.1 tCO2e, GHG emissions would need to be reduced by 88%; and based on the GPC per capita emissions of 13.2 tCO2e, they would need to be reduced by 85%. gha/ca 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 ■ Cropland ■ Pasture Land ■ Fish Area ■ Forest Land ■ Energy Land ■ Built Land ■ Services Figure 19: Sustainability Gap, 2015 (including national and state services) ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report ONE PLANET SCENARIO A One Planet Scenario for Iowa City is proposed below. This is an example of how Iowa City could reduce its total ecological footprint from 5.7 to 1.7 gha per capita (excluding national and state services). The associated reduction in GHG emissions are also presented. EF reduction MEASURE (gha/capita) Reduce red meat 50% substituting for poultry 0.21 gha/ca Reduce dairy 50% no substitutes 0.15 gha/ca Reduce food waste post purchase 50%" (with exception of oils, nuts, legumes only 30%) 0.49 gha/ca Eliminate fossil based heating/cooling (i.e. no natural gas or coal) 1.24 gha/ca Improve electrical energy efficiency 80% 0.56 gha/ca Reduce paper consumption 75% 0.41 gha/ca Reduce textile consumption 75% 0.27 gha/ca Reduce plastic consumption 75% 0.15 gha/ca Reduce consumables (except paper, textiles, and plastics) 60% 0.037 gha/ca Reduce emissions from privately owned gasoline vehicles 50% 0.36 gha/ca Reduce emissions from privately owned diesel vehicles 50% 0.02 gha/ca Reduce emissions from diesel powered commercial vehicles 50% 0.01 gha/ca Reduce emissions from off road gas -powered vehicles 50% 0.02 gha/ca Reduce emissions from off road diesel -powered vehicles 50% 0.01 gha/ca Reduce electrical consumption by street lights 50% 0.001 gha/ca * An alternative option is to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity. In fact, MiclAmerican has made a commitment to transition to 100% renewable electricity. A 100% renewable electricity supply would achieve a reduction of 0.7 gha/ca. "The focus is on post purchase waste, rather than the waste that occurs in the supply chain. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report The cumulative results of implementing these measures are shown in Figure 20. 6.00 5.00 ■ Built Area 4.00 ■ Energy Land m 3.00 ■ Forest Land z °p ■ Fishing Area 2.00 Pastureland IN Cropland 1.00 0.00 Iowa EF World Biocapacity Iowa One -planet Figure 20: Iowa City's Current Ecological Footprint Compared to a One Planet Scenario ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report POLICY RESPONSES AND INTERVENTIONS While a typical territorial GHG inventory identifies the emissions that are occurring within a community's borders, the ecological footprint and consumption -based approach broadens the analysis to consider global ecological and carbon impacts. Local government staff can use data from the ecoCity Footprint Tool to identify activities and consumption habits that are having the greatest impact on their community's contribution to global climate change and ecological overshoot. They can then implement informed policy interventions to best reduce these impacts. The ultimate objective is to achieve One Planet Living; and with respect to climate change, that means mitigating our emissions to the extent that we do not increase our planet's temperature more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. CBEI and EF results highlight the need for the One -planet living refers to a lifestyle that, if adopted by everyone, could be supported indefinitely by the regenerative capacity of Earth's ecosystems. Wackernagel and Rees 1996 municipality, and other levels of governments, to support a shift to a more sustainable pattern of consumption. This could include: • Enacting policies and regulations to (1) influence consumers and (2) ensure that more sustainable options are available. • Communicating the impact of purchasing decisions to residents, and encouraging their adoption of sustainable consumption behaviours. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Consideration of the CBEI and EF results can effectively shift some key areas of policy and planning decision making. In particular, they highlight the necessity to: • Target the resource and climate impacts associated with food production and disposal. For Iowa City, 10% of CBEI emissions and 25% of the EF are due to food consumption. • Decrease red meat and dairy consumption by substituting with legumes and white meat and reduce food waste. For Iowa City, red meat and dairy consumption is responsible for about 40% of the food component of the EF. • Ensure that local food production has low resource intensity (in terms of fossil energy use and land area). For Iowa City, 98% of the food footprint is associated with energy and land requirements, while transportation represents only 2% of the food footprint. • Shift the focus from waste reduction to consumption reduction. For Iowa City, 96% of the footprint associated with goods consumed is due to production and transport, rather than use and disposal. • Reduce the consumption and disposal of textiles, which have a very high ecological impact even though their portion of the waste stream is comparatively smaller. • Reduce vehicle ownership and support this shift through effective land use planning. • Eliminate emissions from propane and natural gas usage in residential, commercial and institutional buildings. Potential Action Areas for Iowa City High-level actions for each sphere of municipal planning are presented below. This is not an exhaustive list, it is recommended that the City review results in detail and use these results to inform upcoming policy, planning and communication efforts. Planning Sphere Key Objectives Instrument (envelope 1' approach) Promote sharing economy opportunities (e.g., community N gardens). Z Reduce food waste Promote diet shifts (e.g., 'Meatless Mondays' Oregon; o with lower embodied Celebrate the Harvest campaigns). Reduce meat and dairy Adopt advanced purchasing standards (e.g., Emeryville Good o consumption Food Purchasing Program, EPA West Coast Forum on Materials ~ Better understand and Climate's Climate Friendly Purchasing Toolkit). Obtain local data on Implement food waste reduction campaigns (e.g., Canada's food consumption Love Food Hate Waste; US EPA's Food too Good to Waste; impacts NRDC Save the Food Campaign). Undertake a food survey to gain knowledge about local food consumption and impacts so as to track progress toward goals. D energy Building codes that promote energy and material efficiency Promote sustainable consumption behaviours (e.g., Vancouver's Green Bloc Neighbourhood Challenge). W Reduce the volume of Promote sharing economy opportunities (e.g" clothes swaps) )individually owned goods Promote 'smart' buying practices— focusing on durability and buying fewer clothes (e.g., Oregon DEQ's Make Every Thread p Count). U Increase reuse Support and promote Repair Cafes and Fix -it clinics and the local repair industry. Increase efficiency Implement government purchasing policies to favour recycled (envelope 1' approach) content/reused building materials. N Provide incentives for smaller and more energy efficient Z Use building materials homes, and renewable technology incentives for homes and o with lower embodied business. D energy Building codes that promote energy and material efficiency Promote sustainable consumption behaviours (e.g., Vancouver's Green Bloc Neighbourhood Challenge). W Reduce the volume of Promote sharing economy opportunities (e.g" clothes swaps) )individually owned goods Promote 'smart' buying practices— focusing on durability and buying fewer clothes (e.g., Oregon DEQ's Make Every Thread p Count). U Increase reuse Support and promote Repair Cafes and Fix -it clinics and the local repair industry. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Reduce vehicle ownership Ensure neighborhood plans contribute to compact urban z 0 development, smaller homes and walkable neighborhoods. a Decrease vehicle travel Support and promote bike -sharing and car -sharing programs. z p Improve efficiency of Continue to expand Active Transportation Initiatives. vehicle fleet Undertake an 'Inter -urban' Transportation Demand Survey to a gain a better understanding of residents out of boundary ~ Better understand transportation habits (e.g., cruise, aviation). inter -urban Increase electricification of fleet. transportation demand ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report City Initiatives There are also overarching initiatives that the City can undertake to create a shift to more sustainable patterns of consumption, such as rii • Engage with other levels of government to encourage and promote policies and regulations to shift to more sustainable patterns of consumption; in particular, • Update goal and target setting: consider 'Design for the Environment' 23 practices adjusting emission reduction goals to reflect this that increase the longevity and reduce the new information (e.g., Eugene, Oregon has resource intensity of products, and expand developed science -based targets that used the potential for product reuse and consumption -based emissions to set its "carbon recycling. budget", and a similar approach is being - Product labelling to encourage the purchase considered in Europe). of lower impact goods. • Integrate EF and CBEI results into reporting: Expand extended producer responsibility include these results alongside the traditional programs to reduce waste disposal. territorial GHG emission inventory. • Use accessible framing, communications and • Incorporate sustainable consumption principles metrics to advance sustainable consumption into economic and community development objectives as a means of engaging residents and strategies; for example, by implementing businesses to shift to more sustainable policies and bylaws that would attract low - consumption habits (e.g., 'One Planet Living' carbon producers, promote work force framing and metrics). Local governments are development in the repair and reuse industries, i unquely positioned to reach and influence and drive community investment in shared these key stakeholders with the goal of building public goods such as arts, libraries, parks and awareness, changing attitudes, and shifting recreation. consumption patterns. Green Bloc is an innovative ecological footprint challenge that is being piloted in four Vancouver neighborhoods, using a streamlined version of the ecoCity Footprint Tool. Through Green Bloc, community members are measuring their household ecological footprint, developing neighborhood action plans, and delivering neighborhood enhancing, and footprint -reducing, projects in their communities. The first pilot neighborhood — Riley Park — already reduced their footprint by 12% between 2013 and 2015. (See h ttp://greenbl oc.l igh terfootprin t. ca/) " Design for the Environment is a design approach that focuses on minimizing environmental and health impacts of products and processes. The US EPA Safer Choice In Vancouver, a collaborative group of non-governmental organizations are partnering with the City to actively bringing together a community of action around the Lighter Footprint goal. They are revealing and linking projects and partners across Vancouver, as well as encouraging new efforts in key impact areas, with the goal of helping Vancouver become a One -Planet City. (See: http:///ighterfootprinLcol) program promotes adoption of these principles (see: https://www.epa.gov/sa ferchoice/design-envi ronm ent- a lternat ives-a ssessments Additional Resources and Tools Although the use of ecological footprint and CBEI results to inform community planning is a new and emerging area, there are some useful resources to guide governments and community builders in this work, for example: USDN Sustainable Consumption Toolkit: Launched in 2015, it includes a conceptual overview and a database of local actions. A refresh/update is planned for early 2018 (see: http://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/) Life Cycle Analysis studies: The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has produced several studies related to food and food -specific products such as wine and tomatoes. NEXT STEPS Climate Friendly Purchasing Toolkit: A resource for institutional purchasing from a consortium of west coast cities and states containing modules on a number of product categories such as IT, infrastructure, and food. The Stockholm Environment Institute Working Paper: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Consumption: A Methodology for Scenario Analysis Summarizes a methodology for constructing long-term scenarios of a transition to low-GHG consumption; and provides results of applying this methodology in Seattle, Washington (see: https:Htinyuri.com/yaahjena). The BCIT project team is currently exploring opportunities to continue to refine the ecoCity Footprint Tool and to continue to work with the existing pilot communities. Goals for the next phase of work are to: Roll-out an accessible version of the eF Tool, either via an online platform or in a downloadable format. Establish a peer exchange group consisting of the current pilot communities and future users of the Tool. This network will provide the opportunity to share in the learning of how the ecological footprint and CBEI results can be used to inform policy and planning at the municipal level. Continue to evolve the functionality of the eF Tool, including interactive scenario analysis capacity and adding capacity to enable the evaluation of the footprint impact associated with land use changes. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report APPENDIX A: LCA DATA FOR CONSUMABLES AND WASTE The following presents the life cycle assessment data forthe consumables by material type. This information is useful in targeting policy, planning and communication efforts to priority materials. Table 2: Life Cycle Assessment Data for Consumables by Material Type LaWdelt (onaum es- tCD2elproduct mUR/t prod utt YLUz LCA Factor Embotll etl En trot Fool LCA FA70R LEk FAL70R Embotll etl Materials Fobbed nt Total LCA Factor Fool not Paper 16,037 16,0N1 eneBY gham aletlal-r.ps aletlalsforesfs glass (gha/5onne) glass Panted Paper azo 3,839 azo Pratt ala 1,. 1.5 1,1.6 1.e7 8,18a31 h re- Ptlnt OEs 1,336 OEs 1,336 121 336 1.1. 1,806 1.36 2,161 h CaNboartl and F.boartl P66 3,276 166 3,274 117 1,338 1.01 11,146 1.66 Li,10a h Telephone Frectorles 170 F" 170 F" 121 .1 1.13 z,3A 136 2. rut Other 170 4,091 170 4,091 171 1,227 1.5 75N 130 8,766 he Plastic 6),517 63,511 Flmlb sl 3.38 23,023 3.38 23,023 183 6,287 18 6,287 M1a PET 493 7,701 493 2,701 123 676 123 674 M1a NOPE 2.92 1,457 2.92 1,457 173 367 173 367 M1a PVL 199 1361 199 1361 01 342 11 ME Eda Other 338 29,965 338 29,96s las 7129 ag 7,529 Eda sl waste Food waste not to in Cl utlel n m e E41 IMantlGarden Wood Waste 172 172 118 Es. 139 M1a Terthe 1s.W 59,3&1 1s.W 59,3.4 376 14936 3.1 12,473 69 27T.9 ha Rubber 637 RAA s. az 1,958 1.6 aA 1.83 1,0E 3. a3 1,879 M1a Other O.W 105 M1a Metals 11374Al. Fe none Food/Drink Palk In not Rerydetl 1.he 741 1.53 630 165 185 165 185 M1a Fertous Other 1.he 6,589 1.53 S,Wl 165 1,644 165 1,644 M1a Non iertousand .lmetal llc 1282 la, D1a 1189 11,437 3.21 3,517 3.21 3,517 M1a Glass 1,246 1,246 Footl/otlnkPa,k In 165 165 116 116 M1a Other 163 12. 163 lza6 116 307 116 307 da Household Nvglene 43. 1,019 olapers Sandart Nepal ne/Tampons 3211 391 8,328 277 277 7,079 0.8 0.8 2c8z 0.3 0.e 931 lab 1To 3,019 da da Omer azo Hasa z.n x9,119 09 14,454 0.3 6309 116 20,973 ha Nmamoni maternal eorl 1282 1733 1189 1Mz 321 640 321 UP M1a EleOfoh-aste 338 bza 33, 626 las 660 183 660 da TGTAL 232866 167,1a2 s36L5 9sH 11R24b igha Cro-herk I 110,246 JETa APPENDIX B: DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY The following provides a detailed summary of the methodology and sources utilized in creating Iowa City's ecological footprint and GHG inventories. It also presents challenges and opportunities associated with the data collection process. A detailed overview of the methodology by which ecological footprints are generated in the ecoCity Footprint Tool are provided in Dr. Moore's thesis: Moore, Jennie Lynn (1013). Getting Serious About Sustainability: Exploring the Potential for One -Planet Living in Vancouver. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. Available at. http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/mooreJennie- UBC 0.pdf rch Principles The following guidelines were applied when making decisions about data sources: i) Accuracy: The goal is to achieve a high degree of accuracy, where accuracy is the degree of closeness to a measured value's actual value. (This is in contrast to precision, in which the goal is to have measurements conform with one another.) ii) Subsidiarity: Locally produced data is preferred, especially when local authorities trust the source's validity and use it to inform policies and management practices. Locally derived data reflect the nuance of the local community being profiled and can resonate more readily with local authorities who use these same data points to inform their work. iii) Conservatism: In cases where two data sources equally meet the accuracy and subsidiarity criteria, the final decision is based on which data point represents a more conservative estimate. The purpose of this approach is to avoid overstating consumption amounts. Food Evaluates the land area, materials, embodied and operational energy including for transportation of food from field to table. Food available is measured as a proxy for food consumption and import distances are used to estimate food -kilometers traveled. The energy associated with the production and transportation of imported food is then estimated. Embodied Materials and Energy [Food] Methodology & Sources National average daily per capita food consumption was divided by (1% waste) then multiplied by 365 days/year to estimate the total amount of food required per person and multiplied by the population. National average daily per capita food consumption was obtained from: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2013). Retail commodity intakes: Mean amounts of retail commodities per Individual, 2007-08. Retrieved from https://www.ars.usda.gov/A RS Use rFiles/80400530/pdf/ficrcd/FICRCD Intake Tables 2007 08 Statista. (n.d.). Per capita consumption of cocoa beans in the United States from 2000 to 2015 (in pounds). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/184209/per-capita- co nsu mptio n -of -cocoa -beans -i n-the-us-si nce-2000/ Polis, C. (June 2011). By the numbers: What Americans drink in a year. Retrieved from http://www.h uffi ngton post.com/2011/06/27/a me rica ns-soda-beer_n_885340. ht ml National average food losses were obtained from: Gunders, D. (August 2012). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food- IP.pdf Food waste percentages were obtained from: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (April 2016). America's food waste problem. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/americas-food-waste-problem Challenges and Opportunities Local data for food consumption was not available so national data was used as a proxy. Operating Energy [Food -Kilometers] Methodology & Sources Food miles traveled were derived using Google Earth to find the distance to the location with the largest production of each individual food type. The average distance traveled for processing domestically grown foods was found to be 500 miles. This distance was added to each category of food that is primarily produced within the United States. Food Import data was obtained from: United Stated Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). U.S. Food Imports. Retrieved from https://www.ers. usda.gov/data-prod ucts/us-food-i m ports/us-food-imports/ Challenges and Opportunities There are multiple components of transportation during the production, processing, and distribution of food (i.e., transportation of seeds, processing, and retail). On average, the addition of 500 miles to the total transportation distance, for each food type, is likely to be an underestimate of the total transportation demand associated with food. Food comes from multiple sources, but due to the complexity of analyzing the sources of all food types, averages have been adopted. Improvements could be made by analyzing each food category individually. Buildings and Stationary Energy Evaluates the materials, embodied and operational energy; and the built area associated with residential, industrial and commercial buildings to establish a material -flow analysis, assess the direct and embodied carbon, and evaluate the ecological footprint of buildings. Embodied Materials and Energy [Buildings and Stationary Energy] Methodology & Sources The number of commercial, institutional and residential buildings as well as an estimated composition of each building type are required to evaluate the embodied materials and energy associated with the ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report building stock. Residential units are divided into categories depending on building types (e.g., single family detached house, apartment, etc.). Commercial and industrial buildings are differentiated based on height as this is a significant indicator of their material composition. The ecoCity Footprint Tool contains calculations and assumptions to derive the embodied materials and energy associated with the total materials contained within the buildings, which were developed through Dr. Moore's original ecological footprint study of the City of Vancouver, and are summarized in Dr. Moore's 2013 thesis. Specifically, for a prescribed set of building archetypes, building material composition is assigned while average lifespan and floor area can be altered to reflect local conditions. The material composition estimates were derived using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings Tool. The archetypes created for the Vancouver 2013 study have been used in this inventory, as they are considered to be comparable, with the exception of average lifespan of buildings which was extended to 80 years for residential buildings and 130 years for institutional/commercial buildings.(In Vancouver the lifespan was 40 years and 75 years respectively.) Information on the number of each building archetype was obtained from: Margaret Vogel, Admin Services Coordinator, for the campus planning department of the University of Iowa. Iowa City, Iowa housing data. Retrieved from http://www.towncharts.com/Iowa/Housing/lowa- City-city-IA-Housing-data.html Non -University Buildings numbers were obtained from Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector for the City of Iowa City Challenges and Opportunities The study team was unable to obtain tonnage of materials used in buildings. Archetype information already contained within Dr. Moore's ecoCity Footprint Tool was used as a proxy in the absence of local data. This proxy data is based on the building archetypes present in Vancouver, BC. It was deemed that the building types in Iowa City were comparable to those in Vancouver. Namely, most of the residential stock is wood frame, as are the majority of commercial and institutional buildings which are less than five stories tall. Buildings greater than five stories tall are considered to be concrete. The creation of local archetypes could be an area of future study. Operating Energy [Buildings and Stationary Energy] Methodology & Sources To calculate operating energy data is required on the annual consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other heating fuels; broken down by sector. Energy lost through transmission and fugitive emissions is also collected or estimated. Carbon footprints are then calculated using Iowa specific emissions factors. Energy consumption data was accessed from Iowa City's Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions (GPC) report (2015 GHG Emissions Inventory), as reported in Iowa City Community -wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Inventory Update, June 2017. Retrieved from https://www8.iowa- city.org/webl i n k/0/edoc/1587170/ICG reen houseG as U pdate-2017. pdf Additional energy use data was obtained from Metrix—Community Energy Usage - a program that tracks municipal energy usage by type. ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Built Land Area [Buildings and Stationary Energy] Methodology & Sources Built area includes all non -road areas that have been paved for parking or built-up for residential, industrial, and commercial use. Lane miles and built area of streets, lanes, and sidewalks were obtained using GIS (Geographic Information System) sources provided by Killy Laughead, Sr. Engineering Technician, City of Iowa City Engineering Department. Consumables and Waste Evaluates the materials, embodied energy and embodied materials, and land area associated with the production and disposal of products in the municipal waste stream. Data is collected on: the type and quantity of solid and liquid waste generated in Iowa by sector (residential, industrial, commercial and institutional) and by material type; the method in which these materials are managed (i.e., landfilled, incinerated, recycled or composted); the energy consumption and emissions associated with the waste management facilities, and the transportation of the waste; and the material composition and built area associated with waste management facilities. The embodied energy of materials involved in the operation and delivery of waste is also included as an indirect impact of waste production. The various outputs draw from different components of this data set: The GPC inventory includes direct GHG emissions associated with handling solid and liquid waste. The Consumption Based Emission Inventory (CBEI) includes the embodied emissions associated with the production and transport of the materials that were consumed as represented by the disposed materials. It also includes the direct emissions associated with disposing the waste stream, but does not include the impact of the recyclables stream as this would be captured within the LCA of the consumed goods; which would result in double counting of impacts. The ecological footprint includes the CBEI emissions plus the impact of the built area associated with handling the waste stream. Embodied Materials, Embodied Energy and Operating Energy [Consumables and Waste] Methodology & Sources Solid waste data is collected disaggregated by sector, material type, and destination (i.e., landfill, recycling, or composting). Data on waste sorting, annual landfill volumes, recycled materials, landfill fuel usage, and landfill flare volumes were obtained from the City of Iowa City landfill division. The embodied materials and energy of consumables, meaning the material and energy used in the production and supply chain, is estimated using lifecycle assessment data that is built -into the Tool. These were developed through Dr. Moore's original ecological footprint study of the City of Vancouver and are summarized in Dr. Moore's 2013 thesis. Liquid waste, flows, loadings, and distance of piping were obtained from City of Iowa City Wastewater Division and the built area of the wastewater facility was estimated using Google Earth. Volumes of ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report concrete contained within the wastewater facility were calculated by measuring the "as -built" plans of the entire facility and the addition of all components. Challenges and Opportunities The landfill serves a regional community, therefore waste generation rates were pro -rated based on population served by the landfill. This method does not reflect the unique profile of Iowa City residents. Solid and Liquid Waste Built Area [Consumables and Waste] Methodology & Sources Total area committed to waste management was estimated using Google Maps. Transportation Evaluates the embodied materials and embodied energy of physical transportation infrastructure and vehicles, operating energy (fuel consumed by vehicles), and physical built area occupied by transportation infrastructure. Embodied Materials and Energy and Built Area [Transportation] Methodology & Sources Built area for transportation includes road length and paved right-of-way width. The quantity of roadway and the road material composition is used along with LCA data to evaluate the embodied energy of transportation infrastructure. Built are was obtained using G.I.S (Geographic Information System). GIS data was provided by Killy Laughead, Sr. Engineering Technician, City of Iowa City Engineering Department. LCA data that identifies the embodied energy of paving materials was obtained from the Dr. Moore's previous ecological footprint assessment for Vancouver (Moore, 20013). Operating Energy [Transportation] 1. Road Transportation Methodology & Sources The average number of miles driven per capita per -year was multiplied by the city population to obtain the total miles driven by the city's citizens. The number of vehicles of each type were divided by the total number of registered vehicles to obtain a percentage of the fleet by car type. the fleet percentages (by vehicle type) were multiplied by the total miles traveled to obtain the miles traveled by each vehicle category. The miles traveled by each vehicle type was divided by the fuel efficiency of the corresponding vehicle type to derive the volume of fuel used per year. The breakdown of the number of vehicles of each type for the county of Johnson County was obtained from: Iowa Department of Transportation. (2015). Calendar year 2015 vehicle registrations summary. Retrieved from http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/stats/regis20l5.pdf Other years' data for vehicle registration is available at: Iowa Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Motor vehicle division: Statistics and research studies. Retrieved from https://iowadot.gov/mvd/factsandstats#vehiciestats ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Average number of miles driven per capita (State of Iowa) was obtained from: Megna, M. (July 2016). Average miles driven per year by state. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from http://www.ca ri nsu ra nce.co m/Art icles/average-m i les -d riven -pe r-year-by-state.aspx Average fuel efficiency per vehicle type was obtained from: United States Department of Energy. (n.d.). Maps and Data. Retrieved from https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/ Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) within city limits was also available from the Iowa Department of Transportation (I DOT); however, this was not used (as explained in challenges and opportunities): Iowa Department of Transportation. (2015). Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel. Retrieved from https://iowadot.gov/maps/msp/vmt/clvmtl5.pd . Challenges and Opportunities The study team decided to use state average annual miles driven per capita, rather than the vehicle miles traveled within city limits, due to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) method missing all trips outside of the city. However, the chosen approach will result in an over-estimate of VMTs due to the high percentage of biking and walking commutes that take place in Iowa City compared to the rest of the State. Furthermore, due to total miles being disaggregated by percentage of fleet by vehicle type, miles are assigned assuming that each individual vehicle drives the same number of miles per year regardless of type. 2. Air Travel Methodology & Sources An average value of the annual US per capita miles traveled by an airplane was multiplied by the population size of Iowa City. The resulting total miles traveled was multiplied by the average amount of fuel consumed, per mile of travel, by airplane. rava mi flown1 3.785 L capita * year — mpg) x Gal x population x_= x = x73415 People =3257665 US per capita average yearly air miles traveled was obtained from Carboncounter.org Per capita fuel efficiency of a passenger plane was obtained from: Quora. (n.d.). How many miles per gallon does a typical airplane consume on, say, an SFO -JFK flight? Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-per-gallon-does-a-typical- airplane-consume-on-say-an-SFO-J FK -flight Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (n.d.). Table 1-40: U.S. Passenger -Miles (Millions). Retrieved from https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu bl icat ion s/natio nal_tra nsportation_ statistics/html/table 01 40.html ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report Water Evaluates the materials, embodied energy, operating energy, and built area impacts of the water purification and distribution system relied on by the municipality. Embodied Materials and Energy [Water] Methodology & Sources Information on the size of the dams were obtained from the Iowa 2010 River Dam inventory: United States, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). The 2010 River Dam Inventory. Retrieved from http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/riverprograms/dam_chap2.pdf Iowa City has two water treatment plants; one is for the University and one for the City. Information on both was obtained by contacting the corresponding staff. At the City, this data was held by Iowa City Water Treatment Division. Staff provided total volume treated, distance of piping, and operating energy. Built areas data was not available and was therefore estimated using Google earth. The ecoCity Footprint Tool has built-in assumptions established from previous research (Moore, 2013) that enables the calculation of the embodied energy of materials utilized in the water system infrastructure. Operating Energy [Water] Methodology & Sources Operating energy for the water treatment and pumping system was obtained from the 2015 GHG emission inventory. Built Area [Water] Methodology & Sources Area estimates for the watershed and water supply related infrastructure, including roads (length and width), buildings, and dams; and protected area and reservoir area were obtained from GIS sources provided by Killy Laughead, Sr. Engineering Technician, City of Iowa City Engineering Department and estimated using Google Maps. IPPU and AFOLU Industrial Products and pollutants (IPPU) and Agricultural, Forest, and other Commercial land uses (AFOLU) are important dimensions of a GPC compliant BASIC+ inventory. The ecological footprint and CBEI output however does not include these sources, as energy use and emissions from these sectors are already captured in the evaluation of consumables and waste. 'WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). (2014). Living Planet Report. Gland Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature. Retrieved from: http://wwf.panda.org/about our earth/all publications/living planet report/ (accessed on 12 November, 2015). " Rockstrom, J., et.al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32. Retrieved from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll4/iss2/art32/ (accessed on 5 October 2015). ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot. Iowa City Summary Report Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gab riola Island BC: New Society Publishers. Retrieved from: http://cdnl.footprintnetwork.org/Living Planet Report 2014 summary.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2015). WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). (2014). Living Planet Report. Gland Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature. Retrieved from: http://wwf.iianda.org/about our earth/all publications/living planet report/ (accessed on 12 November, 2015). ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report I b 1 war®� A .61 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: January 8, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood & Development Services Director Re: UniverCity Program Update and Future Direction V 1-77-75 IP9 History/Background: The UniverCity Program began in 2010 upon the successful completion of an I -Jobs application to the Iowa Economic Development Authority. The program targets neighborhoods near campus and downtown where the housing stock remains single-family in character but where there is a high number of renter -occupied properties. These are areas where housing has been neglected while rents remain high due to the proximity to the campus and downtown. The program purchases rental properties, completes rehabilitation and sells the homes to owner -occupants. The homebuyers must enter a deed restriction for a set amount of years, currently 30 years, that does not allow the occupant to obtain a rental permit. The program was dedicated to the following goals: • Preserving and building upon the unique character of established neighborhoods adjacent to the University of Iowa campus; • Re-establishing a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied property; • Ensuring that the University of Iowa campus and its surrounding neighborhoods remain vital, safe, affordable, and attractive places to live and work for renters and homeowners; • Encouraging reinvestment in these neighborhoods as an essential component of the University of Iowa's recruitment and sustainability initiatives. Since 2010 the City has purchased 65 homes in the UniverCity impacted area and has rehabilitated and sold 59 to eligible homeowners (see attached map). The sales price of these homes has varied from $72,000 to $246,000. 19 of the homes have been sold to homeowners under 80% of area median income. The City invested over $2.9 million since 2010 in rehabilitation improvements to ensure the safety, livability and continued occupancy as owner - occupied homes in these targeted neighborhoods. Concerns: After purchasing 65 homes, it is getting increasingly difficult to find suitable homes for owner -occupants that can be rehabilitated within a $50,000 budget as well as finding homes for purchase that are $200,000 or less. Based on prior experience, the City has difficulty selling homes once the purchase price exceeds $200,000. For various reasons, the City has had to hire a realtor to sell seven homes as we were not able to find buyers through our normal processes (social media, newspaper ads, website, yard sign, etc.). The City has considered buying larger single-family homes that have been divided into multiple units to convert to duplexes available for affordable homeownership, but the rehabilitation costs are too high to achieve the required building code separation. We have also considered buying these same types of homes for owner -occupied homes with an accessory rental unit. The number of available buyers under this scenario is more limited than for our regular homes so we anticipate that in addition to extensive rehabilitation costs we would also have to hire a realtor to assist with the sale and pay a 5-6% realtor commission. January 8, 2018 Page 2 Recommendations: The main emphasis of the program has been, and continues to be, neighborhood stabilization. With fewer homes available that meet our purchasing criteria, staff recommends that more funds and more administrative/enforcement time be invested in "problem" properties. Upon reviewing complaint data from 2014 to 2017, a little over half of the properties with the highest number of nuisance type complaints (snow, weeds, noise, trash, parking, etc.) are from single family and duplex homes within the UniverCity impact area. Our recommendation is to expand the acquisition/rehabilitation costs, but focus on fewer properties. The proposed FY19 budget before the Council includes funding for three homes, but increases the estimated purchase price from $180,000 to $200,000 and the rehabilitation budget from $50,000 to $60,000. Staff will use nuisance data to help guide housing purchases. If suitable homes are not found in the designated neighborhoods, we may consider expanding the boundaries incrementally. Staff is available to discuss the direction of the UniverCity program at any upcoming work session. If you have any questions, please contact me at 319.356.5244 or tracy- hightshoe@iowa-city.org. ot Z� N d M ` O �A U) d LO r- 0 a � o 0 E9 �o O y 'L .Q > C CA V a A .a °a 1 m � n � i �o O y 'L .Q > C CA V a A .a °a 1 IP90 r CITY OF IOWA CITY �-md�� MEMORANDUM Date: January 8, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Jacklyn Budding, Budget & Compliance Officer RE: Long-term Debt Disclosure Report On October 6, 2015, the City Council adopted a new Debt Management Policy. As part of that policy, an annual debt report was to be submitted within 210 days after the fiscal year-end to the City Manager and the City Council. -The City's fiscal year 2017 ended on June 30, 2017, and this report is intended to provide information in regards to that fiscal year. According to the policy, the annual debt report should include, at a minimum, the following information: General Long-term Debt Obligations: • Property valuations and trend valuations for total actual and taxable valuations • List of the City's 10 largest taxpayers • Summary of all of the City's direct, long-term debt obligations • Debt per capita (GO Debt and TIF Revenue Debt) • Debt per total assessed value (GO Debt and TIF Revenue Debt) • City's debt versus the legal debt limit • Revenue -Secured Debt Obligations: • Summary of the system • Summary of the system's rates and charges • The historical trend of system's sales and charges • Coverage ratios for system • Number of system customers, if applicable • List of system's 10 largest users, if applicable According to the policy, the annual debt report should also include a list of any potential upcoming debt issues and a summary of any material events that have occurred in the past year. The report may also include any other relevant information that is significant to the City's debt program or ability to repay its debt obligations. During fiscal year 2017, the City incurred to following significant events related to its bond obligations: • Principal and interest payment delinquencies: None • Non-payment related defaults, if material: None • Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties: None • Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements relating to the Bonds reflecting financial substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform: None • Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax-exempt status of the Series Bonds, or material events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds: None January 8, 2018 Page 2 • Modifications to rights of Holders of the Bonds, if material: None • Bond calls (excluding sinking fund mandatory redemptions), if material, and tender offers; a Notice of Material Event was timely filed for each of these events: i. 2008B GO bond maturities called on August 1, 2016 ii. 2008C Sewer Revenue bond maturities called on July 1, 2016 iii. 2008D Water Revenue bond maturities called on July 1, 2016 iv. 2009C GO bond maturities called on June 1, 2017 • Defeasances of the Bonds; a Notice of Material Event was timely filed for this event: None • Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material: None • Rating changes on the Bonds: None • Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Issuer: None • The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the Issuer or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Issuer, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material: None • Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material: None In the next 180 days, we are currently anticipating the following potential bond issues: • 2018 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds Refund — to fund Water distribution pressure zone improvements - $1,122,000 • 2018 General Obligation Bonds —2018 CIP Program - $11,988,570 Other potential debt issues include: None Attached to this memo are summaries that include the additional financial and debt information mentioned above. This information along with our Fiscal Year 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) will be provided to our bondholders and will be posted on the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) web site in accordance with Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) rules. This information must be posted by January 26, 2018 in order to comply with the continuing disclosure certificates on our outstanding bonded debt. We are not aware of any material or significant events that will prevent the City from meeting its current outstanding bonded debt obligations. Finance and Operating Report For the City of Iowa City, Iowa Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 Through the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Financial and Operating Data General Obligation Debt To the extent not included in the City's Financial Statements, all information the City of Iowa City has agreed to provide in its annual reports, as it relates to its outstanding general obligation debt is included in this report. Attached is additional information as required to be submitted under previous disclosure undertakings of the City. CITY PROPERTY VALUES IOWA PROPERTY VALUATIONS In compliance with Section 441.21 of the Code of Iowa, the State Director of Revenue annually directs the county auditors to apply prescribed statutory percentages to the assessments of certain categories of real property. The Johnson County Auditors adjusted the final Actual Values for 2015. The reduced values, determined after the application of rollback percentages, are the taxable values subject to tax levy. For assessment year 2015, the taxable value rollback rate was 55.6259% of actual value for residential property; 46.1068% of actual value for agricultural property; and 90% of actual value for commercial, industrial, and railroad property. No adjustment was ordered for utility property because its assessed value did not increase enough to qualify for reduction. Utility property is limited to an 8% annual growth. The Legislature's intent has been to limit the growth of statewide taxable valuations for the specific classes of property to 3% annually. Political subdivisions whose taxable valuations are thus reduced or are unusually low in growth are allowed to appeal the valuations to the State Appeal Board, in order to continue to fund present services. PROPERTY VALUATIONS AND TREND OF VALUATIONS ACTUAL (100%) VALUATIONS FOR THE CITY (1)(2) Fiscal Year: 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Property Class Levy Year: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Residential $3,285,609,160 $3,371,854,560 $3,495,700,460 $3,617,590,930 $3,893,541,900 Agricultural 2,516,440 2,655,640 3,680,920 3,553,520 3,720,671 Commercial 1,155,433,460 1,118,453,910 1,157,640,090 1,155,761,766 856,972,664 Industrial 77,855,500 77,291,810 80,494,880 76,495,918 79,053,598 Multi -residential (3) 0 0 0 0 415,208,021 Railroads 2,619,932 3,205,451 3,827,506 4,015,580 4,096,577 Utilities without Gas & Electric 11,051,685 10,816,940 9,599,528 8,239,789 7,375,066 Gas & Electric Utility 83,538,109 87,100,183 78,642,915 87,728,294 92,987,351 Less: Military Exemption (3,096,542) (3,059,502) (2,939,122) (2,828,002) (2,727,994) Total Valuation with TIF 4,615,527,744 4,668,318,992 4,826,647,177 4,950,557,795 5,350,227,854 Percent Change 2.11%(4) 1.14% 3.39% 2.57% 8.07% Notes: (1) Source: Iowa Department of Management. (2) Includes tax increment finance (TIF) valuations used in the following amounts: January 1: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TIF Valuation $11,712,327 $14,113,908 $21,131,574 $42,307,287 $72,650,838 (3) New Class as of January 1, 2015, previously reported as Commercial Property. (4) Based on 2010 Actual Valuation of $4,520,142,100. For the January 1, 2015 levy year, the City's Taxable Valuation was comprised of approximately 63% residential, 23% commercial, 10% multi -residential, 2% industrial, 2% utilities and less than 1% agriculture and military exemption. PROPERTY VALUATIONS AND TREND OF VALUATIONS Taxable ("Rollback") VALUATIONS FOR THE CITY (1)(2) Fiscal Year: 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Property Class Levy Year: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Residential $1,667,396,105 $1,780,898,909 $1,901,667,703 $2,016,210,314 $2,165,817,742 Agricultural 1,447,988 1,591,636 1,597,501 1,588,496 1,706,955 Commercial 1,155,433,460 1,118,453,910 1,099,758,752 1,040,185,590 771,275,414 Industrial 77,855,500 77,291,810 76,470,143 68,846,326 71,148,238 Multi -residential (3) 0 0 0 0 358,117,010 Railroads 2,619,932 3,205,451 3,636,130 3,614,022 3,686,919 Utilities without Gas & Electric 11,051,685 10,816,940 9,599,528 8,239,789 7,375,066 Gas & Electric Utility 47,404,050 46,813,214 47,004,994 46,785,426 44,986,783 Less: Military Exemption (3,096,542) (3,059,502) (2,939,122) (2,828,002) (2,727,994) Total Valuation with TIF 2,960,112,178 3,036,012,368 3,136,795,629 3,182,641,961 3,421,386,133 Percent Change 3.93%(4) 2.56% 3.32% 1.46% 7.50% Notes: (1) Source: Iowa Department of Management. (2) Includes tax increment finance (TIF) valuations used in the following amounts: January 1: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TIF Valuation $11,712,327 $14,113,908 $21,131,574 $33,331,128 $72,650,838 (3) New Class as of January 1, 2015, previously reported as Commercial Property. (4) Based on 2010 Actual Valuation of $2,848,162,606. LARGER TAXPAYERS Set forth in the following table are the persons or entities which represent larger taxpayers within the boundaries of the City, as provided by the Johnson County Auditor's Office. No independent investigation has been made of and no representation is made herein as to the financial condition of any of the taxpayers listed below or that such taxpayers will continue to maintain their status as major taxpayers in the City. With the exception of the electric and natural gas provider noted below (which is subject to an excise tax in accordance with Iowa Code chapter 437A), the City's mill levy is uniformly applicable to all of the properties included in the table, and thus taxes expected to be received by the City from such taxpayers will be in proportion to the taxable valuations of the properties. The total tax bill for each of the properties is dependent upon the mill levies of the other taxing entities which overlap the properties. Taxpayer') American College Testing, Inc. Mid American Energy Co. Ann S. Gerdin Revocable Trust Dealer Properties IC LLC Procter & Gamble Hair Care LLC Christian Retirement Services Inc MidWestOne Bank Vesper Iowa City LLC Alpla, Inc. National Computer Systems Inc. Type of Property/Business Commercial Utility Commercial Commercial Industrial Retirement Banking Apartments Industrial Commercial 1/1/2015 Taxable Valuations $47,639,112 42,663,321 22,803,280 18,888,867 16,414,333 15,576,959 15,014,313 14,026,869 13,860,000 12,814,893 1) Every effort has been made to seek out and report the largest taxpayers. However, many of the taxpayers listed contain multiple parcels and it is possible that some parcels and their valuations have been overlooked. Source: Johnson County Auditor's Office PROPERTY TAX LEGISLATION During the 2013 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly enacted Senate File 295 (the "Act"), which the Governor signed into law on June 12, 2013. Among other things, the Act (i) reduced the maximum annual taxable value growth percent, due to revaluation of existing residential and agricultural property, from the 4% to 3%, (ii) assigned a "rollback" (the percentage of a property's value that is subject to tax) to commercial, industrial and railroad property of 95% for the 2013 assessment year and 90% for the 2014 assessment year and all years thereafter, (iii) created a new property tax classification for multi -residential properties (mobile home parks, manufactured home communities, land -lease communities, assisted living facilities and property primarily used or intended for human habitation containing three or more separate dwelling units) ("Multi -residential Property") that began in the 2015 assessment year, and assigned a declining rollback percentage of 3.75% to such properties for each subsequent year until the 2021 assessment year (the rollback percentage for Multi -residential Properties is equal to the residential rollback percentage in the 2022 assessment year and thereafter) and (iv) exempted a specified portion of the assessed value of telecommunication properties. The Act included a standing appropriation to replace some of the tax revenues lost by local governments, including tax increment districts, resulting from the new rollback for commercial and industrial property. Prior to Fiscal Year 2017-18, the appropriation is a standing unlimited appropriation, but beginning in Fiscal Year 2017-18 the standing appropriation cannot exceed the actual Fiscal Year 2016-17 appropriation amount. The appropriation does not replace losses to local governments resulting from the Act's provisions that reduce the annual revaluation growth limit for residential and agricultural properties from 4% to 3%, the gradual transition for Multi -residential Property from the commercial rollback percentage (100% of Actual Value) to the residential rollback percentage (currently 55.7335% of Actual Valuation), or the reduction in the percentage of telecommunications property that is subject to taxation. Given the wide scope of the statutory changes, and the State of Iowa's discretion in establishing the annual replacement amount that is appropriated each year commencing in Fiscal Year 2017-18, the impact of the Act on the City's future property tax collections is uncertain and the City is unable to estimate the financial impact of the Act's provisions on the City's future operations. In Moody's Investor Service US Public Finance Weekly Credit Outlook, dated May 30, 2013, Moody's Investor Service ("Moody's") projected that local governments in the State of Iowa are likely to experience modest reductions in property tax revenues starting in Fiscal Year 2014-15 as a result of the Act, with sizeable reductions possible starting in Fiscal Year 2017-18. According to Moody's, local governments that may experience disproportionately higher revenue losses include regions that have a substantial commercial base, a large share of Multi -residential Property (such as college towns), or significant amounts of telecommunications property. Notwithstanding any decrease in property tax revenues that may result from the Act, Iowa Code section 76.2 provides that when an Iowa political subdivision issues general obligation bonds, "the governing authority of these political subdivisions before issuing bonds shall, by resolution, provide for the assessment of an annual levy upon all the taxable property in the political subdivision sufficient to pay the interest and principal of the bonds within a period named not exceeding twenty years. A certified copy of this resolution shall be filed with the county auditor or the auditors of the counties in which the political subdivision is located; and the filing shall make it a duty of the auditors to enter annually this levy for collection from the taxable property within the boundaries of the political subdivision until funds are realized to pay the bonds in full." From time to time, other legislative proposals may be considered by the Iowa General Assembly that would, if enacted, alter or amend one or more of the property tax matters described in this Official Statement. It cannot be predicted whether or in what forms any of such proposals may be enacted, and there can be no assurance that such proposals will not apply to valuation, assessment or levy procedures for the levy of taxes by the City. CITY INDEBTEDNESS DEBT LIMIT Article XI, Section 3 of the State of Iowa Constitution limits the amount of debt outstanding at any time of any county, municipality or other political subdivision to no more than 5% of the actual value of all taxable property within the corporate limits, as taken from the last state and county tax list. The debt limit for the City, based on its 2015 valuation currently applicable to the fiscal year 2016-17 is as follows: 2015 Actual Valuation of Property $5,350,227,854 Legal Debt Limit of 5% 0.05 Legal Debt Limit $267,511,393 Less: Total G.O. Debt (51,645,000) Less: TIF Revenue Debt (15,200,000) Less: Letters of Credit (UniverCity) (663,000) Less: Other legal indebtedness (TIF rebates) (17,356,000) Net Debt Limit $182,647,393 DIRECT DEBT General Obligation Debt Supported by Property Taxes and Tax Increment Subtotal 1) City called Series 2011 AB with cash on August 1, 2017. $51,645,000 Total General Obligation Debt Subject to Debt Limit: $51,645,000 Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturity As of 6/30/17 8/10B 7,420,000 City Improvements 6/20 $2,370,000 6/11A 7,925,000 City Improvements 6/21 3,080,0001) 6/11 C 10,930,000 Refunding 6/21 5,055,000 6/12A 9,070,000 City Improvements 6/22 4,780,000 7/13A 7,230,000 City Improvements 6/23 4,975,000 6/14 11,390,000 City Improvements 6/24 6,685,000 6/15 7,785,000 City Improvements 6/25 6,380,000 6/16A 8,795,000 City Improvements 6/26 8,555,000 6/17A 9,765,000 City Improvements 6/27 9,765,000 Subtotal 1) City called Series 2011 AB with cash on August 1, 2017. $51,645,000 Total General Obligation Debt Subject to Debt Limit: $51,645,000 Annual Fiscal Year General Obligation Debt Service Payments Total Outstandin Principal & Fiscal Year Principal Interest 2017-18 Date $7,960,000 $9,157,996 2018-19 of Issue 8,125,000 9,156,994 2019-20 11/12D 8,330,000 9,165,606 2020-21 09/16E 7,090,000 7,703,841 2021-22 5,540,000 5,978,663 2022-23 4,645,000 4,970,063 2023-24 3,865,000 4,082,512 2024-25 2,915,000 3,050,063 2025-26 2,090,000 2,164,200 2026-27 1.085.000 1.112.125 Total $51,645,000 $56,542,063 OTHER DEBT The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the City's Urban Renewal Areas as follows: Total $15,200,000 The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Parking System as follows: Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturity As of 6/30/16 4/17 15,400,000 Parking 6/37 $14,482,714 Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturity As of 6/30/17 11/12D $2,655,000 Developer Grant 6/32 $2,395,000 09/16E 12,805,000 Developer Grant 6/36 12,805,000 Total $15,200,000 The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Parking System as follows: Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturity As of 6/30/16 4/17 15,400,000 Parking 6/37 $14,482,714 The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Water System as follows: Date Original of Issue Amount Purpose Principal Final Outstanding Maturity As of 6/30/17 5/09B $9,750,000 Water Refunding 7/25 $585,0001) 6/12C 4,950,000 Water Refunding 7/22 3,085,000 6/16D 3,650,000 Water Refunding 7/24 3,650,000 6/17C 5,910,000 Water Refunding 7/25 5,910,000 Total $13,230,000 1) The 2018 through 2025 maturities in the amount of $6,310,000 were current refunded by the Water Revenue Refunding Capital Loan Notes, Series 2017C on July 1, 2017. The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Sewer System as follows: INDIRECT GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT 1/1/2015 Percent Principal Date Original In City Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturity As of 6/30/16 5/09A 8,660,000 Sewer Refunding 7/25 $525,0001) 4/10A 15,080,000 Sewer Refunding 7/20 5,155,000 6/16C 9,360,000 Sewer Refunding 7/21 9,360,000 6/17B 4,550,000 Sewer Refunding 7/22 4,550,000 Total $19,590,000 1) The 2018 through 2025 maturities in the amount of $5,770,000 were current refunded by the Sewer Revenue Refunding Capital Loan Notes, Series 2017B on July 1, 2017. INDIRECT GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT City's share of total overlapping debt $17,787,581 1) Taxable Valuation excludes military exemption and includes Ag. Land & Buildings, Taxable TIF Increment and all Utilities. 2) Includes general obligation bonds only. 1/1/2015 Percent City's Taxinq District Taxable Valuation') In City G.O. Debt2) Proportionate Share Johnson County $8,042,302,645 42.54%3) $10,970,000 $4,666,638 Iowa City CSD 5,978,490,538 57.23%3) 3,205,000 1,834,222 Clear Creek -Amapa CSD 129,160,108 0.04% 58,795,000 26,105 Kirkwood Comm. College 24,144,197,855 14.17%3) 79,468,000 11,260,616 City's share of total overlapping debt $17,787,581 1) Taxable Valuation excludes military exemption and includes Ag. Land & Buildings, Taxable TIF Increment and all Utilities. 2) Includes general obligation bonds only. DEBT RATIOS Total General Obligation Debt TIF Revenue Debt City's share of total overlapping debt Debt/Actual 1) Based on the City's 1/1/2015 100% Actual Valuation; includes Ag Land, Ag Buildings, all Utilities and TIF Increment. 2) Population based on the City's 2010 U.S. Census. TAX RATES Market Value Debt/67,862 G.O. Debt ($5,350,227,854)1) Population2> $51,645,000 0.97% $761.03 $15,200,000 0.28% $223.98 $17,787,581 0.33% $262.11 1) Based on the City's 1/1/2015 100% Actual Valuation; includes Ag Land, Ag Buildings, all Utilities and TIF Increment. 2) Population based on the City's 2010 U.S. Census. TAX RATES FY2012-13 FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015-16FY2016-17 $/$1,000 $/$1,000 $/$1,000 $/$1,000 $/$1,000 Johnson County 6.74909 6.73712 6.74168 6.90337 6.77140 City of Iowa City 17.26864 16.80522 16.70520 16.65096 16.58305 Iowa City CSD 14.07327 13.68792 13.69999 13.86773 13.98935 Clear Creek -Amapa CSD (Clear Creek) 15.31063 15.31055 15.06516 15.62084 15.75419 Kirkwood Comm. College 1.07888 1.06473 1.05754 1.06125 1.08048 City Assessor 0.24453 0.25873 0.23866 0.24325 0.24339 County Ag. Extension 0.08146 0.08160 0.08119 0.08129 0.07781 State of Iowa 0.00320 0.00330 0.00330 0.00330 0.00330 Total Tax Rate - City Resident: Iowa City CSD 39.49917 38.63862 38.52756 38.81115 38.74878 Clear Creek -Amapa CSD (Clear Creek) 40.73653 40.26125 39.89273 40.56426 41.51362 LEVY LIMITS A city's general fund tax levy is limited to $8.10 per $1,000 of taxable value, with provision for an additional $0.27 per $1,000 levy for an emergency fund which can be used for general fund purposes (Code of Iowa, Chapter 384, Division 1). Cities may exceed the $8.10 limitation upon authorization by a special levy election. Further, there are limited special purpose levies which may be certified outside of the above described levy limits (Code of Iowa, Section 384.12). The amount of the City general fund levy subject to the $8.10 limitation is $8.10 for Fiscal Year 2016-17. The City does levy costs for operation and maintenance of publicly owned Transit, tort liability and other insurance, support of the public library, police and fire retirement, FICA and IPERS and other employee benefits expenses in addition to the $8.10 general fund limit as authorized by law. In addition, the City has not established an emergency fund levy for Fiscal Year 2016-17. Debt service levies are not limited. CITY FUNDS ON HAND (Cash and Investments as of June 30, 2017, in thousands) City Operating Funds $175,749 City Restricted Funds 56,751 Total $232,500 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA LEVIES AND TAX 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. ' Delinquent tax collection is presented by collection year, rather than levy year, because information is not available from Johnson County Treasurer by levy year. Percent of Total as Collection Total Tax Current Tax Levy Delinquent Tax Total Tax a Percent of Year Levied Collections Collected Collections' Collections Levv 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 2012 49,595 49,543 99.9 1 49,544 99.9 2013 50,407 50,139 99.5 3 50,142 99.5 2014 50,307 49,835 99.1 1 49,836 99.1 2015 51,609 51,292 99.4 3 51,295 99.4 2016 52,034 52,074 100.1 0 52,074 100.1 2017 55,330 55,331 100.0 0 55,331 100.0 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. ' Delinquent tax collection is presented by collection year, rather than levy year, because information is not available from Johnson County Treasurer by levy year. GENERAL FUND BUDGET The table below summarizes fiscal year actuals for years ending June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, and the 2018 Amended Budget as estimated at December 18, 2017. Revenues & Transfers In Property Taxes Other City Taxes Licenses And Permits Use Of Money And Property Intergovernmental Charges For Fees And Services Miscellaneous Other Financial Sources Sub -total Revenues: Transfers In Total Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures & Transfers Out Personnel Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other Financial Uses Contingency Sub -total Expenditures: Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Transfers Out 2016 2017 2018 Actual Actual Revised $ 29, 796, 656 $ 31, 754, 702 $ 32, 862, 685 2,431,882 2,534,880 2,469,854 3,056,051 3,521,079 2,551,850 689,835 812,954 686,337 3,803,459 3,580,793 3,502,070 1,607,320 1,697,137 1,374,189 4,603,845 5,484,920 5,935,042 48, 667, 850 51,151, 026 52, 540, 780 $ 61,136, 216 $ 61, 806, 225 $ 62, 693, 995 2016 A rrin m l 8,290,221 1,515,890 1,970,355 1,842,500 49,198,596 12, 842,428 $ 62,041,024 2017 Arillal J1,144,421 9,281,092 1,555,556 2,244,302 588,000 2018 Rnvicarl 4U, b1 b, btt1 10,142,737 1,767,319 3,321,672 1,513,000 51,413,370 57,894,310 $ 69,217,629 $ 71,424,246 Finance and Operating Report For the City of Iowa City, Iowa Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 Through the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Financial and Operating Data Water System Revenue Sewer System Revenue Parking System Revenue and Urban Renewal Area Revenue To the extent not included in the City's Financial Statements, all information the City of Iowa City has agreed to provide in its annual reports, as it relates to its outstanding Water System Revenue, Sewer System Revenue, and Parking System Revenue debt, is included in this report. Attached is additional Water System, Sewer System, and Parking System information as required to be submitted under previous disclosure undertakings of the City. Revenue Bond Activity Revenue bonded debt activity for the year ended June 30, 2017, was as follows: Governmental activities: Revenue bonds Less: Unamortized Discounts Total revenue bonds Business -type activities: Revenue bonds Plus: Unamortized Due within July 1, 2016 Issues Retirements June 30, 2017 One Year 2,525,000 12,805,000 130,000 15,200,000 135,000 33,984 - 2,124 31,860 2,124 2,491,016 12,805,000 127,876 15,168,140 132,876 38,420,000 10,460,000 16,060,000 32,820,000 5,035,000 Premium 1,531,661 645,415 576,162 1,600,914 290,852 Total revenue bonds 39,951,661 11,105,415 16,636,162 34,420,914 5,325,852 As of June 30, 2017, the following unmatured revenue bond issues are outstanding: Original issue amount Interest rates Annual maturities Amount outstanding Wastewater Treatment $37,650,000 2.0% to 5.0% $275,000 to $2,085,000 $19,590,000 Water $24,260,000 1.5% to 5.0% $380,000 to $1,225,000 $13,230,000 Taxable Urban Renewal $15,200,000 1.0% to 3.9% $135,000 to $965,000 $15,200,000 The City of Iowa City defeased the remaining $6,605,000 of its 2009 parking revenue bonds on November 12, 2014 by prepaying all remaining outstanding bonds and interest from cash on hand. The total defeased outstanding as of June 30, 2017 is $5,465,000. The total amount of interest that was paid was $574,186. Liabilities for the defeased bonds are not included in the City's financial statements. On June 15, 2017, the City issued $4,550,000 of sewer revenue bonds for a current refunding of $5,245,000 of sewer revenue bonds on July 1, 2017. As a result, the sewer revenue bonds from that issue are considered to be defeased and the liability has been removed from the financial statements. The refunding was undertaken to reduce total future debt service payments. The result of the transaction is a reduction of $1,030,981 in future debt service payments and an economic gain of $723,184. On June 15, 2017, the City issued $5,910,000 of water revenue bonds for a current refunding of $5,725,000 of water revenue bonds on July 1, 2017. As a result, the water revenue bonds from that issue are considered to be defeased and the liability has been removed from the financial statements. The refunding was undertaken to reduce total future debt service payments. The result of the transaction is a reduction of $1,137,664 in future debt service payments and an economic gain of $1,033,306. Revenue bond debt service requirements to maturity are as follows: Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Governmental Activities Principal Interest Business -type Activities Principal Interest 2018 $ 135,000 $ 456,495 $ 5,035,000 $ 1,150,476 2019 135,000 454,335 4,975,000 872,703 2020 140,000 451,635 5,385,000 685,365 2021 140,000 448,695 5,610,000 477,665 2022 1,110,000 445,475 4,350,000 298,690 2023-2027 5,420,000 1,735,955 7,465,000 237,420 2028-2032 4,710,000 964,955 - - 2033-2037 3,410,000 259,500 - - Total $ 15,200,000 $ 5,217,045 $ 32,820,000 $ 3,722,319 The revenue bond ordinances required that wastewater treatment, water revenues, and urban renewal tax 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: Account Amount (a) Revenue Bond and Interest Amount sufficient to pay current bond and interest maturities. Sinking Reserve (b) Revenue Debt Service Amount required to be deposited in the Revenue Bond and Reserve Interest Reserve until the reserve fund equals: Water Revenue and Taxable Urban Renewal 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. In fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Wastewater Treatment Fund had net revenue of $7,026,000 and the amount of principal and interest due was $4,610,000. In fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Water Fund had net revenues of $3,197,000 and the amount of principal and interest due was $2,284,000. Summary of Bond Issues General obligation and revenue bonds payable at June 30, 2017, are comprised of the following issues: S 99,665,000 (1) This bond issue refunded the May 2002 General Obligation Bonds. (2) This bond issue is an advance refunding of portions of the September 2006 and May 2007 General Obligation Bonds. (3) This bond issue refunded the October 2000 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (4) This bond issue refunded the December 2001 and April 2002 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (5) This bond issue refunded the October 2008 Wastewater Revenue Bond. (6) This bond issue refunded the May 2009 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (7) This bond issue refunded the December 2000 Water Revenue Bonds. (8) This bond issue refunded the October 2002 Water Revenue Bonds. (9) This bond issue refunded the October 2008 Water Revenue Bonds. (10) This bond issued refunded the May 2009 Water Revenue Bonds. Date of Amount Interest Final Outstanding Issue Issued Rates Maturity June 30, 2017 General Obligation Bonds: Multi -Purpose Aug. 2010 7,420,000 2.0-2.75 6/20 2,370,000 Multi -Purpose June 2011 7,925,000 2.0-3.625 6/21 3,080,000 Refunded Multi -Purpose and Library Construction (1) June 2011 10,930,000 2.0- 3.625 6121 5,055,000 Multi -Purpose June 2012 9,070,000 2.0-2.25 6/22 4,780,000 Multi -Purpose July 2013 7,230,000 1.0-2.0 6/23 4,975,000 Refunded Multi -Purpose (2) June 2014 11,980,000 2.0-3.0 6/24 6,685,000 Multi -Purpose June 2015 7,785,000 2.0-2.25 6/25 6,380,000 Multi -Purpose June 2016 8,795,000 2.0-3.0 6/26 8,555,000 Multi -Purpose June 2017 9,765,000 2.0-2.5 6/27 9,765,000 Total General Obligation Bonds S 51,645,000 Date of Amount Interest Final Outstanding Issue Issued Rates Maturity June 30, 2017 Revenue Bonds: Refunded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (3) May 2009 8,660,000 3.5- 5.0 7/25 525,000 Refunded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (4) Apr. 2010 15,080,000 3.0-4.0 7/20 5,155,000 Refunded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (5) June 2016 9,360,000 3.0-4.0 7/21 9,360,000 Refunded Wastewater Treatment Bonds (6) June 2017 4,550,000 2.0-5.0 7/22 4,550,000 Refunded Water Bonds (7) May 2009 9,750,000 4.0-4.5 7/25 585,000 Refunded Water Bonds (8) June 2012 4,950,000 1.5 - 2.1 7/22 3,085,000 Refunded Water Bonds (9) June 2016 3,650,000 1.5- 5.0 7/24 3,650,000 Refunded Water Bonds (10) June 2017 5,910,000 2.0-2.25 7/25 5,910,000 Taxable Urban Renewal Nov. 2012 2,655,000 1.0 - 3.9 6/32 2,395,000 Taxable Urban Renewal Sept. 2016 12,805,000 3.0 6/36 12,805,000 Total Revenue Bonds 48,020,000 S 99,665,000 (1) This bond issue refunded the May 2002 General Obligation Bonds. (2) This bond issue is an advance refunding of portions of the September 2006 and May 2007 General Obligation Bonds. (3) This bond issue refunded the October 2000 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (4) This bond issue refunded the December 2001 and April 2002 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (5) This bond issue refunded the October 2008 Wastewater Revenue Bond. (6) This bond issue refunded the May 2009 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. (7) This bond issue refunded the December 2000 Water Revenue Bonds. (8) This bond issue refunded the October 2002 Water Revenue Bonds. (9) This bond issue refunded the October 2008 Water Revenue Bonds. (10) This bond issued refunded the May 2009 Water Revenue Bonds. Parking Capital Lease Obligation Activity In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the government entered into a lease agreement as lessee for financing the acquisition of a parking ramp valued at $15,497,867. The parking ramp has a 30 -year estimated useful life. This lease agreement qualifies as a capital lease for accounting purposes and, therefore, was recorded at the present value of future minimum lease payments as of the inception date. The future minimum lease obligations and net present value of these minimum lease payments as of June 30, 2017, were as follows: Fiscal Year Ending Business -type June 30 Activities 2018 $ 1,100,821 2019 1,100,821 2020 1,100,821 2021 1,100,821 2022 1,100,821 2023-2036 15,411,500 Total minimum lease payments 20,915,605 Less: amount representing interest (6,432,891) Present value of minimum lease payments $ 14,482,714 Changes in the capital lease obligation for the year ended June 30, 2017, was as follows: Due within July 1, 2016 Issues Retirements June 30, 2017 One Year Business -type activities: $ - $ 15,497,867 $ 1,015,153 $ 14,482,714 $ 524,409 Fiscal Year Ended June 30 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA SCHEDULE OF REVENUE BOND COVERAGE Iasi Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Net Revenue Available for Revenue Expenses' Debt Service Annual Debt Service Ratio of Principal Interest Total Coverage Revenue 2008 4,995 2,454 2,541 355 606 961 2.64 2009 5,630 3,024 2,606 370 584 954 2.73 20106 5,509 3,149 2,360 390 504 894 2.64 2011 5,389 2,920 2,469 420 391 811 3.04 2012 4,945 3,034 1,911 500 339 839 2.28 2013 5,122 3,549 1,573 515 324 839 1.87 2014 5,365 2,969 2,396 530 308 838 2.86 20157 5,620 3,828 1,792 540 254 794 2.26 2016 - - - - - - - 2017 - - - - - Wastewater Treatment Revenue4 20086 13,332 4,581 8,751 4,105 3,071 7,176 1.22 20096 13,462 5,202 8,260 4,260 2,813 7,073 1.17 20106 13,174 5,050 8,124 4,205 2,307 6,512 1.25 20116 13,281 5,477 7,804 1,840 2,054 3,894 2.00 2012 13,175 5,663 7,512 4,615 1,693 6,308 1.19 2013 13,301 5,340 7,961 4,865 1,547 6,412 1.24 2014 12,835 5,708 7,127 3,250 1,428 4,678 1.52 2015 12,620 6,574 6,046 3,370 1,305 4,675 1.29 2016 12,681 6,513 6,168 3,520 1,175 4,695 1.31 2017 13,383 6,357 7,026 3,625 985 4,610 1.52 Water Revenues 20086 9,258 5,348 3,910 955 1,229 2,184 1.79 20096 8,833 5,726 3,107 995 1,171 2,166 1.43 20106 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 20126 8,649 5,653 2,996 1,200 861 2,061 1.45 20136 9,342 6,348 2,994 845 758 1,603 1.87 20146 8,613 5,818 2,795 1,335 650 1,985 1.41 2015 8,715 5,632 3,083 1,380 610 1,990 1.55 2016 9,323 5,387 3,936 1,715 579 2,294 1.72 2017 9,529 6,332 3,197 1,760 524 2,284 1.40 Notes: ' Excludes depreciation and interest. 2Includes principal and interest of revenue bonds only. 3Parking Revenue bonds ratio of "Net Revenue Available for Debt Service" to "Total Annual Debt Service" is required to be at least 1.25. 4 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 Revenue bonds 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. 7Parking Revenue Bonds defeased are excluded from the principal and interest of Annual Debt Service. 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 31.75 (FTE) employees who work in the Water Division. This division serves about 74,398 people and has over 28,336 customer water accounts. The average daily use for fiscal year 2017 was approximately 5.5 million gallons per day (MGD). A peak flow of over 8.6 MGD was experienced during the summer of 2012. 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 10.5 MGD. Additional sources include two Jordan aquifer wells which can provide 2.0 MGD; three Silurian aquifer wells which can provide 1.0 MGD; a sand pit that can provide 1.0 MGD; a river intake that can provide 3.0 MGD; for a total of approximately 16.7 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 IV Water Treatment Facility houses an operations team that performs over 230 water quality tests per day in-house and collects regulatory samples for testing at the University Hygienic Laboratory. This testing ensures that Iowa City's drinking water meets all IDNR and EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Standards. Distribution System: The water flows through approximately 277 miles of water mains and includes over 28,000 service connections. The distribution piping consists of cast iron, ductile iron and plastic 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 3,543 public and private 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 0.2% of gross revenues for the past three years. Rates: The following rates and charges were effective July 1, 2015. Water Service Charge Minimums (includes up to the first 100 cubic feet (c.f.)) Meter Size 0% Meter Size 0% Inches Charge Inches Charge 5/8" $7.07 2" $24.41 3/4" 7.72 3" 45.11 ill 9.10 4" 78.69 1 1/2" 18.15 6" 158.33 Monthly Usage in excess of 100 cubic feet (c.f.) 101-3,000 $3.30 per 100 c.f. 3,001 and over $2.37 per 100 c.f. Single Purpose Meter Charges First 100 (c.f) Minimum Monthly Charge Usage in excess of 100 cubic feet (c.f.) $3.30 per 100 c.f. Changes in water rates over the last ten fiscal years: 2008 0% 2009 0% 2010 0% 2011 0% 2012 0% 2013 0% 2014 0% 2015 5% 2016 5% 2017 0% Water Svstem Customers by Classification: 1) Classification FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 3) FY2016 FY2017 Residential 24,442 24,790 23,089 23,638 24,025 Commercial 1,491 1,491 1,409 1,415 1,425 Industrial 15 15 14 14 14 Other 2> 204 202 135 131 134 Total Meters 26,152 26,498 24,647 25,198 25,598 1) Meter information above represents the number of meters customers billed as of the end of the fiscal year. 2) Other meters consist of rural, schools, government, churches, and City meters. 3) Implemented a new utility billing system during Fiscal Year 2015 which consolidated customers with multiple meters. Financial Information: The following table summarizes the results of operations for the Water System for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. WATER SYSTEM STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Operating Revenues: Charges for services $ 9,275 $ 9,134 $ 8,527 Miscellaneous 41 17 13 Total operating revenues 9,316 9,151 8,540 Operating Expenses: Personal services 3,288 3,115 2,495 Commodities 1,031 578 1,121 Services and charges 2,013 1,694 2,016 6,332 5,387 5,632 Depreciation 2,344 2,295 2,250 Total operating expenses 8,676 7,682 7,882 Operating income 640 1,469 658 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Gain (Loss) on disposal of capital assets 1 8 (17) Operating Grants - - 2 Interest income 213 172 175 Interest expense (447) (528) (608) Total nonop crating revenues (expenses) (233) (348) (448) Income before capital contributions and transfers 407 1,121 210 Capital contributions 869 674 581 Transfers in 2,305 985 348 Transfers out (250) (720) (691) Change in net assets 3,331 2,060 448 Net Position, Beginning* 67,163 65,103 64,655 Net Position, Ending $ 70,494 $ 67,163 $ 65,103 *The 2015 beginning balance was restated from implementation of GASB 68. The following table summarizes the budget and actual figures for the Water System for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 and the budget for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 on a modified accrual basis. WATER SYSTEM BUDGET AND ACTUALS (MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS) Charges for services Interest income Miscellaneous Bond sales Sale of Assets Total Receipts Personal services Commodities Services and charges Capital outlay Transfer to capital project funds Debt service payments Total Disbursements For the Year Ended June 30, 2017 (amounts expressed in thousands) The following table summarizes the Water System funds on hand for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. WATER SYSTEM FUNDS ON HAND (CASH AND INVESTMENTS) Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2017 2016 2015 Operating Funds $ 9,566 $ 8,481 $ 8,670 Restricted and Designated Funds 4,640 5,026 4,964 Total Funds on Hand $ 14,206 $ 13,507 $ 13,634 FY18 Actual Budget Percentage Budget $ 9,274 $ 8,926 103.90% $ 9,097 213 172 123.84% 163 41 14 292.86% 8 5,975 - 0.00% 1,100 1 - 0.00% - $ 15,504 $ 9,112 170.15% $ 10,368 $ 2,601 $ 2,777 93.66% $ 2,806 580 673 86.18% 655 2,750 2,773 99.17% 2,656 545 2,720 20.04% 2,942 175 100 175.00% 725 6,416 6,374 100.66% 7,634 $ 13,067 $ 15,417 84.76% $ 17,418 The following table summarizes the Water System funds on hand for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. WATER SYSTEM FUNDS ON HAND (CASH AND INVESTMENTS) Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2017 2016 2015 Operating Funds $ 9,566 $ 8,481 $ 8,670 Restricted and Designated Funds 4,640 5,026 4,964 Total Funds on Hand $ 14,206 $ 13,507 $ 13,634 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 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 2012 246,618,257 7,953,738 2013 254,616,773 8,194,467 2014 239,790,719 7,778,364 20151 240,423,612 8,161,522 2016 255,524,943 8,758,683 2017 267,511,531 9,156,005 Sources: City of Iowa City Revenue Department Notes: 1Beginning in March 2015, Water Sales by Cubic Feet Sold also includes unbilled usage. Customer Name Proctor & Gamble Veterans Administration Medical Center Mark IV Apts Campus Apartments Mercy Hospital University of Iowa (Mayflower Apartments) Oaknoll Retirement Residence Seville Apts Iowa City School District RBD Iowa City LLC DBA Sheraton Dolphin Lake Point (Rus Properties Mngmt) Robert's Dairy ACT Lear Corp Sheraton Inn/Holiday Inn Total Water System Charges Sources: City of Iowa City Revenue Division CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA PRINCIPAL WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS Current Year and Nine Years Ago 2008 Charges Rank Percentage 1 $ 630,949 1 7.91 % 98,229 2 1.23 - - N/A 65,318 5 0.82 72,710 3 0.91 42,709 8 0.54 - - N/A 0.41 35,999 N/A 0.39 33,165 N/A 0.36 - N/A 67,054 4 0.84 63,503 6 0.80 50,923 7 0.64 38,531 9 0.48 34,970 10 0.44 $ 1,164,896 14.61 % $ 7,976,536 2017 Charges Rank Percentage $ 768,168 1 8.39 % 115,589 2 1.26 69,603 3 0.76 65,672 4 0.72 65,422 5 0.71 43,148 6 0.47 39,154 7 0.43 37,563 8 0.41 35,999 9 0.39 33,165 10 0.36 - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 1,273,483 13.90 % $ 9,156,005 Sewer System The City of Iowa City operates a municipal Sewer Utility System consisting of approximately 300 miles of sanitary sewers, 18 sanitary sewer lift stations, and a wastewater treatment plant. There are a total of 25.40 (FTE) employees who work in the Wastewater Division. This division serves about 75,000 people and has about 25,600 customers. The system has 3 significant industrial users, 2 non -categorical and 1 categorical. The average daily treatment plant flow for fiscal year 2017 was 7.86 million gallons per day (MGD). The Wastewater Plant was constructed in 1990. The plant was upgraded in 2002 and underwent another expansion in 2014. The City conducts all wastewater treatment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and controls operations of the system remotely through supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) computer systems. The wastewater treatment system design has a maximum daily treatment capacity of 43.30 MGD. The Wastewater Treatment Division is currently in compliance with federal clean water standards. 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 0.2% of gross revenues for the past three years. Rates: The following rates and charges were effective July 1, 2015. 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: 2008 0% 2009 5% 2010 0% 2011 0% 2012 0% 2013 0% 2014 0% 2015 0% 2016 0% 2017 0% Number of Sewer System Customers: Number of Sewer Fiscal Year System Customers 2013 24,059 2014 24,389 2015 24,533 2016 25,085 2017 25,485 Financial Information: The following table summarizes the results of operations for the Sewer System for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) *The 2015 beginning balance was restated from implementation of GASB 68. 2017 2016 2015 Operating Revenues: Charges for services $ 12,277 $ 12,266 $ 12,189 Miscellaneous 754 94 126 Total operating revenues 13,031 12,360 12,315 Operating Expenses: Personal services 2,899 2,808 2,136 Commodities 1,094 1,421 1,473 Services and charges 2,364 2,284 2,965 6,357 6,513 6,574 Depreciation 4,506 4,484 4,497 Total operating expenses 10,863 10,997 11,071 Operating income 2,168 1,363 1,244 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets (4,835) - 1 Operating grants - - 21 Interest income 352 321 305 Interest expense (558) (927) (1,161) Total nonop crating revenues (expenses) (5,041) (606) (834) Income before capital contributions and transfers (2,873) 757 410 Capital contributions 2,226 3,839 1,370 Transfers in 5,911 195 239 Transfers out (2,436) (522) (190) Change in net assets 2,828 4,269 1,829 Net Position, Beginning* 135,052 130,783 128,954 Net Position, Ending $ 137,880 $ 135,052 $ 130,783 *The 2015 beginning balance was restated from implementation of GASB 68. The following table summarizes the budget and actual figures for the Sewer System for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 and the budget for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 on a modified accrual basis. SEWER SYSTEM BUDGET AND ACTUALS (MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS) For the Year Ended June 30, 2017 (amounts expressed in thousands) The following table summarizes the Sewer System funds on hand for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. SEWER SYSTEM FUNDS ON HAND (CASH AND INVESTMENTS) Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2017 2016 2015 Operating Funds $ 18,830 $ 18,210 $ 16,643 Restricted and Designated Funds 9,136 9,460 9,861 Total Funds on Hand $ 27,966 $ 27,670 $ 26,504 FY18 Actual Budget Percentage Budget Charges for services $ 12,277 $ 12,204 100.60% $ 12,216 Interest income 352 291 120.96% 288 Miscellaneous 755 94 803.19% 85 Grants 3,108 2,391 129.99% 1,140 Bond sales 5,131 - 0.00% - Sale of assets 18 - 0.00% - Total Receipts $ 21,641 $ 14,980 144.47% $ 13,729 Personal services $ 2,190 $ 2,265 96.69% $ 2,355 Commodities 971 701 138.52% 803 Services and charges 3,425 3,049 112.33% 3,092 Capital outlay 415 6,484 6.40% 10,184 Transfer to capital project funds 1,166 2,000 58.30% 2,000 Debt service payments 15,171 15,176 99.97% 9,588 Total Disbursements $ 23,338 $ 29,675 78.65% $ 28,022 The following table summarizes the Sewer System funds on hand for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. SEWER SYSTEM FUNDS ON HAND (CASH AND INVESTMENTS) Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2017 2016 2015 Operating Funds $ 18,830 $ 18,210 $ 16,643 Restricted and Designated Funds 9,136 9,460 9,861 Total Funds on Hand $ 27,966 $ 27,670 $ 26,504 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA SALES HISTORY AND TOTAL SEWER CHARGES Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Sewer Sales Sewer System Year Cubic Feet Sold Charizes 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 2012 282,134,840 12,784,321 2013 285,472,392 12,883,641 2014 269,494,125 12,3 82,031 20151 266,830,947 12,278,153 2016 270,547,701 12,022,203 2017 277,712,785 12,404,360 Sources: City of Iowa City Revenue Department Notes: 1Beginning in March 2015, Sewer Sales by Cubic Feet Sold also includes unbilled usage. Customer Name University of Iowa Proctor & Gamble Iowa City Landfill Veterans Administration Medical Center Mercy Hospital Mark IV Apts Campus Apartments University of Iowa Mayflower Oaknoll Retirement Residence RBD Iowa City LLC DBA Sheraton Dolphin Lake Point (Rus Properties Mngmt) Robert's Dairy Total Sewer System Charges Sources: City of Iowa City Revenue Department CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA PRINCIPAL SEWER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS Current Year and Nine Years Ago 2008 Charges Rank Percentage $ 2,017,440 1 16.51 % 1,131,315 2 9.26 106,445 7 0.87 110,306 5 0.90 118,333 4 0.97 66,229 10 0.54 85,198 8 0.70 71,611 9 0.59 - - N/A - - N/A 110,129 6 0.90 160,445 3 1.31 $ 3,977,451 32.55 % $ 12,221,769 2017 Charges Rank Percentage $ 1,860,993 1 15.00% 1,086,165 2 8.76 159,650 3 1.29 135,049 4 1.09 104,653 5 0.84 91,500 6 0.74 76,669 7 0.62 68,568 8 0.55 55,788 9 0.45 53,955 10 0.43 - - N/A - - N/A $ 3,692,990 29.77% $ 12,404,360 Parking System The Parking System currently consists of approximately 4,860 parking spaces located at various parking facilities in the City. The Parking Division of the Transportation Services Department oversees the operation of parking garages, parking lots, and on -street (metered) parking. Parking Division enforces parking regulation in the central business district, while the Police Department enforces parking regulations in residential areas. Recognizing that there is a high demand for parking in downtown Iowa City, Parking Services promotes turnover of on - street metered parking spaces in the core of the downtown. Customers with longer-term needs are encouraged to use the garages or on streets in outlying areas. There are a total of 21.63 (FTE) employees who work in the Parking Division. Parking System Utilization. Demand and Other Considerations: The City tracks Parking System utilization by the hour in each of the cashiered facilities. During peak hours, the occupancy rate regularly runs between 85% to 98% depending on the time of year and the time of day. Peak hours for the Parking System are 10:00 am through 3:00 pm with high occupancy rates regularly maintained through 5:30 pm daily. In addition to hourly parking, the Parking System offers monthly permit parking. The Parking System currently has 1,985 permit holders. The largest customer for the monthly permit parking is the University of Iowa with 615 permits. There are currently over 1,800 people on the Parking System's waiting lists for monthly permit parking. In addition to monthly and permit parking, the Parking System has parking space contracts with the Sheraton Hotel in the amount of $8,500.00 per month and with the Hotel Vetro in the amount of $2,125.00 per month. The City regularly evaluates parking demand. As development has continued to move south of Burlington Street and the central business district, the need for additional spaces in this area has increased. The underlying economic growth and employment base of the City continues to contribute to increased demand. Parking System Rates and Charges: Rates for the Parking System are set by the City Council. Parking System rates are reviewed annually. The rates vary by facility and the hourly and monthly rates and charges as approved by the City Council are listed below by facility. These rates include the most recent hourly rate adjustments that were approved by the City Council on June 4, 2013 and became effective July 1, 2013 and the recent monthly permit rate adjustments that were approved by the City Council on June 2, 2009 and became effective July 1, 2009. Parking Facilities: The Parking System consists of 3 cashiered garages and 2 unattended garages, as well as, various parking lots and on -street metered parking in the Central Business District. The City completes regular visual inspections of the parking garages to evaluate their current appearance and general condition. The garages are visually inspected for the condition of the main structural elements (columns, girders, beams), parking decks, expansion and control joints, and their coating systems. Based on the most recent inspections, all of the Parking System's facilities are in excellent condition. All garages will continue to receive routine inspections and maintenance. A description of each parking facility, their locations, access, the number of spaces, monthly permits, and current rates are as follows: Capitol Street Garage Constructed 1980 Address 220 S. Capitol Street Description Located on a parcel confined by Burlington Street to the south, Capitol Street to the west, Clinton Street to the east and the Old Capitol Town Center to the north. Access This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Clinton Street; two entry lanes off of Capitol Street; and four exit lanes onto Capitol Street. Spaces 875 Monthly Permits 220 Rates Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free Monthly $80.00 per month Changes in Capitol Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years: *2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014 Dubuque Street Garage Constructed 1980 Address 220 S. Dubuque Street Description Located on a parcel confined by Burlington Street to the south, Dubuque Street to the west, Linn Street to the east and the Sheraton Hotel to the north. Access This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Dubuque Street; one entry lanes off of Linn Street; and two exit lanes onto Dubuque Street. Spaces 625 Monthly Permits 310 Rates Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free Monthly $80.00 per month Hourly Monthly 2008 0% 0% 2009 0% 0% 2010 0% 7% 2011 0% 0% 2012 0% 0% 2013 0% 0% 2014* 33% 0% 2015 0% 0% 2016 0% 0% 2017 0% 0% *2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014 Dubuque Street Garage Constructed 1980 Address 220 S. Dubuque Street Description Located on a parcel confined by Burlington Street to the south, Dubuque Street to the west, Linn Street to the east and the Sheraton Hotel to the north. Access This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Dubuque Street; one entry lanes off of Linn Street; and two exit lanes onto Dubuque Street. Spaces 625 Monthly Permits 310 Rates Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free Monthly $80.00 per month Changes in Dubuque Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years: *2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014 Chauncey Swan Garage Constructed Address Description Access Spaces Monthly Permits Rates 1993 415 E. Washington Street Located on a parcel confined by College Street to the south, Van Buren Street to the east, Gilbert Street to the west and Washington Street to the north. This is an automated facility with one entry/exit lane off of College Street; one entry/exit lane off of Washington Street; and one entry/exit lane through the Recreation Center parking lot onto Burlington Street. 475 380 Hourly $0.75 per hour Monthly $80.00 per month Changes in Chauncey Swan Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years: Hourly Monthly 2008 0% 0% 2009 0% 0% 2010 0% 23% 2011 0% 0% 2012 0% 0% 2013 0% 0% 2014* 33% 0% 2015 0% 0% 2016 0% 0% 2017 0% 0% *2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014 Chauncey Swan Garage Constructed Address Description Access Spaces Monthly Permits Rates 1993 415 E. Washington Street Located on a parcel confined by College Street to the south, Van Buren Street to the east, Gilbert Street to the west and Washington Street to the north. This is an automated facility with one entry/exit lane off of College Street; one entry/exit lane off of Washington Street; and one entry/exit lane through the Recreation Center parking lot onto Burlington Street. 475 380 Hourly $0.75 per hour Monthly $80.00 per month Changes in Chauncey Swan Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years: Hourly Monthly 2008 0% 0% 2009 0% 0% 2010 0% 17% 2011 0% 14% 2012 0% 0% 2013 0% 0% 2014 25% 0% 2015 0% 0% 2016 0% 0% 2017 0% 0% Tower Place Garage Constructed Address Description Access Spaces Monthly Permits Rates 2001 335 E. Iowa Avenue Located on a parcel confined by Iowa City Senior Center to the south, Gilbert Street to the east, Linn Street to the west and Iowa Avenue to the north. This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Iowa Avenue; three exit lanes onto Iowa Avenue; and secured permit -only entry and exit off of Gilbert Street. 510 210 Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free Monthly $80.00 per month Changes in Tower Place Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years: *2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014 Harrison Street Garage Constructed 2017 Address 175 E. Harrison Street Description Located on a parcel confined by Harrison Street to the north, Sabin Townhomes to the east, Prentiss St to the south, and MidWest One to the west. Access This is an automated facility with one entry lane and two exit lanes off of Harrison Street. Spaces 600 Monthly Permits 293 Rates Hourly $0.75 per hour Monthly $85.00 per month Changes in Harrison Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years: Hourly Monthly 2017* 100% 100% *Garage was opened in fiscal year 2017. Hourly Monthly 2008 0% 0% 2009 0% 0% 2010 0% 7% 2011 0% 0% 2012 0% 0% 2013 0% 0% 2014* 33% 0% 2015 0% 0% 2016 0% 0% 2017 0% 0% *2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014 Harrison Street Garage Constructed 2017 Address 175 E. Harrison Street Description Located on a parcel confined by Harrison Street to the north, Sabin Townhomes to the east, Prentiss St to the south, and MidWest One to the west. Access This is an automated facility with one entry lane and two exit lanes off of Harrison Street. Spaces 600 Monthly Permits 293 Rates Hourly $0.75 per hour Monthly $85.00 per month Changes in Harrison Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years: Hourly Monthly 2017* 100% 100% *Garage was opened in fiscal year 2017. On -Street Parking Meters: The City operates short-term meters (1-2 hours) concentrated in the core of the downtown. These meters are intended for shopper's use. Each parking meter dial states the maximum time. Longer term meters become more common away from the core downtown area. Meters 1,174 Rates Hourly $0.75 - $1.50 per hour based on proximity to the central business district and usage. Parking Lots: The City operates seven parking lots in the Central Business District. They consist of a mix of permit spaces and metered spaces. Spaces 460 Monthly Permits 150 Rates Hourly $0.75 - $1.50 per hour based on proximity to the central business district and usage. Monthly $65.00 per month Moped Parking: FY12 saw the implementation of a parking permit program for mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles. Spaces were designated throughout the Central Business District to accommodate the use of mopeds and scooters while also removing them from parking in bicycle racks. Spaces 150 Total Annual Permits 736 Rates Annual $90.00 per year Financial Information: The following table summarizes the results of operations for the Parking System for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. PARKING SYSTEM STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) *The 2015 beginning balance was restated from implementation of GASB 68. 2017 2016 2015 Operating Revenues: Charges for services $ 5,453 $ 5,438 $ 5,502 Miscellaneous 41 40 82 Total operating revenues 5,494 5,478 5,584 Operating Expenses: Personal services 1,767 1,781 1,465 Commodities 621 578 106 Services and charges 1,295 1,304 2,257 3,683 3,663 3,828 Depreciation 880 808 798 Total operating expenses 4,563 4,471 4,626 Operating income 931 1,007 958 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets - 2,450 - Interest income 37 37 36 Interest expense (134) - (77) Total nonop crating revenues (expenses) (97) 2,487 (41) Income before special item 834 3,494 917 Special item: Payment to refunded bond escrow - - (574) Change in net assets 834 3,494 343 Net Position, Beginning* 21,231 17,737 17,394 Net Position, Fading $ 22,065 $ 21,231 $ 17,737 *The 2015 beginning balance was restated from implementation of GASB 68. The following table summarizes the budget and actual figures for the Parking System for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 and the budget for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 on a modified accrual basis. PARKING SYSTEM BUDGET AND ACTUALS (MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS) For the Year Ended June 30, 2017 (amounts expressed in thousands) The following table summarizes the Parking System funds on hand for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. PARKING SYSTEM FUNDS ON HAND (CASH AND INVESTMENTS) Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2017 2016 2015 Operating Funds $ 11,896 $ 10,944 $ 4,238 Restricted and Designated Funds 1 387 386 Total Funds on Hand $ 11,897 $ 11,331 $ 4,624 FY18 Actual Budget Percentage Budget Charges for services $ 5,453 $ 5,567 97.95% $ 5,934 Interest income 37 35 105.71% 35 Miscellaneous 40 79 50.63% 35 Total Receipts $ 5,530 $ 5,681 97.34% $ 6,004 Personal services $ 1,358 $ 1,612 84.24% $ 1,643 Commodities 63 31 203.23% 36 Services and charges 1,682 1,901 88.48% 2,372 Capital outlay 640 1,166 54.89% 1,056 Interfund Loan Repayment 228 228 100.00% 235 Debt service payments 1,101 - 0.00% 3,115 Total Disbursements $ 5,072 $ 4,938 102.71% $ 8,457 The following table summarizes the Parking System funds on hand for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015. PARKING SYSTEM FUNDS ON HAND (CASH AND INVESTMENTS) Last Three Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2017 2016 2015 Operating Funds $ 11,896 $ 10,944 $ 4,238 Restricted and Designated Funds 1 387 386 Total Funds on Hand $ 11,897 $ 11,331 $ 4,624 Urban Renewal Area: CITY — UNIVERSITY PROJECT I The City, acting under the authority of Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa, has established an urban renewal area designated as "City - University Project I Urban Renewal Area" (the "Urban Renewal Area") designed to implement their comprehensive plan. Description of CITY — UNIVERSITY PROJECT I Urban Renewal Plan/Area On October 2, 1969, the Iowa City Council adopted Resolution No. 2157 approving the City - University Project I Urban Renewal Plan (Project No. IA R-14) which plan has been modified and amended from time to time (said plan, as amended, is hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Renewal Plan" or "Plan"). The Urban Renewal Area is located in the heart of City's downtown. The northern edge of the original area consists of part of Washington Street with the western edge consisting of the eastern bank of the Iowa River. The southern edge consisted of a part of Court Street to the eastern edge which ran to Linn Street. In 2001, the original urban renewal area was expanded north to Iowa Ave, south to Prentiss Street and east to Gilbert Street. In 2012, the amended urban renewal area was extended south of the existing boundaries. In 2016, the amended urban renewal area was expanded to include a one block area bounded by Iowa Avenue on the north, Van Buren Street on the East, Washington Street on the South and Gilbert Street on the West. The original Urban Renewal Area is classified as a blighted area and does not have a sunset or expiration date. The 2001 amended urban renewal area has, at a minimum, a twenty year life and will expire after fiscal year 2023-24. The 2012 amended urban renewal area is classified as a blighted area and does not have a sunset or expiration date. The 2016 amended urban renewal area will expire, at a minimum, twenty years from the calendar year following the calendar year in which the City first certifies debt for the amended area. The objectives of the Plan called for the City to undertake a program for the clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation to enhance and promote the economic development within the Urban Renewal Area. Through the implementation of the Plan, the City's overall goal is to develop and redevelop the Urban Renewal Area; to stimulate through public action and commitments, private investment which creates employment and increases to the tax base within the City. In general, tax increment revenues from an Urban Renewal Area are determined annually by multiplying the aggregate of all local taxes, excluding the portion of the overall tax rate associated with debt service, physical plant and equipment and the instructional support program levies applicable to the taxable valuation of all property within the Urban Renewal Area, by the aggregate difference ("Tax Increment Valuation Available") between the current taxable valuation and the original taxable valuation upon creation of the Urban Renewal Area. In general, the original taxable valuation reflects the valuation upon creation of the Urban Renewal Area (the "Frozen Base Valuation"). Johnson County (the "County") collects the real estate taxes and distributes the Tax Increment Revenues to the City to use for repayment of the urban renewal revenue bonds. Tax Increment Revenues are generally distributed by the County to the City in the months of October and April of each calendar year. TOP TAXPAYERS LOCATED WITHIN URBAN RENEWAL AREA Taxpayer MIDWESTONE BANK RBD IOWA CITY LLC OC GROUP LC PLAZA TOWERS LLC MOEN, MARC B FIRST NATIONAL BANK IOWA CITY 100-500 LLC ICF LLC CENTER CITY LLC COURT STREET APARTMENTS LLC Total (1) The Total Taxable Valuation in the Urban Renewal Area for 1/1/2015 for fiscal year 2016-17 is $342,890,955. FY2016/17 Taxable % of Total Classification Valuation Taxable Valuations (1) Financial Institution $ 12,902,535 3.76% Sheraton Hotel 11,579,832 3.38% Old Capital Mall 8,968,986 2.62% Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 8,087,115 2.36% Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 7,491,452 2.18% Financial Institution 6,906,951 2.01% Residential Condo Rentals 6,795,112 1.98% Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 6,660,466 1.94% Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 6,414,733 1.87% Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 6,037,026 1.76% $ 81,844,208 23.87% (1) The Total Taxable Valuation in the Urban Renewal Area for 1/1/2015 for fiscal year 2016-17 is $342,890,955. TAX INCREMENT TAX RATES Total City Tax Rate City Debt Service Iowa City CSD Debt Service Iowa City CSD PPEL Iowa City CSD ISPL Kirkwood Debt Service Johnson County Debt Service Tax Increment Tax Rate Iowa City Downtown SSMID (2) Tax Increment Tax Rate in SSMID FY2009-10 FY2010-11 FY2011-12 FY2012-13 FY2013-14(1) FY2014-15(1) FY2015-16(1) FY2016-17(1) $ 40.59569 $ 40.91519 $ 40.75369 $ 39.49917 $ 38.63862 $ 38.52756 $ 38.81115 $ 38.74878 (4.21934) (4.43847) (4.64901) (4.44287) (4.02965) (4.12963) (3.92833) (3.82846) (0.78674) (0.72701) (0.74900) (0.69729) (0.63500) (0.59831) (0.58612) (0.55017) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (0.12405) (0.08550) (0.08991) (0.07069) (0.15908) (0.18561) (0.20000) (0.20000) (0.20000) (0.20000) (0.27005) (0.21003) (0.69680) (0.59533) (0.47402) (0.62813) (1.61074) (2.05908) (1.77673) (2.00829) $ 33.06373 $ 33.29877 $ 33.01166 $ 31.86088 $ 30.36918 $ 29.78504 $ 30.49001 $ 30.41114 2.00000 2.00000 2.00000 2.00000 2.00000 $ 33.86088 $ 32.36918 $ 31.78504 $ 32.49001 $ 32.41114 (1) Any urban renewal area created after April 24, 2012, will not be eligible to receive the benefits of the local school district's instruction support levy (ISPL) tax revenues, unless the ISPL is necessary to pay principal and interest on the urban renewal debt and the school passes a special resolution approving such use of the revenues. Urban renewal debt incurred on or before April 24, 2012, may receive the benefit of ISPL tax revenues for fiscal year 2013-14 and following only if the ISPL is necessary to pay principal and interest on the urban renewal area debt and the city certifies to the school district by July 1 of each fiscal year, beginning July 1, 2013. The school district must then pay those amounts during that fiscal year (Nov. 1 and May 1) back to the City's urban renewal fund. (2) In fiscal year 2012-13, the City created a Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) within a portion of the Urban Renewal Area. The tax levy for the SSMID increases the tax increment rate but is only applied to certain properties when the County is apportioning the tax increment revenue request. HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED TAXABLE VALUATIONS WITHIN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA (1) Total taxable valuation available for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urban Renewal Area. Total taxable value increased in fiscal year 2013-14 due to 2012 Amended Area of the Urban Renewal Area. (2) Taxable value frozen base decreases due to commercial and industrial rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2014-15 and multi -residential rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2016-17. Taxable Total Taxable Taxable New Taxable New Taxable Valuation Taxable Assessment Fiscal Taxable Value Valuation Valuation Valuation Available for Valuation Date Year Value 1 Frozen Base (2) Available Park P 201 Chauncv Certification Certified 1/1/2010 FY 2012 195,540,284 89,677,074 105,863,210 0 0 105,863,210 0 1/1/2011 FY 2013 199,993,156 90,475,486 109,517,670 0 0 109,517,670 3,925,401 1/1/2012 FY 2014 306,901,127 196,103,957 110,797,170 0 0 110,797,170 9,358,858 1/1/2013 FY 2015 316,944,391 178,306,881 138,637,510 2,880,000 0 141,517,510 16,477,686 1/1/2014 FY 2016 309,883,790 159,027,124 150,856,666 6,041,734 0 156,898,400 17,156,898 1/1/2015 FY 2017 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 0 195,411,197 25,360,541 1/1/2016 FY 2018 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 0 195,411,197 6,818,061 1/1/2017 FY 2019 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 0 195,411,197 19,378,918 1/1/2018 FY 2020 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 0 195,411,197 19,454,549 1/1/2019 FY 2021 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 16,345,771 211,756,968 19,357,873 1/1/2020 FY 2022 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 30,128,234 225,539,431 51,148,198 1/1/2021 FY 2023 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 30,128,234 225,539,431 50,081,812 1/1/2022 FY 2024 336,428,957 147,479,758 188,949,199 6,461,998 30,128,234 225,539,431 48,842,135 1/1/2023 FY 2025 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 47,761,939 1/1/2024 FY 2026 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 46,836,291 1/1/2025 FY 2027 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 41,784,853 1/1/2026 FY 2028 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 37,662,679 1/1/2027 FY 2029 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 37,403,892 1/1/2028 FY 2030 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 37,283,048 1/1/2029 FY 2031 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 37,135,241 1/1/2030 FY 2032 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 37,122,910 1/1/2031 FY 2033 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 30,163,289 1/1/2032 FY 2034 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 30,181,374 1/1/2033 FY 2035 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 30,174,798 1/1/2034 FY 2036 238,069,229 105,456,210 132,613,019 6,461,998 30,128,234 169,203,251 30,143,559 (1) Total taxable valuation available for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urban Renewal Area. Total taxable value increased in fiscal year 2013-14 due to 2012 Amended Area of the Urban Renewal Area. (2) Taxable value frozen base decreases due to commercial and industrial rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2014-15 and multi -residential rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2016-17. TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW AND ANTICIPATE DEBT COVERAGE (1) Tota I taxable valuation ava ilable for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urba n Renewal Area. (2) The tax increment rate in fiscal year 2013-14 reflects the loss of the local school district's instruction support levy (ISPL) of $.12405 due to recent legislative changes. TIF tax rate does not include the SSM ID levy rate of $2.00 per $1,000 of value. Starting in fiscal year 2012-13, a portion of the taxable valuation certified will be at the higher rate due to its location in the SSM ID. (3) The available tax increment revenues do not reflect an estimate for the portion of the available valuation that would be taxed at the higher SSMID rate. (4) The balance includes TIF reserve fund of $207,845. Taxable Valuation Taxable Available Certified 2012D TIF 2016E TIF Other Total Annual Ending Available Requested Assessment Fiscal Availa ble for Valuation TIF Tax Increment Tax Increment Other Total Revenue Revenue TIF TIF Surplus/ Cash Debt Debt Date Year Certification (1) Certified Tax Rate (2) Revenues (3) RevenuesRevenues es0 Revenues es0 Bonds Bonds Debt Debt Deficit Balance (4) Coverae Coverage 1/1/2010 FY 2012 105,863,210 0 33.01166 3,494,720 0 0 0 0 0 0 662,510 n.a. n.a. 1/1/2011 FY 2013 109,517,670 3,925,401 31.86088 3,489,329 128,072 31,795 159,867 0 0 159,867 159,867 0 662,510 n.a. n.a. 1/1/2012 FY 2014 110,797,170 9,358,858 30.36918 3,364,819 289,650 148 289,798 75,335 0 214,315 289,650 148 662,658 44.66 1.55 1/1/2013 FY 2015 141,517,510 16,477,686 29.78504 4,215,105 502,339 5,090 507,429 75,335 0 427,004 502,339 5,090 667,748 55.95 1.05 1/1/2014 FY 2016 156,898,400 17,156,898 30.49001 4,783,834 532,776 2,434 535,210 205,335 0 172,256 377,591 157,619 825,367 23.30 1.00 1/1/2015 FY 2017 195,411,197 25,360,541 30.41114 5,942,677 805,965 0 805,965 204,035 0 307,715 511,750 294,215 1,119,582 29.13 1.00 1/1/2016 FY 2018 195,411,197 6,818,061 30.41114 5,942,677 207,345 0 207,345 207,345 0 0 207,345 0 1,119,582 28.66 1.00 1/1/2017 FY 2019 195,411,197 19,378,918 30.41114 5,942,677 589,335 0 589,335 205,185 384,150 0 589,335 0 1,119,582 10.08 1.00 1/1/2018 FY 2020 195,411,197 19,454,549 30.41114 5,942,677 591,635 0 591,635 207,485 384,150 0 591,635 0 1,119,582 10.04 1.00 1/1/2019 FY 2021 211,756,968 19,357,873 30.41114 6,439,771 588,695 0 588,695 204,545 384,150 0 588,695 0 1,119,582 10.94 1.00 1/1/2020 FY 2022 225,539,431 51,148,198 30.41114 6,858,911 1,555,475 0 1,555,475 206,325 1,349,150 0 1,555,475 0 1,119,582 4.41 1.00 1/1/2021 FY 2023 225,539,431 50,081,812 30.41114 6,858,911 1,523,045 0 1,523,045 207,845 1,315,200 0 1,523,045 0 1,119,582 4.50 1.00 1/1/2022 FY 2024 225,539,431 48,842,135 30.41114 6,858,911 1,485,345 0 1,485,345 203,945 1,281,400 0 1,485,345 0 1,119,582 4.62 1.00 1/1/2023 FY 2025 169,203,251 47,761,939 30.41114 5,145,664 1,452,495 0 1,452,495 204,745 1,247,750 0 1,452,495 0 1,119,582 3.54 1.00 1/1/2024 FY 2026 169,203,251 46,836,291 30.41114 5,145,664 1,424,345 0 1,424,345 205,095 1,219,250 0 1,424,345 0 1,119,582 3.61 1.00 1/1/2025 FY 2027 169,203,251 41,784,853 30.41114 5,145,664 1,270,725 0 1,270,725 204,975 1,065,750 0 1,270,725 0 1,119,582 4.05 1.00 1/1/2026 FY 2028 169,203,251 37,662,679 30.41114 5,145,664 1,145,365 0 1,145,365 204,365 941,000 0 1,145,365 0 1,119,582 4.49 1.00 1/1/2027 FY 2029 169,203,251 37,403,892 30.41114 5,145,664 1,137,495 0 1,137,495 203,245 934,250 0 1,137,495 0 1,119,582 4.52 1.00 1/1/2028 FY 2030 169,203,251 37,283,048 30.41114 5,145,664 1,133,820 0 1,133,820 206,770 927,050 0 1,133,820 0 1,119,582 4.54 1.00 1/1/2029 FY 2031 169,203,251 37,135,241 30.41114 5,145,664 1,129,325 0 1,129,325 204,925 924,400 0 1,129,325 0 1,119,582 4.56 1.00 1/1/2030 FY 2032 169,203,251 37,122,910 30.41114 5,145,664 1,128,950 0 1,128,950 207,800 921,150 0 1,128,950 0 1,119,582 4.56 1.00 1/1/2031 FY 2033 169,203,251 30,163,289 30.41114 5,145,664 917,300 0 917,300 0 917,300 0 917,300 0 1,119,582 5.61 1.00 1/1/2032 FY 2034 169,203,251 30,181,374 30.41114 5,145,664 917,850 0 917,850 0 917,850 0 917,850 0 1,119,582 5.61 1.00 1/1/2033 FY 2035 169,203,251 30,174,798 30.41114 5,145,664 917,650 0 917,650 0 917,650 0 917,650 0 1,119,582 5.61 1.00 1/1/2034 FY 2036 169,203,251 30,143,559 30.41114 5,145,664 916,700 0 916,700 0 916,700 0 916,700 0 1,119,582 5.61 1.00 (1) Tota I taxable valuation ava ilable for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urba n Renewal Area. (2) The tax increment rate in fiscal year 2013-14 reflects the loss of the local school district's instruction support levy (ISPL) of $.12405 due to recent legislative changes. TIF tax rate does not include the SSM ID levy rate of $2.00 per $1,000 of value. Starting in fiscal year 2012-13, a portion of the taxable valuation certified will be at the higher rate due to its location in the SSM ID. (3) The available tax increment revenues do not reflect an estimate for the portion of the available valuation that would be taxed at the higher SSMID rate. (4) The balance includes TIF reserve fund of $207,845. 01=1i=18- IP11 City of Iowa City 2017 Building Statistics Value/Type of Construction January February March April May June I July August September October November December TOTAL NON-TAXABL Single Family -$ 1,097,961 2,881,070 5,131,279 4,283,204 4,695,238 1,531,000 3,670,230 4,560,351 4,408,689 4,962,919 2,968,365 1,020,000 41,430,306 Number of Permits 5 11 20 17 19 6 15 17 15 19 10 3 157 Duplex -$ 595,000 330,000 1,000,000 1,925,000 Numberof Permits 1 1 2 4 Sororities 8 Fraternities- $ Number of Permits Multiple Units 2,204,000 1,680,000 5,500,000 5,045,000 600,000 6,878,000 5,765,000 1,240,000 28,912,000 Numberof Permits 4 3 1181(found 1 428, I(foundation) 282(found 22 Number of Buildings 4 3 1 1 1 4 2 2 18 Number of Dwelling Units 16 12 36 36 4 57 34 1 8 203 Mix- Commerdal/Res,denbal 4,985,000 12,000,000 72,000 205,000 6,342,000 3,962,000 1,768,500 29,334,500 Number of Permits I(foundation) 1 1(foundatio 1(foundatio 1 181(found 1(foundation 8 Number of Buildings 1 1 1 3 Number of Dwelling units 60 54 36 150 Motels, Hotels - $ Number of Permits Churches -$ 10,000 10,000 10,000 Number of Permits 1 1 Industrial -$ 1,287,000 126,300 1,203,663 60,000 600,000 3,276,963 Number of Permits 1 1 1 l(foundatio 1 5 Service Stations - $ Number of Permits Hospitals 8 Institutions - $ Number of Permits Offices, Banks. Prof. - $ Number of Permits Public Works 8 Utilities - $ 19,OOD 19,000 19,000 Number of Permits 1 1 Schools -$ 775,000 120,000 895,000 895,000 Number of Permits 1 1 2 Stares B Customer Svc. -$ 1 1,672,813 37,000 1,709,813 Number of Permits 1 1 1 2 Misc. Stmctures/Fences -$ 65 579,000 110,000 24,0001 60,0001 773,065 Number of Permits 1 3 1 1 1 7 Remodel, Residential -$ 6,384,201 462,198 602,534 1,106,023 733,542 10,840,926 427,200 858,727 2,112,514 373,832 477,285 339,195 24,718,177 Number of Permits 52 18 28 22 30 48 27 38 50 28 21 10 372 Remodel, Commercial -$ 486,469 332,928 909,225 743,320 2,111,543 9,530,725 544,296 13,287,690 1,565,285 495,434 1,540,960 51,400,162 82,948,037 24,000,60D Number of Permits 10 6 4 8 12 7 11 16 8 8 9 6 105 Remodel, Public Works -$ 1,550 37,280 38,830 1,550 Number of Permits 1 1 2 Accessory Structures 5,000 13,500 130,000 66,375 71,624 33,000 224,709 3,000 67,500 97,000 80,614 35,000 827,322 132,000 Number of Permits 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 4 5 2 1 28 Condo Conversion - No Value 1 1 2 TOTAL VALUE 12,958,631 7;180,761 21.627,038 6,318,922 13.460.947i27,054,201 5,871,435 32,724,768 14,045,288 12,977,661 7,030,004 55,634,357 276,818,013 25,058,150 TOTAL PERMITS 70 43 61 52 67 67 59 78 81 66 47 27 718 Demolition: Residential units lost 1 21 1 2 21 31 1 1 10 01- IP12 Kellie Fruehling From: Barbara Vinograde <bvinograde@freemedicalclinic.org> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 1:07 PM To: Council Subject: You are invited! Dear Iowa City Council Members, You are invited to an Open House at the Iowa City Free Clinic, on Friday, January 26th, from 4 to 6 pml Please join us as we celebrate a new partnership with the University of Iowa College of Nursing! Our two organizations have come together to hold Nurse Practitioner -led chronic and acute care clinics for the uninsured in our community, and to provide training for nurse practitioner students. The Nurse Practitioner Clinic is sponsored by an anonymous donor and will be in operation for one year, with a possible second year extension. Help us celebrate this new endeavor that increases accessibility to needed care, and improves the lives of uninsured people in Iowa City! Sincerely, Barbara Vinograde Executive Director 319-337-9727 •ems ••e0 C0000000AA a• �.% 4b 4b IOWA I NURSING freemedical8�deIOWA CIT, lA ntalcinic • ;� -TI --"-2r8 IP13 Kellie Fruehling From: Sarah Cupp <smcupp0902@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:43 AM To: Peggy Loveless Subject: February Mental Health First Aid Class Attachments: MHFAflyer_Feb12-14_2018CPL.pdf; Overview MHFA Class.doc Hello, Enrollment is still open for an upcoming Mental Health First Aide Class on Monday, February 12th and Wednesday, February 14th from 12:30-5:30pmat the Coralville Public Library. Please sign up soon if interested, we will offer other classes this spring and summer. Please see attached flyer and help us spread the word. The class is offered at no cost thanks to the Mental Health & Disability Services of the East Central Region. Registration is required, to sign up email the instructor Peggy Loveless at mhedspecialfsts@amail.com. Continuing Education Credits are available through Kirkwood upon request, please let Peggy know in advance if you would like to receive CELls. Adult Mental Health First Aid Class Monday, February 12th and Wednesday, February 14th 12:30 pm -- 5:30 pm Coralville Public Library: 14015th St, Coralville, IA 52241 Classes are offered at no cost Sponsored by Mental Health & Disability Services of the East Central Region What is Mental Health First Aid? The Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) program is an interactive 8 -hour certification class that introduces participants to risk factors and warning signs of mental health problems, builds understanding of their impact, and overviews common treatments. Specifically, participants learn: • The potential risk factors and warning signs for a range of mental health problems, including: depression, anxiety/trauma, psychosis and psychotic disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and self -injury, • An understanding of the prevalence of various mental health disorders in the U.S. and the need for reduced stigma in their communities, A 5 -step action plan encompassing the skills, resources and knowledge to assess the situation, to select and implement appropriate interventions, and to help the individual in crisis connect with appropriate professional care, • The appropriate professional, peer, social, and self-help resources available to help someone with a mental health problem. Similar to CPR, you will become certified as a Mental Health First Aider. Who should become a Mental Health First Aider? All of the following will probably be in church congregations— so all applyl Rather than list all below, I would say— everyone from your churchlsynagogueltemple%tc. because they include (use following list) Participants for each training vary, but include hospitals and federally qualified health centers, state policymakers, employers and chambers of commerce, faith communities, school personnel, state police and corrections staff, nursing home staff, mental health authorized support staff, young people, families, and the general public. More Information on this Evidence Based Class hftps://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/cs/ Thankyou, Peggy Loveless, Ph.D. Mental Health Education Specialists Mental Health First Aid Trainer 13 Riverview Drive NE Iowa City, IA 52240 319.530.9847 Show your support by liking our facebook page MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID CLASS \S% You are more likely to encounter someone in an emotional or mental crisis than someone having a heart attack. MENTAL Anyone can take the Mental Health First Aid course — from professionals to caring H RATA H community members. Sometimes, first aid isn't a bandage, or CPR, or the Heimlich, or calling 911. Sometimes, first aid is YOU! Someoneyou know could be experiencing a mental illness or crisis. You can help them. Mental Health First Aid teaches a 5 -step action plan to offer initial help to people with the signs and symptoms of a mental illness or in a crisis, and connect them with the appropriate professional, peer, social, or self help care. Anyone can talo Mental Health First Aid including primary care professionals, nurses, educators, nurse educators, social workers, state policymakers, volunteers, families, and the general public. Sometimes, the best first aid is you. Take the course, save a life, strengthen your community. MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID TRAINING Feb 12 & 14, 2018; 12:30 to 5:30; Coralville Public Library Attendance at all classes are required to be certified and earn CEUs Instructor., Peggy Loveless, Ph.D., Mental Health Education Specialists PRE -ENROLLMENT IS REQUIREDM Contact: Peggy Loveless: mhecispecialists(ftmail.com; Phone: 319.530.9847 NO COST TO PARTICIPANTS — SPONSORED BY as__A_1 "-anniDisabilmes Services of the East Central Region .: �• ALGEE, the Men tal Health First Aid Action Plan Assess for risk of suicide or harm FULL ATTENDANCE AT BOTH CLASSES IS MANDATORY TO EARN A Listen nonjudgmentally CERTIFICATE OR CEUs. Give reassurance and information CEUs/CEHs: Approved for nurses 0.89 CEUs through Kirkwood Community College, IBN Provider #30. Social workers will receive a certificate of Encourage appropnate professional help completion for 8.9 contact hours. Other allied health professionals are advised Encourage sell -help and other support strategies to consult the governing rules of their boards to determine if appropriate subject matter criteria will apply. A course evaluation will be available upon program completion. What is Mental Health First Aid? The Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) program is an interactive 8 -hour certification class that introduces participants to risk factors and warning signs of mental health problems, builds understanding of their impact, and overviews common treatments. Specifically, participants learn: • The potential risk factors and warning signs for a range of mental health problems, including: depression, anxiety/trauma, psychosis and psychotic disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and self -injury, • An understanding of the prevalence of various mental health disorders in the U.S. and the need for reduced stigma in their communities, • A 5 -step action plan encompassing the skills, resources and knowledge to assess the situation, to select and implement appropriate interventions, and to help the individual in crisis connect with appropriate professional care, • The appropriate professional, peer, social, and self-help resources available to help someone with a mental health problem. Similar to CPR, you will become certified as a Mental Health First Aider Who should become a Mental Health First Aider? All of the following will probably be in church congregations — so all applyl Rather than list all below, I would say— everyone from your church/synagogue/temple%tc. because they include (use following list) Participants for each training vary, but include hospitals and federally qualified health centers, state policymakers, employers and chambers of commerce, faith communities, school personnel, state police and corrections staff, nursing home staff, mental health authorized support staff, young people, families, and the general public. Like Us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mentalhealthfirstaideasterniowa/?ref=aymt homepage panel More Information on this Evidence Based Class htti)s://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/cs/ _._ "". ____ '".. 01 -11 -Its IP14 ,r ra.ar� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington 5trcct lova City. lows 52240-1526 43 1 9J 3S6-5000 13191 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org January8, 2018 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Parking Enforcement Attendant 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 Parking Enforcement Attendant. =wc7 L Steven Fortmann Brenner Gibson William Radl IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra . Dickerson, Chair Jim UlcKerson, PPA Golf December 29, 2017 319-351-0596 p.1 ul ILK tr �� CITY OF IOWA CITY 910 East Washington Street 101va City, tan•a 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319)356-5009 FAX Wt%-WAcgov.org TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Refuse 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. I — Refuse. Daniel lannucci IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION LyrapV. Dickerson, Chair -7r-T— IP16 ccccw_i° z N.• Mom CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319)356-5000 (319)356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org December 14, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Associate Planner — Community Development 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 Associate Planner — Community Development. Kirk Lehmann IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra V. Dickerson, Chair z.e Kellie Fruehlin From: City of Iowa City <CityoflowaCity@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 3:02 PM Late Handouts Distributed To: Kellie Fruehling Subject: Attend the 35th annual Historic Preservation awards ` O SHARE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. (Date) 10WACITY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: 01 /11/2018 Contact: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Phone: 319-356-5243 Attend the 35th annual Historic Preservation awards Each year, the City's Historic Preservation Commission and the Friends of Historic Preservation host a recognition program to acknowledge property owners, consultants, contractors, craftspersons, and community organizations for their preservation efforts and completion of historically appropriate projects. This year marks the program's 35th year. It will be held from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018, at the Iowa City Public Library's Meeting Room A, 123 S. Linn St. Light refreshments will be served beginning at 5 p.m. There is no cost to attend and all are welcome. Residential and commercial properties will be recognized in several award categories including, Paint and Exterior Finishes; Rehabilitation; and Additions and New Construction. This program is sponsored by MidWest One Bank. For more information about the ceremony, contact Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Bristow at 319-356-5243 or iessica-bristow(a)iowa-citv.org. To learn more about it historic preservation in Iowa City, visit www.icgov.org/historicoreservation. F C Pwf%j �M% Questions? .rte_ Contact Us CITY OF IOWA CITY UNEscocm OF MUTATIIM STAY CONNECTED: Q H © ® ® T SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe I Heir) This email was sent to kellie-fruehling@iowa-city.org using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Iowa City .410 E Washington Street - Iowa City, IA 52240 _71-M$- IP17 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 13, 2017 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Bryce Parker, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sylvia Bochner, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Donovan Trana, Becci Reedus CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Soglin outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed during the meeting. CONSIDER THE OCTOBER 11, 2017 MINUTES: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of October 11, 2017 with revisions discussed. Goeb seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC17-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Donovan Trana for a special exception to reduce the front principal setback requirement to allow a non -required parking space in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone single-family zone located at 2205 D St. Bochner presented the staff report noting this property is located on a corner lot with frontage on D Street and 2nd Avenue. The applicant would like to construct additional parking on the west side of the property off of 211 Avenue. Bochner stated that the Single-family Site Development Standards do allow for the construction of up to three non -required parking spaces within the front principle dwelling setback provided that the driveway leads directly to a parking space that is not located In the front principle setback. With this property the applicant would have the right to construct a drive leading to a parking space located beyond the 15 -foot setback. The applicant is requesting a special exception to reduce the front setback to decrease the amount of paving for the drive/parking space. Bochner showed on the map that the majority of the proposed parking space would be located within the 15 -foot setback along 211 Avenue. Bochner explained that the decision facing the Board is not whether or not the applicant can build an additional drive and parking pad, the decision is whether he may reduce the length of the drive so that the parking space lies within the front principal setback. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2017 Page 2 of 7 The specific standards related to parking and setbacks focus on ensuring that the reduction won't be contrary to the intent of the setback regulations or harmful to surrounding properties. Bochner noted this case is somewhat unusual because it is a corner lot with principal front setbacks on both 2nd Avenue and D Street and it is also a small lot with no alley access. Bochner stated that the principal building setback regulations are meant to maintain light, air, privacy and fire protection access to buildings and reflect the building scale of the neighborhood. In this case, because no structures are proposed, the intent has more to do with more preventing vehicles from blocking sidewalks and preserving the residential and pedestrian character of the neighborhood. In this case, the special exception would not be contrary to those purposes; the reduction of the setback would provide parking for just one vehicle on a narrow 12 foot drive. Bochner pointed out that currently there is not a sidewalk on the 2nd Avenue frontage, but the City has installed a curb ramp on the corner of 2nd Avenue and D Street. If a sidewalk were to be installed in the future a vehicle would not obstruct that sidewalk if parked in the proposed parking space. Additionally this special exception would not change the character of the neighborhood as other homes in the neighborhood have their vehicle access from the street and not from an alley. Bochner stated that staff does recommend that the conditions specify that the setback reduction only applies to the storage of personal vehicles. The zoning code prohibits parking any vehicle longer than 20 feet (such as a RV, trailer, or boat) in the front setback; including this condition in the special exception would help with enforcement if there is ever an issue with storing anything other than a personal vehicle in the parking space. Bochner reviewed the general criteria for special exceptions and noted they deal more with public health, safety, comfort or general welfare and to ensure the special exception does not have negative consequences for neighboring properties or the general public. Staff has found that there are no safety concerns related to reducing the setback for the parking pad. Visibility is good in this location and would not be impacted by reducing the length of the driveway. Bochner reiterated that this portion of 2nd Avenue does not currently have a sidewalk but the City does plan to provide one in the future. Reduction of the setback will not affect that future sidewalk in this location. Because the proposed parking pad is accessed through a narrow 12 foot driveway staff believes there are no negative impacts on adjacent properties. Additionally the parking pad and driveway meet all other zoning requirements, a curb cut must be granted by the City Engineer to ensure the driveway meets separation standards from the adjacent driveway to the south and the intersection to the north. Staff recommends approval of EXC17-00009, an application for a reduction in the front principal setback for property located in the Low Density Single- Family (RS -5) zone at 2205 D Street subject to the flowing conditions: • The reduction in the setback is for the purpose of installing a driveway and parking pad only. • Substantial compliance with the site plan provided, with the parking area extending 20'8" from the front property line on 2nd Avenue. • This parking area shall be limited to the storage of personal vehicles only. No storage of recreational vehicles or other items within this area. Weitzel asked about the parking situation in the neighborhood, is it difficult to park on the street? Bochner noted there is street parking available and this property also has a driveway leading to an attached one -car garage from D Street. Parker asked if there was a timeline for the installation of the sidewalk. Walz stated the curb ramp was installed recently and the City has an infill sidewalk program to fill in sidewalks in places where they are not as time and resources are available. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Soglin opened the public hearing. Donovan Trana (2205 D Street) appreciates the Board's consideration because the streets in that area vary in width, parking is allowed on both sides of the street making it sometimes hard to get through and there are a lot of cars with mirrors missing which makes it concerning to park on the street. Soglin closed the public hearing Goeb noted this sounds like a reasonable request and a valid solution Weitzel noted it does reduce the ground cover in the yard but the applicant answered his question of why they need off street parking. Goeb recommends approval of EXC17-00009, an application for a reduction in the front principal setback from for property located in the Low Density Single- Family (RS -5) zone at 2205 D Street subject to the flowing conditions: • The reduction in the setback is for the purpose of installing a driveway and parking pad only. • Substantial compliance with the site plan provided, with the parking area extending 20'8" from the front property line on 2nd Avenue. • This parking area shall be limited to the storage of personal vehicles only. No storage of recreational vehicles or other items within this area. Parker seconded the motion. Goeb stated that regarding agenda item EXC17-00009 she concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of December 13, 2017, and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied. So unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Soglin stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC17-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by the Crisis Center of Johnson County to allow an expansion of a Community Service Use located in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone at 1121 Gilbert Court. Walz began the staff report showing the location of the property on a map, noting that other uses in the neighborhood include various other community service providers (Salvation Army, Mayors Youth Empowerment) and the Crisis Center itself is part of a social services campus with the adjacent building at 1105 Gilbert Court. The two properties function together in terms of parking and circulation, and clients often receives services from both buildings. The two buildings together provide 79 parking spaces and the circulation function between the two properties improves things for both properties. Walz explained that when the 1105 Gilbert Court Board of Adjustment December 13, 2017 Page 4 of 7 project went in a number of years ago the two sites were brought up to date in terms of parking layout, setbacks, bicycle parking, etc. Additionally they consolidated a curb cut which allowed for more on street parking which is in demand on Gilbert Court. Walz explained that the proposal before the Board is a small addition (vestibule area) for the Crisis Center. It will allow for reorientation of the interior of the building, due to the growth of the use of the Crisis Center and growth in the amount of fresh produce provided by local food producers which has created a need for additional cooler space. With regards to the criteria Walz noted that staff look at is if the exception will change the overall nature of the facility which in this case it is not. This will actually allow the facility to do what it does more efficiently, it will not disrupt the parking on the property, doesn't' change the vehicular circulation on the property or what is being done on the property. Staff recommends approval of EXC17-00010 an application for a General Community Service Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone at 1121 Gilbert Court, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan. • Dumpster should be screened from view of the street by solid or semi-solid fence enclosure. Parker asked about the total square footage of the existing building. Walz was unsure but thought the applicant could answer. Soglin asked about the pallets stacked around the building and where the pallets will go once the addition is built. Walz stated the applicant could address that question. Soglin opened the public hearing. Becci Reedus (Executive Director, Crisis Center) answered the pallet questions stating they would be taking one parking space and use that to store pallets. Reedus said that prior to the addition the building square footage is about 7200 square feet and will be close to 8000 with the addition. Reedus stated that due to the increase in clients this addition is needed. The warehouse was constructed in 2003 and in the time of 2003-2008 they served about 400-600 families per week and they are now well over 1000 families per week. In constructing the addition of the vestibule it will allow them to gut the existing warehouse and provide for more pallet space to store extra food. In addition to all the clients that come into the Center, they also operate eight mobile sites for food and one school site, and they need storage for the mobile food as well. Finally Reedus wanted to add that they currently only have one client bathroom in their facility and this addition will allow them to add a restroom and become up to Code. Goeb asked about the mobile sites and if they were indeed mobile or just off-site locations. Reedus said there is a mixture, they do one school site at Tate School and another pantry at Southeast Junior High, but others are operated off a straight-line truck that the lease from Table to Table. Parker asked about the number of families that visit the Crisis Center. Reedus said it is about 1000 families per week and probably about 6000 families in total per month and 13,000 to 14,000 individuals per year. Parker asked what the maximum number of people the Food Bank could feed. Reedus replied it is unknown, they have never turned anyone away. Soglin asked if they would have any way to distinguish the area where pallets will be stored Board of Adjustment December 13, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Reedus said they had not been asked to do so, but is something they could consider. She noted the space could be striped as a no parking space to alert visitors not to park there. Soglin closed the public hearing Parker asked if they reduce the parking by the one space for the pallets will there be any issue. Walz replied that the applicant is still well over their parking requirement. Chrischilles moves for approval of EXC17-00010 an application for a General Community Service Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone at 1121 Gilbert Court, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan. • Dumpster should be screened from view of the street by solid or semi-solid fence enclosure. Weitzel seconded the motion. Goeb stated that regarding agenda item EXC17-00010 she concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of December 13, 2017, and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied. So unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Soglin stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES: Walz noted that every year the Board reviews the procedural rules, one of which is the nomination of board chair and vice chair is in January so that agenda item will be executed next month. Walz stated that very the Board does not often update or change procedural rules, however ast year they updated the title of the City offices to the current title (changing Planning and Development Services to Neighborhood and Development),. The procedural rules also now note a number of reference materials that are available online rather than in paper form,. Most importantly the Board clarified some language in the Code regarding recusals and abstaining from votes. Goeb had a question regarding the recusals, she had recused herself last year from the discussions regarding the Kinnick House and if in the future if something comes up with that property (say a setback or driveway issue) would she need to recuse herself again. Dulek said what is important is that everyone that comes before the Board is greeted with an impartial Board so that is the decision each Board member has to make is if they can be impartial on the topic given previous opinions on matters. Walz noted that, in the ten years she has served the Board, that members have always exercised great caution and disclosed any perceived conflicts such that this has never been an issue. Walz discussed controversial applications and reminded the Board that, as with any application, they are not allowed to discuss application with anyone, including staff or the media. It is the Board of Adjustment December 13, 2017 Page 6 of 7 public hearing where all information should be shared and reviewed. Soglin suggested adding page numbers to the procedural document. Soglin also asked about Page 3 Article V regarding notice letters that go to any property owner within 300 feet of the subject property. Soglin asked whetheer renters of the properties could be notified. Walz said that staff had explored this, that notification is somewhat more complicated than it seems apartment numbers are not readily available. Staff posts the signs for this reason: that there may be other people in the neighborhood who have an interest in the property who will not be notified by mail. Walk indicated that the signs often generate more interest than the letters. Soglin also questioned Article VII under Records where it states the recordings shall be kept for a period of no less than six weeks. She noted there are times when the Board does not reconvene for eight or even twelve weeks. Walz said the six weeks is the procedural obligation but as far as she knows the recordings are kept for quite some time longer than the six weeks. NOMINATION AND SELECTION OF BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR: Walz explained that at the first meeting in the new year, a new chair and vice chair would be nominated and voted on. The tradition has long been to go with tenure, however that is not a requirement. She noted that Chrischilles and Goeb are the most tenured members. If either would like additional training or any guidance from staff, that is available. The nomination and vote is deferred to January meeting. Soglin thanked her fellow board members and staff for their service in the time she was on the board. Board members in turn thanked Soglin. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn this meeting. Chrischilles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD NAME TERM EXP. 12/14 1/11 4/12 5/10 6114 7/12 10/11 12111 PARKER, BRYCE 1/1/2022 -- X O/E X X O/E X X GOEB, CONNIE 1/1/2020 X X X X X O/E X X CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE 1/1/2019 X X X X X X X X SOGLIN, BECKY 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 1/1/2021 X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member -DST- IP18 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DECEMBER 14, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Anna Blaedel, Kate Corcoran, Jim Larew, David Rust, Jay Sigafoose, Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Discussions for landmark designations of the following properties: Bristow said that seven different potential landmark properties will be discussed. She stated that, for six of them at least, this began as a process in which the Commission was interested in being proactive instead of reactive and looking at what properties are historic that are not currently located within historic districts or conservation districts or are not currently local landmarks. Bristow said that the site inventory forms and historic surveys that have been done for many properties in town were reviewed. She said there was then a kind of reconnaissance survey to look at the properties individually. Bristow said the result was a list of properties that staff and a subcommittee of the Commission then performed further research on. Bristow said that recently, the list was then pinpointed down to six properties that are all brick, residential structures in town that are representative of the history of brick structures that we have in Iowa City. She stated that each property will have its own separate public hearing, and then anyone who would like to speak will have the opportunity. Bristow said that the properties will need to meet certain criteria. She said that the criteria for local landmark designation in Iowa City are based on the National Register criteria. Bristow said that National Register criteria are probably more stringent than the local criteria. She said that, for instance, National Register criteria frequently involve interiors in a way that local landmarks do not. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 2 of 20 Bristow said that all six of these properties meet criteria A and B. She said that criterion A is: significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. Bristow said that what is involved with most of these properties is architecture and culture. She said these properties have a specific style and history, and they speak to that. Bristow said that criterion B is: possessing an integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. She said that all of these properties are in their original locations, and they all have the hallmarks of the style that they were built in. Bristow said that any additions or changes do not tend to be something that disturbs that architectural character. Bristow added that each property also needs to meet one of the other criteria. She said that criterion C is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Bristow said that criterion D is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. She said that criterion E embodies the distinctive characteristics of a time period or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Bristow said that criterion F is: has yielded or may likely yield information important in pre-history or history. Bristow said that none of these properties meets criterion F. She said that is one of the criteria that is a little more difficult, locally, to achieve. Bristow said that, by local land-marking, the hope is to preserve the historic character of each of these properties. She said that there are incentives available for the homeowners along with that, primarily tax incentives. Bristow said that if the property is income-producing, there are both state and federal tax credits, and if the property is not income-producing, there are state tax credits available. She said that the City is going to work toward a tax-abatement program that would be through the County that the State has put forward as something that the counties are required to have available. Bristow stated that there are sometimes grants available. She said there is professional assistance for work that needs to be done. Bristow said there also some zoning incentives available if improvements are made to the property. Bristow showed a map produced in 2015 that shows where some of the surveys have been done. She said that some of the local landmarks have been added. Bristow showed the hatched area where a recent survey was completed and said that the boundaries are a little different than shown on the map. Bristow showed where the properties being discussed are starred on the map, specifically the six brick structures, with the North Dodge Street property being off the map. She added that the seventh property is actually a National Register property for which the owner would like to have a local landmark designation. 410 North Clinton Street. Bristow said that this property is the Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis House. She said it was built in 1865. Bristow said the property of most interest is the front structure, an Italianate house numbered 412. She said that the apartment addition on the back is numbered 410. Bristow HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 3 of 20 said that the entire property would be the local landmark designation, but the historic 412 is what this is really about. Bristow said this is an example of Italianate architecture. She said there are large windows on the first floor that go all the way to the porch floor. Bristow said similarly there is a larger central window over the main door. Bristow said that the roofline, as one can see from the side, is a very low gable. She said it has Italianate-style brackets that would typically be found on a really wide cornice but on this house are not. Bristow said they are just paired brackets, which makes this a little bit more unique. She said this house appears to have most of its original shutters. Bristow said this house is also associated with Cochrane, who was the original person who built the house and was involved with the Civil War. She said that the Sharpless family owned the house after Cochrane, and Mr. Sharpless was the director of the Johnson County Savings Bank and was also on the Iowa City City Council. Bristow said that the final owner who is listed here is Edwin Dennis. Bristow said that Dennis and his wife, Anna Tantzlinger, bought the house and left it to their daughter, Gertrude Dennis, who is known in town as part of a local arts circle, taught music, and was an active Presbyterian. Bristow said that Gertrude Dennis owned the house until 1965. Bristow said staff finds that not only does this house meet criteria A and B because of its examples of an Italianate structure, but it also meets criterion D because of its association with the Cochranes and the Sharplesses, who were integral people in early Iowa City history. She said that the fact that it really embodies this Italianate type of structure meets criterion E. Bristow showed an overall image of the site. She said that one of the things staff really likes about this is the fact that the addition is attached in a way that would be found acceptable now, if the property was a local landmark and this addition was put on. Bristow said the addition is attached in the back, it does not encroach upon the street view of the property, it's done in a brick material, and it is really sensitively done because of that. Swaim opened the public hearing for discussion on this property Sigafoose said he represents the property owner, Robert Crane. Sigafoose said that Crane strongly opposes this designation. He said they do not concede that any of the criteria are satisfied in order to declare this an historic landmark; however, he said they have not had enough time to prepare. Sigafoose said that Crane has not had an opportunity to consult with an architect or with any advisors with knowledge in historic preservation. Sigafoose said they were not prepared to engage in or make any kind of statement or presentation regarding that criteria. Sigafoose said he wanted to discuss the economic impact on this piece of property. Sigafoose said that Crane is a certified real estate appraiser and has been in the appraisal business for about 45 years. Sigafoose said that Crane has been a real estate agent since 1965, a broker since 1970, manages properties for other individuals, and is an investor in rental properties. Sigafoose said the property owner is therefore an expert. He said it is fair enough to view his opinion as perhaps being biased, as the property owner. Sigafoose said that nonetheless, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 4 of 20 Crane does have some expertise and was able to provide Sigafoose information that he feels is dependable and relevant. Sigafoose said it is their feeling that this designation would have an extreme effect on the value of this property, probably much more extreme than any other properties on the agenda. He said that if one looks at each as a unique piece of property, it is the unique characteristics of this property that make this designation so critical to its standard. Sigafoose said that first of all, this property is zoned RM -44, high-density, multi -family residential, about as dense as one will see in Iowa City. He stated that its location is excellent from a standpoint of use - its highest and best use being high-density residential. Sigafoose said it is a large piece of property at 12,000 square feet. He said that if this property were parceled with the neighboring property, it would make a large, developable piece of property. Sigafoose said that due to the fact that this is not a single-family residence, this designation will have an immense impact on its value. He stated that a single-family residence or smaller piece of property, even if designated as an historic landmark, chances are its highest and best use is already being utilized. Sigafoose said that is not true for this piece of property. Sigafoose said he was not comfortable at this point giving specifics about the reduction in value, but Crane assures him that the reduction in value is a seven -figure number. Based on that, Sigafoose said that they therefore believe this designation would constitute a regulatory taking of the property, also known as inverse condemnation. Sigafoose said that if the State wants to build an interstate through one's farm or a street through one's back yard, the State has to pay for it if it is going to take one's property. He said that typically zoning, which this is a type of, does not constitute a taking. Sigafoose said however, that the law provides that when a zoning ordinance or other government limitation on a property is so severe that it crosses a certain line, that becomes a taking. He said that in that event, the property owner must be compensated. Sigafoose said that it will be Crane's position throughout these proceedings in front of the Historic Preservation Commission, on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council, and at the District Court level if necessary to be appealed, and then on, that this constitutes a regulatory taking. Sigafoose said that if the City wants to designate this as an historic landmark, it should probably buy it from him at fair market value or otherwise compensate him for it. Sigafoose asked Commission members to put themselves in Crane's shoes and look at this from his perspective. Sigafoose said he realizes it is the Commission's perspective to preserve history. He said we would all agree that preserving history is a noble cause and something that we should do, but he said he feels that we have to look at each property individually. Sigafoose said that when it comes to placing oneself in Crane's shoes, this is going to be a very, very expensive experience for him. He asked the Commission to consider that and balance the public's need for historic preservation against the personal property rights of Robert Crane. Sigafoose asked the Commission to look at this property based on its unique characteristics: its location, its size, its values, its highest and best use. He said that if Commission members step back and look at that, he is hoping they will reach the conclusion not to pass this on to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a recommendation for designation as an historic landmark. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 5 of 20 Sigafoose said that at the least, he would ask that this decision be postponed giving him an opportunity to do a little more research and make a more prepared proposal as to their position. Swaim stated that the process of landmark or district designations begins with the Historic Preservation Commission. She said the decision is based on whether the property meets criteria. Swaim said that if the Commission votes yes on a property, then that property goes on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which looks at it in terms of zoning, because a designation is a zoning overlay. She said there would also be a public hearing for each property at that point. Swaim said that if the Planning and Zoning Commission gives a yes recommendation, then it goes to the City Council, and there are opportunities for public input at that point as well. Corcoran said she served on the Historic Preservation Commission and was a member of the subcommittee whose members investigated properties a few years ago that the subcommittee members thought could be appropriate for possible designation as Iowa City landmarks. She said she was not speaking on behalf of this property in particular but for all of them that the Commission has decided to examine. Corcoran said she believes that all of these properties meet the Iowa City landmark ordinance criteria, because they are architecturally significant and they are associated with prominent citizens of Iowa City or with the development and growth of Iowa City. She thanked the Commission, as an Iowa City resident, for taking this up. Swaim closed the public hearing. Builta said that there are a lot of reasons, as outlined earlier, that perhaps this shouldn't be considered a landmark, for different personal reasons. He said however, that if one is just going off of the fact that the properties have to meet at least one of the criteria, none of the Commission members would disagree that it doesn't at least meet one of them. Bristow said the properties have to meet criteria A and B and one of the other criteria. Karr asked what the downside is of tabling this and letting the owner prepare his case, since he has a financial stake in this. Agran said that every decision that the Commission makes at its meetings has a financial consequence for the parties involved. He said that based just on what was said earlier, they don't disagree that it does indeed meet these criteria so that he does not really see an advantage to that act of tabling this. Agran said that if the issues are greater than those criteria in this meeting, he sees no reason that this should be tabled, based on what the scope of the Commission's purpose is. Bristow said the Commission's scope would be to look at whether or not this meets the criteria, and that would be it. She added that the Planning and Zoning Commission will look at the zoning and whether it meets the Comprehensive Plan and other zoning code issues, and then the City Council will look at this in more detail than that. Bristow said she did not think there would necessarily be a reason to table this at this point. Swaim said she believes that this would not go to the Planning and Zoning Commission before January but would perhaps be heard there mid-January or later. She said that seems to be an adequate time to put an argument together. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 6 of 20 Sigafoose asked if he could respond, even though the public hearing was over. He said that for whatever it is worth, what Agran said is not what he said. Sigafoose said that when Agran said they don't disagree, they do disagree. Sigafoose said that perhaps he did not say it clearly, but he does disagree that this meets the criteria. Builta said it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees, it is up to the Commission to determine if these properties meet the requirements. Boyd said he views this as one step in a multi -step process. He said that this is on the Commission's agenda, and the Commission is asked to do this. Boyd said that the Planning and Zoning Commission will talk about its issues, and ultimately the City Council will have to consider all of the things when it makes its decision. He said that the Commission's job is to weigh this particular decision, and he believes he certainly has enough information to make that decision. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the designation of 410/412 North Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, d, and e. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore. DeGraw. and Wanner absent). 412 North Dubuque Street Bristow said this property is historically known as the Sylvanus Johnson House. She said that Sylvanus Johnson was a famous brick maker and the first brick maker in the City. Bristow said that Johnson owned the property originally. Bristow stated that through research, staff believes the house was actually built by the next owner, David Boarts. She said that Boarts' wife, Mary Kimball, was the daughter of George Kimball, who was also a prominent Iowa City resident. Bristow said that David and Mary Boarts owned this house from the time it was built in about 1866 until about 1889. She added that as a brick mason, David Boarts not only built this house but also built Calvin Hall. Bristow said that this house is an example of a hall and parlor -type house. She said that it is also one of the few small brick cottages left in town. Bristow said that on the south side, the house has a projecting bay of brick. She said that all of the windows have a lintel of standing brick. Bristow said there is also on the back a small, one- story addition. She said that in the kind of L created by the additions, there was an open porch at one time that has been enclosed since then. Bristow said that most of the additions have been in place since about 1911, except for the enclosed, kind of clapboard structure that one can see on the back. She said that might have been put in between 1920 and 1933; it is an extension of the porch enclosure. Bristow said this is a very well-maintained and intact version of the small hall and parlor type of house. She said that is why staff feels this not only meets criteria A and B but also D, for being associated with Sylvanus Johnson, who owned the property, and then David Boarts, who was the brick mason who built it and Calvin Hall. Swaim opened the public hearing HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 7 of 20 Swaim closed the public hearing Swaim said this house has always caught her attention on Dubuque Street. She stated that the other brick houses are rather grand compared to this one, but the little is just important as the big. Swaim said it has its own kind of story to tell. She said the fact that Boarts was a brick mason contributes to the story of all of the other brick houses as well. Kuenzli said she thinks it is also important to save this example of a brick cottage since we have lost several recently. MOTION: Builta moved to approve the designation of 412 North Dubuque Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, and d. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore. DeGraw, and Wagner absent). 213 East Market Street Bristow said that this property and the next one are really seen as an important part of a group of properties. She said that 213 East Market Street is the Anton Geiger House, which was built in 1870. Bristow noted that these properties are being presented chronologically, in the order in which they were built. Bristow said that this house is also an Italianate. She said that with the first property she had discussed the fact that the brackets usually are associated with a large cornice. Bristow said this property does have that large cornice that was not apparent in the first property. Bristow stated that this is a gable front house, with a crossing gable on the side and a bay on the other side. She said that it is also currently connected to the Wesley Foundation in the back. Bristow said it has had a one-story addition on the back. Bristow showed one historic photograph of the property. She showed where there was once a wraparound porch, which staff feels was removed some time prior to 1930. Bristow presented the side view, showing the projecting bay, a bit of a very early addition, and a one-story addition and where it connects to the Wesley Foundation. Bristow showed the property on a map and showed where it is in the same vicinity as the Union Brewery, which was originally the Hotz-Geiger Brewery, known for Anton Geiger. She stated that Geiger built the house near his brewery after it was constructed. Bristow said the brewery also has the Italianate details. Bristow pointed out, in the same vicinity, the Union Bakery; the much later Economy Advertising Building; St. Mary's and its rectory; several older homes in the general area; and the next property to be discussed later. She said this is now called the North Side Marketplace, but it was really a brewery -oriented area of town. Bristow said the house is not only significant because of its age and association with Anton Geiger but also the fact that it is still in the area with other landmark properties that were in existence at the same time. Bristow said this property is an example of a very intact Italianate house. She said it has segmented arch lintels over the windows. Bristow said the asymmetrical facade is very typical, with the door on one side and the two windows that go all the way to the sill on the house. She HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 8 of 20 said the criteria that it meets includes both A and B, as well as C; because it is associated with the Geigers and the brewery; and D, also because it is associated with the Geigers, meaning significant people from our past. Swaim opened the public hearing. Blaedel said she is the Director of Spiritual Formation at the Wesley Center. She thanked the Commission for its work. Blaedel said that she both personally and organizationally does not have any kind of ethics or values in contradiction to this designation, but the organization is concerned about some of the economic pieces of upkeep. She said it would therefore be helpful to have more information. Blaedel said that Bristow had discussed some of the incentives. She said that her organization is a small non-profit, and taking care of that building and any of the buildings it has is constantly a challenge for her staff. Blaedel said they see whatever moves that are made more in a kind of partnership, but they are finding themselves in need of some information and some information about incentives to do justice to the history and the legacy that they see themselves as a part of in this community. Bristow stated that the tax credits would work for a non-profit, it would just get a return, basically. She said the tax credits would help with ongoing upkeep, but they tend to be for a project that meets a certain dollar amount threshold, so it may be best sometimes to pool that work together. Bristow said the City is also very interested in making sure that preservation is achievable. She said that a fund was started this past summer, although she is not certain how it will work for a non-profit. Bristow said there is a matching grant for property owners who are under a certain income threshold in an owner -occupied residential situation. She said there is a matching no - interest loan for income properties or properties for which the owner is above a certain income level. Bristow said that she is not certain where this non-profit would fit with that, but something does exist along those lines. Bristow stated that with landmark designation, there is no qualification such as telling someone he needs to tuck point a brick area and it has to be done now; that doesn't happen. She said however, that expertise is provided, such as knowing contractors who are qualified and experienced, providing some of that information, helping ensure things are done properly, and helping with grant information. Bristow said that staff looks for grants frequently. She said staff is notified by the State and the National Park Service all the time about grants. Bristow said that if staff knows a property owner wants to do some work, staff lets the owner know that a grant is available. She said that the City is very helpful in applying for those, along with the property owner, if at all possible. Trimble said she represents Friends of Historic Preservation. She added that, as a non-profit, Blaedel's organization would also become eligible for Historic Resource Development grants for the house, once it is landmarked. Trimble said that Friends of Historic Preservation is here for non -profits. She said that Friends owns the Salvage Barn and can get materials, for the most part, below what the retail price would be. Trimble said that Friends is here to help with that type of thing. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 9 of 20 Swaim closed the public hearing. MOTION: Boyd moved to approve the designation of 213 East Market Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, c, and d. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore. DeGraw, and Wanner absent). 319 East Bloominaton Street Bristow said this property is the Conrad and Anna Graf House. She said that Conrad Graf was also involved with the brewery, and Anna Graf was the daughter of the Hotz who was part of the Geiger-Hotz Brewery. Bristow said that after the original Hotz and Geiger had passed on, Conrad Graf became more fully involved in the brewery. She said that again, one can look at this as a property that is part of the whole brewery area and kind of a suite of buildings. Bristow stated that this is also an Italianate house. She said it has a beautiful oval window in the front gable that has been noted by many authors including Keyes, and Irving Weber. Bristow said the house was built in 1878 to 1879, so about eight to nine years later than the Geiger House. Bristow said the house has beautiful lintels and a beautiful door and also has an asymmetrical facade. She said that the porch has been altered a little bit. Bristow said that one can see that there is a bay on the west side. She added that there is also a small addition that was probably some kind of one-story kitchen addition originally. Bristow said there is a more recent, more modern addition on the back. Bristow said that, like the first property discussed, these additions are very sensitively done. Because of the fact that they are in the back, she said that they are not impacting the street view and the main facade of the house. Bristow said the house is wonderfully preserved and intact and has many of its original details. She showed a map and pointed out the property's proximity to the other landmark properties in the area, including the brewery, the Geiger House, and the bakery. Bristow said that staff finds that this property meets criteria A and B, as stated; as well as criterion C, because it is associated with the whole brewery area and the brewers themselves; and D, because it is associated with Conrad Graf and Anna Holz, and they were associated with the brewery of Hotz and Geiger. Swaim opened the public hearing. Rust said that he and his wife, Joy Smith, own this property. He read his statement, saying there are a couple of general things they want to talk about and also some more specific questions. Rust read the following statement: We own the property at 319 Bloomington which has been used for commercial purposes since the early 1960's and which we purchased for commercial use in 1999. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 10 of 20 We have long supported historic preservation in Iowa City. This is demonstrated by our purchase of the building at 319 Bloomington Street, our maintenance of the building for the nearly twenty years we've owned it and by our renovation of the home we occupied for 25 years at 915 Bloomington Street. We have two general comments about the timing and process of this historic landmark proposal. We believe it would be wise to delay this process until after the federal and State tax legislation is negotiated and voted on. At the federal level, the House bill eliminates tax credits for improvements to historic landmark buildings. The Senate bill preserves them. It is unknown whether credits will be included in the final bill. The State Legislature is chomping at the bit to pass tax cut legislation. Our local legislators predict this legislation will be a top priority for the majority party in the coming session. No one knows what will be included in this bill. Tax credits are one of the primary incentives for property owners of historic landmark buildings. It seems unfair to ask property owners to support this designation until the immediate future of tax credits is determined. We would also prefer to have our building in the 319 block of Bloomington considered for this designation at the same time that other buildings in the 300 block are considered. City staff and a Commission member have told us that preparatory research is under way to designate the other red brick historic property in the 300 block as an historic landmark. We think all properties on this block should be considered at the same time. We don't necessarily think it is reasonable to place this designation and its attendant restrictions on one property and not another. Now some more specific questions: We have reviewed the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook and have a few questions. Section 2.8 of the Handbook indicates that if the City denies a permit to a property owner, one option available to the owner is to apply for economic hardship status. The handbook includes the following language: The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if required to comply with the requirements and standards specified in this Article. It is not sufficient to show that the potential return will be reduced as a result of these regulations, but rather it must be demonstrated that the resulting reduction would be near confiscation. What does this statement mean with regard to a commercial building? How is this a reasonable standard for a commercial building that by its very nature should be income producing? Our property has two non -conforming additions. What restrictions would apply to any modifications we wish to make to those additions in the future? Would the modifications to these additions have to meet the standard for historic landmark buildings or would they be considered as non -historic additions and be held to this lesser standard? Next, if a non -conforming alteration has been made to a building prior to its designation as an historic landmark, can the owner be required to return that portion of the building to a conforming standard or situation? HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 11 of 20 Finally, there is parking at the front of our building. At some point the concrete on that parking area will need to be replaced. Would this require approval by the Commission? If so, could the approval be denied because the lot is "in front' of the building? Parking is always a major asset for a commercial property. Bristow said she could answer at least some of the questions, although she might have to research the question about economic hardship, as it is not something she has looked into much. She asked Swaim if that has been a frequent issue, and Swaim said she did not recall a time when that was a consideration. Regarding the additions, Bristow said that there is no requirement that an owner change anything that is currently on the property once it becomes a landmark. She said there would not be a requirement, for example, to take the more modern addition in the back and make it look like the house or make any changes to it whatsoever. Bristow said that if the owners wanted to remove that addition and build something else, it would come before the Commission. She said that because it is not historic, there would be some review process that it would go under. Bristow said however, that it could be say, removed, and then rebuilt in a different way. Bristow said that the kind of kitchen addition with the gable is likely historic. She said that removing that would most likely be problematic. Rust asked about the other additions. Bristow said that an application would be required because they are part of the property, but if Rust wanted to remove one of those additions and have it not be there, the Commission would likely approve that kind of thing. She stated that if Rust wanted to remove one of those additions and build something else or a different configuration of addition, staff would work through to get something that would be approved. Rust said that any kind of repairs or that sort of thing he would just do in keeping with that particular part of the structure would then be acceptable. Bristow said that is basically accurate. She said that Rust would put in applications for those, and it would be just making sure that things are done right. Bristow said that because this property has been kept up so well, she doubted that there would be any issues with that. Bristow said that beyond the tax credits, there are zoning incentives. She said there might be a possibility of waiving some parking requirements, depending on use. Bristow said there are waivers that the zoning officials can make if an historic property is protected - if an owner decides to develop the property further. Regarding the parking itself, Bristow said it would be grandfathered in. She stated that there should not be an issue unless the owners would want to say expand parking into the front yard, which could be problematic. Bristow said that if the owners need to redo the concrete or change it to blacktop or those types of things, they would put in an application if the project requires a building permit. She said that otherwise, there would not be an issue. Bristow said she would let the owners know what she finds out about the economic hardship item in the Handbook. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 12 of 20 Trimble said that about three years ago she and Corcoran did go through all of these landmarks. She said that she wanted to let Rust know that these landmark proposals have been in progress for more than two years. Trimble stated that the fact that this has finally been allowed to come up is unfortunate timing with the tax credits. She said, however, that when this process was initiated, there was no inkling in anyone's mind that tax credits might be going away, since they make more money for the federal treasury than any other form of tax credits. Swaim closed the public hearing. Boyd said he appreciates the thoughtfulness of the property owner's comments. He said that these are sometimes not easy decisions, and he always appreciates when people come in having really been thoughtful about what the process is and weighing all kinds of things. Agran mentioned the comment about lumping the property in with other potential properties and asked if, in terms of how one looks at designating properties in the future, designating this property now would not change anything about the argument surrounding future properties. Bristow said she believes that is correct. She said that ultimately this property is being looked at alone and on its own. Bristow said it does have associations with existing buildings in the area, and so that just adds to its significance. She said the other buildings on that block that Rust had mentioned are being researched and are potentially going to come before the Commission in the future, probably individually and not necessarily as a district. Bristow said there is not anything in the works in terms of a formal district right here at this point. She said the discussion is about individual properties. Bristow said these are being looked at as a group of residential brick structures. She said that their uses might not currently be wholly residential, but originally they were built to be residential. Bristow said staff and the Commission are not looking right now at commercial buildings or that kind of thing, just because this group is residential, brick structures. Swaim stated that this is more of a thematic grouping. Boyd said that the Commission is in a place to try to move on these things, since there has been a backlog on trying to move them through as groups. He said that this is not the last of these that the Commission will be looking at. Boyd said the Commission has heard from the development community about providing some proactive clarity about where these things are. He said he thinks the Commission should move on that, and there are other opportunities for people to weigh in. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to grant local landmark designation to the property at 319 East Bloomington Street based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria, a, b, c, and d. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, DeGraw, and Wanner absent). 504 East Bloomington Street Bristow stated that this is the George and Helen Hummer house and was built in 1880. She said that it has Italianate details as well as Victorian details. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 13 of 20 Bristow showed the front gable structure and said that while originally a porch wrapped around both sides of that, now it is divided into separate porticos. She showed the cross gable on the side and said that it is partially bracketed. Bristow said the house really shows elements of the Victorian architecture in the gables, while some of the details show a little bit of the Italianate that is left over in the heavy cornice with its brackets as well. She showed how the cross gable comes out and where the front porch originally did wrap around to both sides. Bristow said this is really a very grand house. Bristow said that Helen Hummer originally owned most of this block. Bristow said that it was unusual for a woman in the 1800s to be kind of a land speculator. She said that Helen Hummer and her husband, George, a mercantile operator, built the house after selling the property and then buying it back. Bristow said that George Hummer ended up branching out and selling goods throughout Iowa. She said George Hummer was really part of that early mercantile/commerce part of Iowa City history. Bristow said that for that reason, staff finds that the property meets criteria A and B, and as well, it is associated with George and Helen Hummer, unique individuals, both because of land speculating done by a female and being into mercantile and branching out into other areas of Iowa so it also meets criteria D. Swaim opened the public hearing Larew said that he and his wife, Mary, own this building, and it is where his law practice is located. He said they bought the building from a woman who no longer had enough rental income to maintain the building. Larew said he has been able to maintain the building but does not believe he would have been able to if it were purely rental property for residential purposes. He added that the former owner has remained very interested in the property and provided him with photographs of the building from the past. Larew said the fact that he has his law practice on the first floor gives him the ability to move forward and keep up with the bills and the maintenance. He said he mentions this because that area has a lot of pressure on it. Larew stated that the valuation of the property rises rather steeply when other organizations such as Mercy Hospital and others, buy nearby property at a hefty price and then that building is compared for valuation to his own. He said that the uses have not changed since he bought the property in 1990, but the taxes have increased considerably. Larew said that he is devoted to historic preservation, but if he would have any concerns at all, he does not know what these criteria do, if anything, in terms of affecting market value upwardly or downwardly. He said they did not buy the property to make a fortune; they bought it because they loved it and they thought it needed a good owner. Larew said he has some friendly quarrel with some of the history to the building. He said that when they bought the building, they had to update all of the systems. Larew said that the maps sometimes tell one story, but the inside tells another. Larew said he believes that the front of the building, before additions were put on, was probably built in the 1860s. He said that the criteria, the brick, is much like the brick building on Dubuque HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 14 of 20 Street. Larew said he does not know who the brick layer was, but the patterns are almost exactly the same. Regarding the age of the brick, he said it is more brittle than the additions and the pattern is slightly different. Larew said that when one is inside in the main area, people who know a lot about this have told him that the floor joists or the ceiling joists for one standing in the first floor looking up for the main core of the building were walnut ten -inch centers. He said that in Iowa, one would never use walnut like that, because all of the walnut was used in the first generation of Iowans. Larew said that by the time one has the addition, which is seen poking out on the side, if one looks at the same ceilings, it changes to fir and to cedar on twelve -inch centers. He said that by that time, Iowans were importing those woods from Minnesota and Wisconsin, because we had used up so much of the original timber here. Larew stated that the original fireplaces, one of which has been removed and two of which remain, the most beautiful one made of onyx, were used to heat the house until 1876, when a steam -heating system of that vintage was installed, and a craftsman had written his initials and the date. Regarding the onyx, he said that an expert in this matched the mantelpiece on the fireplace, saying that one could find some of the same vintage in the 1850s and 1860s in Dubuque and along the Mississippi. Larew said they were so heavy that they could be brought up on steamboat, but it was very difficult to bring them by wagon or cart. He said that dated the core to the 1860s and possibly 1850s. Larew said that J. Otto Schultz, who bought the property at one point, was the owner of the Iowa Street Car Company. He said the company was financed by purchasing the Rundell Addition and making it into lots. Larew said Schultz promised the people who built homes there that they would be the first to be serviced by the street cars. Larew discussed more recent history of the building, including its stint as an apartment building. He also said it had recently been used as a political shop, including events for Bill Bradley, and said there were also speeches by Robert Reich, Elizabeth Edwards, and Chet Culver. Larew said it was also a meeting place for Friends of Historic Preservation at one time. Larew said he supports this kind of thing and hopes there are criteria that make it, in the long run, livable and breathable and not just a fancy for those who are able to afford it. He said he would like to see it made something that all of Iowa City of all economic stripes and capacity may enjoy. Larew said that if he or a successive owner wanted to do something slightly different that they would need a City staff that was creative or pro -motive and not one that was constrained. Larew said that if one stands in this house and looks out, there are no two sets of windows that are the same. He said he would hope to not meet someone who, with good intent, insisted on some specific kind of window. Larew said there are no two the same, because this house was built over a time period with a lot of different tastes and probably very pragmatic needs. He said he would hope, going forward, that historic preservation criteria would be as open to those kinds of possibilities as not and would not be stuck on someone's view of history being stopped in time. Larew said that is the only downside that he has - if it is not too well administered and creatively administered historic preservation criteria but that the historic preservation criteria are ones that give a subtle and profound gratefulness for the past but allow these buildings to be something HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 15 of 20 other than mausoleums and to promote the next going forward. He said that he and his wife are welcome to the criteria but do it as much as an act of faith that these kinds of criteria are ones that promote continued and healthy and economically viable uses of historic structures rather than imprisoning them in a kind of vision of the past. Trimble said that traditionally, property values of homes that are designated as historic are always higher than those in the surrounding area that are not. She stated that she did not know about this neighborhood. Trimble said that she does know that in the event of an economic downturn, these houses tend not to lose value while the houses around them do. Trimble stated that recently there has been more success locally in getting a lot of things done with regard to historic preservation. She said she is hoping City staff will look at property tax abatement. Trimble said that while that will probably not reduce someone's taxes now, if improvements were made to the property for which their taxes would usually be raised, hopefully for historic properties that increase can be abated and delayed over a certain period of time and raised more gradually. Trimble said that is something for which they are lobbying the City. She said she hopes to see results on that and said that a lot of other Counties do this. Swaim closed the public hearing. Kuenzli said she admires the house and the landscape and thanked Larew for the wonderful job they have done with it. Karr said that he enjoyed hearing the additional history. MOTION: Baker moved to approve the designation of 504 East Bloomington Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, and d. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, DeGraw, and Wagner absent). Bristow told Larew that she would be glad to hear more details about the history of the house. She said that if he wanted to lend her any of those photographs to scan, she would be glad to have them. Swaim agreed that any additional information would be very valuable to the Commission as it puts this together. 1029 North Dodge Street. Bristow showed the location map for this property on a large lot at the corner of North Dodge Street and Prairie du Chien Road. She said that the most interesting thing about this house is the architecture. Bristow stated that this is a really unique gem in Iowa City architectural history. Bristow said this house has a gambrel roof as well as some very Victorian details. She showed a very long gable roof on the side of the house. Bristow said this is an example of a Victorian moving into a colonial revival. She said that a lot of the colonial revivals started out as Dutch colonials, which the gambrel roof is a part of. Bristow showed the group of three windows in the front gable and said that it is a Palladian window combination. She said there are some classical details in the columns. Bristow showed HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 16 of 20 the vining pattern that is seen in some gables around town. She said it is also a vining detail that relates to the colonial revival. Bristow said that there are other elements to the porch, but the long gable is also part of a colonial revival look, as is the interesting little dormer. Bristow said that what one is really looking at with this structure is something that is a very unique combination of a transition from a Victorian to a colonial revival. She said that it is very well intact and has been preserved very well. Bristow said it has a bit of an addition on the back that may have been some kind of an enclosed porch or a kitchen addition. She showed an area that may also have been an addition or may have been original. Bristow said that staff would be promoting this as a local landmark because of criteria A and B but also because of the fact that it is a good example of interesting architecture, criteria E, which is not seen in some of the other properties. Bristow said that the owner could not attend tonight's meeting. She said he contacted her, and she believes he will come to other meetings and voice his opinion. Bristow said the owner did tell her that the local landmark designation goes right along with how he feels about the property. Bristow said the ownership began with a family named Shay, who started to build the house but could not finish. She stated that the Parrott family owned another house, and they traded with Mr. Shay and took over this property and finished building the house. Bristow said she does not know if that is why it has a transitional style, but that ownership transfer did occur. Bristow said that the house was in the Parrott family for a very long time. She said that research shows that it was perhaps a rental for a while, with a series of tenants. Bristow said the current owner told her that his aunt and uncle bought the house after World War II, and he later bought it from them. She said that except for a short period of time, since the house was built, it has really been owned by two families. Bristow said that one of the Parrott family members was the Superintendent of Oakland Cemetery. Swaim opened the public hearing. Swaim closed the public hearing. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the designation of 1029 North Dodge Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, and e. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Clore, DeGraw. Kuenzli, and Wanner absent). 715 West Park Road. Swaim said that the Commission looked at this house for the National Register and is fairly familiar with its history. Bristow said the Commission reviewed this house in September of 2016, and it became listed on the National Register in March of 2017. She said that the owner would like to have it locally HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 17 of 20 landmarked. Bristow said the property meets criteria A, B, D, and E, for reasons of architecture and significant owners in the past. Swaim opened the public hearing. Swaim closed the public hearing. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the designation of 715 West Park Road as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, d, and e. Builta seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Clore, DeGraw, Kuenzli, and Wagner absent). Swaim stated that these items will be moving on to the Planning and Zoning Commission, most likely in January. She thanked members of the public for their attendance and comments. REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review. 823 Bowery Street. Bristow said this started as porch roof repair and ended up being a whole porch roof and column reconstruction. 529 Church Street. Bristow said this is a non-contributing property in a conservation district. She stated that the front steps are being replaced. Bristow said that precast concrete stairs are normally not allowed at a property, but staff believes these were originally precast concrete stairs and therefore allowed them to be replaced with the same thing. 106 South Dodge Street. Bristow said there was a fire on the back porch at this house. She said that it will be repaired to match the existing. Minor Review - Staff Review. 325 South Summit Street. Bristow said that this house was covered in asbestos siding. She said that has been removed, and staff will be working with the owners to get good details. Bristow said it has a beadboard area of the cornice and a few intermediate cornice lines. She said it has some interesting details, a fan, and probably some dentils that were here. Intermediate Review - Chair and Staff Review. 717 East Davenport Street. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 18 of 20 Bristow said that this is a University partnership property. She said that the person who was working on it is not typical and did not know that he needed approval for anything, so staff has worked with him on that. Bristow said this concerned an enclosed screened porch that has been removed. She said the columns were still there. Bristow said there will be a railing that matches the guidelines and skirting that has framing that matches the guidelines as well. Bristow said that there was a deck that has been removed on the back. She showed where there was a sliding glass door that will be replaced with a regular door that meets the guidelines. Amendments to the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Swaim asked if, in the interests of time, the Commission would like to consider postponing Amendments to the Historic Preservation Guidelines to the next meeting. She said the Commission has to get to consideration of some of the following items. MOTION: Builta moved to postpone discussion of items in Section F, Amendments to the Historic Preservation Guidelines, to the Commission's next meeting. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Clore, DeGraw, Kuenzli, and Wagner absent. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 9,2017: Bristow said that on page six, in the third paragraph from the bottom, "dental" should be changed to "dentil." MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's November 9, 2017 meeting, as amended. Builta seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Clore, DeGraw, Kuenzli, and Wagner absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: 2018 Commission Schedule. Swaim thanked Bristow for distributing the schedule. "Saving Iowa City's Oldest House," by Alicia Trimble and Ginalie Swaim. Swaim said there is an article in the packet regarding the Sanxay-Gilmore House. She said that the article has not been published but has been shared with the City Council and some people at The University of Iowa and is being discussed. Michaud said that it was an excellent article and thanked Swaim and Trimble for writing it. Invitation to Board and Commissioner training at Kirkwood Iowa City, 5:30 P.m., Tuesday, December 19. 2017. Swaim said there was an invitation for some training in the packet HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 14, 2017 Page 19 of 20 2017 HP Awards. Bristow said that the Commission needs to review the properties so that she can send out letters on Friday. She said she would review each of the 25 properties and state why each is nominated for an award. Bristow stated that after looking at the properties, if there are any that members would not want to receive awards, those properties should be noted. Swaim thanked the subcommittee for working on this project. Bristow showed photographs of properties nominated for residential paint and exterior finishes, including a special mention category; residential rehabilitation; additions and new construction; stewardship; commercial rehabilitation; and institutional rehabilitation. Swaim asked for comments from Commission members. Builta asked if 501 Oakland was reviewed by the Commission before. Bristow said that a project for that property was reviewed by the Commission, but she did not recall if it was a major review or a minor review. MOTION: Boyd moved to accept the nominations for Historic Preservation Awards. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Clore, DeGraw, Kuenzli, and Wagner absent). Bristow said that the ceremony would be held on Thursday, January 18, at 5:30 p.m. in the Public Library in Meeting Room A. She said that a reception will be held at 5:00 p.m. before the ceremony and asked for the help of any available Commission members. Bristow said she would send out a reminder e-mail. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017-2018 NAME TERM EXP. 6115 7131 8/10 9/14 10/12 1119 12/14 1/11 218 318 4/12 5110 6/14 AGRAN, THOMAS 7/1120 X X X X X X X BAKER, ESTHER 711/18 X X X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 7/1/20 X O/E X O/E X X X BUILTA, ZACH 7/1119 X O/E X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 7/1/20 X X O/E X X X DEGRAW, SHARON 7/1/19 X X X X X X KARR, G. T. 711/20 — X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 7/1119 X O/E O/E X O/E X X MICHAUD, PAM 7/1/18 X X O/E X X X X SWAIM, GINALIE 711/18 X X X X X O/E X WAGNER, FRANK 7/1/18 O!E 0/E X O/E X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent 01E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member U7-11-18 IP19 Minutes for the Human Rights Commission Special Meeting January 9, 2018 Procter & Gamble Room Mercer Park Aquatic Center 2701 Bradford Drive Commission Members Present: Jeff Falk, Eliza Willis, Joe Coulter, Adil Adams, Tahuanty Pena, Arianna Aron, Cathy McGinnis, Jonathon Munoz. Commission Members Absent: Barbara Kutzko. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers 1. Call to Order: Vice Chair Willis called the meeting to order at 5:15PM 2. Approval of November 21, 2017 Meeting Minutes: Coulter moved to approve the minutes; the motion was seconded by Aron. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. (Munoz not present). 4. ter mqKto eleWillis Whair for 201 taken a he mElIbn oa 8-0. Couli Chair F 22, 208, an�a reg�r board A voteMs take d th otion w motic /ad tc J 8-0. a 5. The Social Justice Racial Equity Grant Process and Evaluation Rubric for FY18: The discussion began with an overview of the grant process for fiscal year 2017. Commissioners next reported any potential conflicts of interest to staff. Staff will check with the City Attorney's Office and either she or they will be in touch with Commissioners who may have conflicts. Falk will be volunteering with two organizations who applied. Adams used to volunteer for the Center for Worker Justice. Aron is on the board for Fas Trac. McGinnis has professional affiliations with several organizations. Munoz used to work for Iowa Legal Aid. It was decided per City policy that if a Commissioner has a conflict that particular Commissioner will not participate in any of the evaluation, discussion or decision making on grants. Minutes for the Human Rights Commission Special Meeting January 9, 2018 Procter & Gamble Room Mercer Park Aquatic Center 2701 Bradford Drive There was a brief discussion on the purpose of the grant and the requirements. The Commission discussed organizations that applied for funding who have a principal base of operation outside of Iowa City but have chapters or affiliates in Iowa City. In evaluating those grants, a suggestion was made to look at whether the funding would be used only in Iowa City and/or spent locally and whether the application is proposing a program that originated in Iowa City. The Commission next considered whether to allocate the entire fund to one organization. There was no vote taken and no clear agreement among Commissioners, but it was suggested that next year a minimum and maximum amount be set for applicants. Or as an alternative stating on the application that requesting the entire amount is strongly discouraged. Commissioners also talked about what a score represents in terms of evaluating each application. What score would be considered average, above average or below average. There was also mention of whether to do any follow-up with organizations if there was anything about the application that needed to be clarified. Some felt that the application should stand on its ownwhile hers felt that bung able to asku_ eRIT.�of or anization: �prganiza a less exoerierad at writirMINWe 7-1.1pn in to of apMnts. A vote Ms taken d whether would th with the For�mpl Am nby by PML A vote/as taken I&I the nen passed 6-2 and Coulter moved for Commissioners to convert their numerical scores to a rank of 1-28 (with 1 being the highest and 28 the lowest). The ranking would then be averaged among all Commissioners and divided by the number of Commissioners participating in the process. Pena seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. The Commission decided to meet on its regularly scheduled day of Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018 at 5:15PM and not meet on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2018. The Commission will decide on the 23rd whether another meeting is necessary. If so, it will be on Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2018. At the meeting on Jan. 23, 2018 the Commission will focus on the top tier scores and discuss specific funding. It will also allow for a Commissioner to make a case for another proposal if so inclined. Commissioners are to have all rankings to staff by Thursday, Jan.18, 2018. Staff will send out an editable worksheet for Commissioners to use for their scoring and ranking. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 7:30 PM Minutes for the Human Rights Commission Special Meeting January 9, 2018 Procter & Gamble Room Mercer Park Aquatic Center 2701 Bradford Drive The next Commission meeting will be on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018. Member Attendance Sheet Member Term Exp. 1/9 1/23 2/28 3/20 4/17 5/15 6/19 7/17 8/21 9/18 10/16 Aron 1/2021 Present McGinnis 12021 Present Munoz 12021 Present Kutzko 12020 Excused Falk 12020 Present Pena 12020Present Coulter 12019 Present Adams 12019 Pres